Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou asked me - you said - "tell me FMF why do you never take the time to clarify what people actually mean"? And now I ask you to clarify what you actually mean, and - lo and behold - you won't clarify what you actually mean.
its enough, make of it what you will.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethis isnt a police interview, your not a suspect, your not being attacked why are you so defensive?
I dont know, i have never found anyone being raped.
if somebody came along and wished to become a j.w. but needed clarification on these issues and asked many questions would you react the same way you have here?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy are you being so defensive and evasive? One last try. Would you say that what "was incumbent upon [you] for their safety" [i.e your family, children, neighbours, work mates etc.] would never include raising a hand against attackers to protect them? Never - Is that what you mean?
I have given all the information i need to give, sorry that its not enough for you, make of it what you will.
Originally posted by FMFI am being neither, i have given a rather excellent generic definition of what i would do under any given number of circumstances, try to keep focused on the point rather than aiming your cyber rockets at the man.
Why are you being so defensive and evasive?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI have been asking you over and over again to explain so I can understand your perspective but you have been stonewalling behind a phrase that uses the words "incumbent upon" and refusing to clarify.
...once again you have been caught assuming that i meant violence, why because you never take the time to try to understand another's perspective and time and again FAIL to take into consideration what other people mean and instead try to put meaning where no meaning was intended....
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou've said you would use martials arts. Would these martial arts cause any pain or damage or danger to the person that was attacking you, your wife, your children?
I am being neither, i have given a rather excellent generic definition of what i would do under any given number of circumstances, try to keep focused on the point rather than aiming your cyber rockets at the man.
Originally posted by FMFAre you serious? Use your brain and common sense man! How could one not use MA that might not cause pain? Aren't we talikng of taking ones life, not some pain we might cause one if we stop a blow from them? Geeeez!
You've said you would use martials arts. Would these martial arts cause any pain or damage or danger to the person that was attacking you, your wife, your children?
What if a person’s life is threatened by an assailant?
A law that God gave to ancient Israel sheds light on this. If a thief was caught in the daytime and was killed, the assailant would be charged with murder. This was evidently because thievery did not carry the death penalty and the thief could have been identified and brought to justice. However, if an intruder was fatally struck at night, the householder could be exonerated because it would be difficult for him to see what the intruder was doing and to ascertain the intentions of the intruder. The householder could reasonably conclude that his family was under threat of harm and take defensive action.—Exodus 22:2, 3.
The Bible thus indicates that a person may defend himself or his family if physically assaulted. He may ward off blows, restrain the attacker, or even strike a blow to stun or incapacitate him. The intention would be to neutralize the aggression or stop the attack. This being the case, if the aggressor was seriously harmed or killed in such a situation, his death would be accidental and not deliberate.
Awake 06/08
Again, anyone that takes a life will have to answer to God. God knows the situation and if it were truly an accident or if it was not ententional, then Jehovah knows that and he will judge accordingly. If there was hatred or ill will in ones mind and heart when this death of another was committed, Jehovah will judge accordingly.
Originally posted by galveston75The question is not whether I am serious. The question is whether robbie is being serious. On page 6 he said "there are many stances and katas, in martial arts where one does not need to strike in order to defend oneself". This was him explaining how he could defend his family by "raising ones hand to defend oneself without being violent". Do you think robbie's being serious?
Are you serious? Use your brain and common sense man! How could one not use MA that might not cause pain? Aren't we talikng of taking ones life, not some pain we might cause one if we stop a blow from them? Geeeez!
Originally posted by galveston75A law that God gave to ancient Israel sheds light on this. If a thief was caught in the daytime and was killed, the assailant would be charged with murder. This was evidently because thievery did not carry the death penalty and the thief could have been identified and brought to justice. However, if an intruder was fatally struck at night, the householder could be exonerated because it would be difficult for him to see what the intruder was doing and to ascertain the intentions of the intruder. The householder could reasonably conclude that his family was under threat of harm and take defensive action.—Exodus 22:2, 3.
So if the other person was doing something that carried the death penalty, then lethal defence could be used, is that what you mean?
Originally posted by galveston75The Bible thus indicates that a person may defend himself or his family if physically assaulted. He may ward off blows, restrain the attacker, or even strike a blow to stun or incapacitate him. The intention would be to neutralize the aggression or stop the attack. This being the case, if the aggressor was seriously harmed or killed in such a situation, his death would be accidental and not deliberate.
So you are saying that it would be OK to use violence when attacked. But robbie is saying that he would not be OK to use violence.
Originally posted by FMFI never mentioned violence, you did, stop misrepresenting what people are saying, its dishonest. spinners gonna spin.
[b]The Bible thus indicates that a person may defend himself or his family if physically assaulted. He may ward off blows, restrain the attacker, or even strike a blow to stun or incapacitate him. The intention would be to neutralize the aggression or stop the attack. This being the case, if the aggressor was seriously harmed or killed in such a situation, his d ...[text shortened]... OK to use violence when attacked. But robbie is saying that he would not be OK to use violence.