.

[NothingIsImpossible]

I know this topic is far ahead already but its interesting because I was thinking about this earlier today. We tend to say all lives matter or "We are all equal" or "There is no value on one person over another!". But is that true? Perfect example.... lets say there are two homes with explosives set to go off. You can only save the people from one and won't make it to the other (ignore the fact you could call the police or what not). In one home is a husband, wife and three kids (a 9 month old, 3 year old and 6 year old). In the other home is 7 elderly people who were getting together for bingo (stereotype I know lol).

Which home do you save? Logically most would get the family because they are a family, have young kids that are still new to life...etc. THey have a future. Where as the elderly people are older, have lived their life...etc. So the family gets saved, hence you put value on them. BUT... heres a twist. Lets change the elderly people to YOUR mom, dad and some aunts and uncles. Who do you save? Suddenly many who chose the family before would now choose their own family (the elderly).

So we may say all are equal or there is no worth on people but its not true. Am I saying it should be that way? No. All people should be equal. But logically we do put these sort of "this persons life matters more" on peoples heads.

I've seen situations where someone important will be held hostage in another country by enemies and we will send in elite teams to go rescue them. How does one life mean its ok to possible get a whole team killed? I don't care if it was the president really. Such risks are silly. THankfully over time when it came to terrorists we started the "We will not negotiate with terrorists!" thing. Granted obviously it does mean anyone held hostage was killed.

 

[ken777]

I know this topic is far ahead already but its interesting because I was thinking about this earlier today. We tend to say all lives matter or "We are all equal" or "There is no value on one person over another!". But is that true? Perfect example.... lets say there are two homes with explosives set to go off. You can only save the people from one and won't make it to the other (ignore the fact you could call the police or what not). In one home is a husband, wife and three kids (a 9 month old, 3 year old and 6 year old). In the other home is 7 elderly people who were getting together for bingo (stereotype I know lol).

Which home do you save? Logically most would get the family because they are a family, have young kids that are still new to life...etc. THey have a future. Where as the elderly people are older, have lived their life...etc. So the family gets saved, hence you put value on them. BUT... heres a twist. Lets change the elderly people to YOUR mom, dad and some aunts and uncles. Who do you save? Suddenly many who chose the family before would now choose their own family (the elderly).

So we may say all are equal or there is no worth on people but its not true. Am I saying it should be that way? No. All people should be equal. But logically we do put these sort of "this persons life matters more" on peoples heads.

I've seen situations where someone important will be held hostage in another country by enemies and we will send in elite teams to go rescue them. How does one life mean its ok to possible get a whole team killed? I don't care if it was the president really. Such risks are silly. THankfully over time when it came to terrorists we started the "We will not negotiate with terrorists!" thing. Granted obviously it does mean anyone held hostage was killed.

I was nodding in agreement about letting the old folks get bumped off until your switch and I had to consider it was my parents - a real hypothetical as my parents have gone to God and I am now one of the elderly playing bingo!

Possibly a more realistic scenario is how do we allocate financial resources in our society - should we spend more on the young because they have a full life to contribute or should we spend equally on the old folk who have contributed a life of service to the community? How a society values the most vulnerable has been said to be a gauge of how compassionate a society is. I am inclined to agree.

 

[dougangel]

I know this topic is far ahead already but its interesting because I was thinking about this earlier today. We tend to say all lives matter or "We are all equal" or "There is no value on one person over another!". But is that true? Perfect example.... lets say there are two homes with explosives set to go off. You can only save the people from one and won't make it to the other (ignore the fact you could call the police or what not). In one home is a husband, wife and three kids (a 9 month old, 3 year old and 6 year old). In the other home is 7 elderly people who were getting together for bingo (stereotype I know lol).

Which home do you save? Logically most would get the family because they are a family, have young kids that are still new to life...etc. THey have a future. Where as the elderly people are older, have lived their life...etc. So the family gets saved, hence you put value on them. BUT... heres a twist. Lets change the elderly people to YOUR mom, dad and some aunts and uncles. Who do you save? Suddenly many who chose the family before would now choose their own family (the elderly).

So we may say all are equal or there is no worth on people but its not true. Am I saying it should be that way? No. All people should be equal. But logically we do put these sort of "this persons life matters more" on peoples heads.

I've seen situations where someone important will be held hostage in another country by enemies and we will send in elite teams to go rescue them. How does one life mean its ok to possible get a whole team killed? I don't care if it was the president really. Such risks are silly. THankfully over time when it came to terrorists we started the "We will not negotiate with terrorists!" thing. Granted obviously it does mean anyone held hostage was killed.

Very good thoughts

I think there are many dimensions, sides ,contexts to this.
What does God value.
What does Secular man value.
what should Christians value.
People certainly are not born into equal situations.

Matthew 10:30-32New King James Version (NKJV)
30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows.
Confess Christ Before Men
32 “Therefore whoever confesses Me before men, him I will also confess before My Father who is in heaven.

We are all equal in a Spiritual sense or dimension

 

[Anguspure]

What are your thoughts on the farmer being charged?

Briefly: In New Zealand Law (we do not have a formal constitution, rather our "constitution" is the accumulated body of the law) there is a defence of "reasonable force" in the case where a person uses force to protect the safety of life or property.

"Reasonable force" is defined as that minimum amount of force necessary to protect the safety of life or property. This thinking applies to all citizens including Police Officers.

Case law in New Zealand shows that the use of a fire arm or other weapon intended to harm a person in this manner is generally considered as the premeditated intent to harm or even use lethal force and therefore no longer constitutes reasonable force.

In this case however the farmer in question was charged for shooting and injuring an intruder with a reckless disregard for the safety of others. His defence was successful and he was cleared.

This shows a shift in New Zealand law that has sparked a debate on this very issue. Watch this space.

My thoughts? I think the policy of defence of reasonable force is one that allows judicial prosecution or defence in some very complicated cases rather than a blanket law that makes no allowance for individual circumstances leaving some very sour and malicous feelings where these circumstances aren't addressed.

I also think it has a strong moderating effect in that it is expected that only the minimum amount of force will be used in any circumstance.
I know one former bank robber who expressed utter contempt for some punk who went into a robbery with a loaded fire arm, because of the risks posed to those involved.

Anecdotaly it would seem that this moderating effect makes even the most violent of our criminals less likely to use lethal weapons or force (because the level of retalitatory violence they might have to face is minimal) and New Zealand police officers forced to shoot a person will only use one or 2 shots as apposed to the emptying of a cartridge reloading and continuing that seems to be the case in other countries.

Another consideration is the undercurrent of insidious violence that exists within New Zealand (we have the worst child abuse/homicide rate in the world) that would likely spiral out of control in the event that it was accepted that a person had the upfront right to "defend" themselves or property in a less than reasonable manner.

So on the whole I think that the charging of a Farmer for using force against an intruder is a good thing that is justified where the Farmer is able to subsequently mount a succesful defence on the grounds of use of reasonable force or otherwise be prosecuted where it is found that the use of force is found to be excessive.

 

[dougangel]

Briefly: In New Zealand Law (we do not have a formal constitution, rather our "constitution" is the accumulated body of the law) there is a defence of "reasonable force" in the case where a person uses force to protect the safety of life or property.

"Reasonable force" is defined as that minimum amount of force necessary to protect the safety of life or property. This thinking applies to all citizens including Police Officers.

Case law in New Zealand shows that the use of a fire arm or other weapon intended to harm a person in this manner is generally considered as the premeditated intent to harm or even use lethal force and therefore no longer constitutes reasonable force.

In this case however the farmer in question was charged for shooting and injuring an intruder with a reckless disregard for the safety of others. His defence was successful and he was cleared.

This shows a shift in New Zealand law that has sparked a debate on this very issue. Watch this space.

My thoughts? I think the policy of defence of reasonable force is one that allows judicial prosecution or defence in some very complicated cases rather than a blanket law that makes no allowance for individual circumstances leaving some very sour and malicous feelings where these circumstances aren't addressed.

I also think it has a strong moderating effect in that it is expected that only the minimum amount of force will be used in any circumstance.
I know one former bank robber who expressed utter contempt for some punk who went into a robbery with a loaded fire arm, because of the risks posed to those involved.

Anecdotaly it would seem that this moderating effect makes even the most violent of our criminals less likely to use lethal weapons or force (because the level of retalitatory violence they might have to face is minimal) and New Zealand police officers forced to shoot a person will only use one or 2 shots as apposed to the emptying of a cartridge reloading and continuing that seems to be the case in other countries.

Another consideration is the undercurrent of insidious violence that exists within New Zealand (we have the worst child abuse/homicide rate in the world) that would likely spiral out of control in the event that it was accepted that a person had the upfront right to "defend" themselves or property in a less than reasonable manner.

So on the whole I think that the charging of a Farmer for using force against an intruder is a good thing that is justified where the Farmer is able to subsequently mount a succesful defence on the grounds of use of reasonable force or otherwise be prosecuted where it is found that the use of force is found to be excessive.

wow I'm impressed

 

[Emmy]

Dear thatbrian. God made Man in His image, and God made us whole and filled with His Love and Compassion.
The Bible tells us how the Serpent lied to us and God kept His Promise and we were banished from the Garden of Eden.The Old Testament tells us how deeply we hade moved from God and became the followers of Evil. But God`s Love for us sent us Jesus, and Jesus showed us what God wants from us. In Matthew 22: 35-40: Jesus tells us:
" The first and great Commandment is " Love God with all thy hearts, with all thy souls, and with all thy minds.
The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." ( neighbour is all we know and all we meet, friends and not friends) We Love God with all our beings, and love our neighbour as we love ourselves/treat everybody as we would love to be treated. We might stumble and forget at times, but then we start loving and caring again, God first and our neighbour second. Love is very catching, and love will gradually change us into the men and women which God wants us to be.
The Bible tells us: " Repent and be Born Again." We change into new men and women, kind and helpful instead of selfish and unloving. God will approve and Bless us. The Holy Spirit will help and guide us, and Jesus our Saviour will
lead us all the way: JESUS IS THE WAY. God is Love, and God loves us all, and wants us back with Him for eternity.
Jesus showed us the way, and we have much time to change and become the sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father.
Do some lives matter more than others? God Loves us all, and Satan and his followers will run away from Love.
I say this with love, thatbrian. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ. P.S. In Matthew 7: 7-10: we are told to
Ask and receive, we keep asking God for Love and Joy , then share all Love and Joy with our neighbour.

 

[dysert]

After reading many of the posts in this thread, it seems to me that this is a trick question. "Value" is assigned by who is doing the valuation. So, from God's perspective, all lives are valued equally since He wants all people to come to a saving knowledge of Him. However, from a people perspective, it's different. I suspect that to the mother of a crackhead, the crackhead's life is more valuable than, say, Mother Theresa. To most of humanity, though, Mother Theresa's life is more valuable than most people we don't know. It's relative, and determined by whoever is doing the valuation.

 

[sparow]

Do you know the origin of that word?


1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

Isaiah 62
62 For Zion's sake will I not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake I will not rest, until the righteousness thereof go forth as brightness, and the salvation thereof as a lamp that burneth.

2 And the Gentiles shall see thy righteousness, and all kings thy glory: and thou shalt be called by a new name, which the mouth of the Lordshall name.

3 Thou shalt also be a crown of glory in the hand of the Lord, and a royal diadem in the hand of thy God.

4 Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neither shall thy land any more be termed Desolate: but thou shalt be called Hephzibah, and thy land Beulah: for the Lord delighteth in thee, and thy land shall be married.

I don't know the origin of "Israel" but Moses was the first that I am aware of to use it. There was a time when the meaning of Israel was determined by the alphabetic letters of the word; the word was like a sentence and the alphabetic characters were as words. One of the current meanings is "elect of God"; Strong doesn't give a meaning only a usage. Jacob was called Israel because he overcame but that is only one usage, it doesn't say what it means.

Hephzibah means, "My delight is in her". One of the names the disciples are called is, "born again", and there are others but I am not aware of any description provided by God or Jesus that means "My delight is in her"; Jezebel is not such a name but Jezebel is the name given to most of Christendom.

<<1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.">>

There seems to be confusion regarding the Greek at this place; the KJV uses Christios which means Messiah or anointed one; Peter is saying if anyone suffers because of serving Christ; Christian could mean that but it also means Jezebel. The name Christian was not provided by God.

 

[sparow]

After reading many of the posts in this thread, it seems to me that this is a trick question. "Value" is assigned by who is doing the valuation. So, from God's perspective, all lives are valued equally since He wants all people to come to a saving knowledge of Him. However, from a people perspective, it's different. I suspect that to the mother of a crackhead, the crackhead's life is more valuable than, say, Mother Theresa. To most of humanity, though, Mother Theresa's life is more valuable than most people we don't know. It's relative, and determined by whoever is doing the valuation.

Only God makes some of the saved more important than others and more important than the lost.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I was nodding in agreement about letting the old folks get bumped off until your switch and I had to consider it was my parents - a real hypothetical as my parents have gone to God and I am now one of the elderly playing bingo!

Possibly a more realistic scenario is how do we allocate financial resources in our society - should we spend more on the young because they have a full life to contribute or should we spend equally on the old folk who have contributed a life of service to the community? How a society values the most vulnerable has been said to be a gauge of how compassionate a society is. I am inclined to agree.

So true. I know Hitler valued the elderly and disabled as worthless and killed them. Where as if you go to somewhere like the amazon forest, the tribes their value their elderly because their "value" is the fact the are older and have wisdom that the young people will not have. I see everyone as valuable. Elderly, young, sick, healthy...etc. I love the elderly at church because they are wise beyond years. They have seen things I have not. Been through things like the depression, world wars...etc. Now I am not sure what I would do given an actual emergency situation where I had little time to decide whos more valuable because often we say we would save everyone, but in real life its not often that easy. Just as most say they would take down a gunmen at a bank. But in reality 95% of people freeze like deer and do nothing. Being a "hero" is a rare thing.

 

[RDKirk]

After reading many of the posts in this thread, it seems to me that this is a trick question. "Value" is assigned by who is doing the valuation. So, from God's perspective, all lives are valued equally since He wants all people to come to a saving knowledge of Him. However, from a people perspective, it's different. I suspect that to the mother of a crackhead, the crackhead's life is more valuable than, say, Mother Theresa. To most of humanity, though, Mother Theresa's life is more valuable than most people we don't know. It's relative, and determined by whoever is doing the valuation.

Nate Saint, who I've mentioned before, threw this factor into the equation. When he went to South America to evangelize an indigenous tribe known to be hyperviolent, he and his group pondered the question of whether they would kill in self defense. His remark was, "I'm prepared to meet my Maker; they are not."

His point was that as a Christian, "to live is gain; to die is Christ." If he was killed, he still wins, God still wins.

In fact, Nate was faced with that decision, and he chose to allow himself to be killed rather than kill in self defense. Later, Nate's son evangelized the same tribe, and the very man who had killed Nate Saint accepted Jesus. God wins.

I think Nate's response would be, "If you have to choose who to save, save the lost."

 

[dougangel]

Nate Saint, who I've mentioned before, threw this factor into the equation. When he went to South America to evangelize an indigenous tribe known to be hyperviolent, he and his group pondered the question of whether they would kill in self defense. His remark was, "I'm prepared to meet my Maker; they are not."

His point was that as a Christian, "to live is gain; to die is Christ." If he was killed, he still wins, God still wins.

In fact, Nate was faced with that decision, and he chose to allow himself to be killed rather than kill in self defense. Later, Nate's son evangelized the same tribe, and the very man who had killed Nate Saint accepted Jesus. God wins.

I think Nate's response would be, "If you have to choose who to save, save the lost."

I guess they are an example of what I have been talking about way back in the post.
There "famous Christians".
There's been a few books and movies about this from different family members.
Steve Saint, Nate's son talks a lot about the impact missionary cultures have on the receiving nation cultures.

 

[Neogaia777]

Some lives do matter more than others, to God, I believe it is impossible for "us" to know and judge that, like he can... That is probably why "we" are commanded to love everyone a equals, equally, and not judge anyone, for only he can...

God Bless!

 

[dougangel]

The higher the rate of legal gun ownership the lower rate of crime. Most murders here are gang members killing other gang members, with illegal-obtained guns.

Also I like to make a point with this thatbrian. For a developed country murders are way above other developed countries. Americans do have to do some soul searching and ask themselves why ?

 

[Blade]

Did Isaac Newton matter more than Hitler? Could we not attribute more value to mankind to Newton than Hitler?

Did William Shakespeare matter more than Justin Bieber ever will? Socrates more than Snoop Dog? Abraham Lincoln more than Al Sharpton?

Is it true that some lives matter more than others? Would you trade the life Jonas Salk (cured polio) for that of Kim Kardashian?

How about serial killers like Ted Bundy? Does your life matter more than his?

Do Some Lives Matter More Than Others?

I cant really believe your asking this. You know the answer not sure what your looking for. Man gets shot 4-5 times by 4 people. Wants to be healed.. God says I will heal you but you just forgive those that shoot you. So would seem to GOD each life matters the SAME. Man makes a scale with the sin.. God already died for it.

 

[RDKirk]

Also I like to make a point with this thatbrian. For a developed country murders are way above other developed countries. Americans do have to do some soul searching and ask themselves why ?

I'd add that the US leads developed nations in all other forms of murders, not just gun murders but also knife and bludgeon murders. And I'd include as well "justifiable" homicides by police and armed citizens that somehow police and armed citizens in other developed nations don't have to commit.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I'd add that the US leads developed nations in all other forms of murders, not just gun murders but also knife and bludgeon murders. And I'd include as well "justifiable" homicides by police and armed citizens that somehow police and armed citizens in other developed nations don't have to commit.

"With great power comes great responsibility".

Cheesy overused line I know but it kind of is right. We have so much freedom here that MANY choose not to use it responsibly. They go and kill people given all the power they have (power to buy a weapon, power to hunt someone down...etc).

 

[dougangel]

I don't know the origin of "Israel" but Moses was the first that I am aware of to use it. There was a time when the meaning of Israel was determined by the alphabetic letters of the word; the word was like a sentence and the alphabetic characters were as words. One of the current meanings is "elect of God"; Strong doesn't give a meaning only a usage. Jacob was called Israel because he overcame but that is only one usage, it doesn't say what it means.

Hephzibah means, "My delight is in her". One of the names the disciples are called is, "born again", and there are others but I am not aware of any description provided by God or Jesus that means "My delight is in her"; Jezebel is not such a name but Jezebel is the name given to most of Christendom.

<<1 Peter 4:16, "Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.">>

There seems to be confusion regarding the Greek at this place; the KJV uses Christios which means Messiah or anointed one; Peter is saying if anyone suffers because of serving Christ; Christian could mean that but it also means Jezebel. The name Christian was not provided by God.

Wiki
he first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28, where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome.[19] The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames.[20] However Peter's apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over "Nazarenes" and the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards.[21]

The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him;"[22] Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the 1st century. In the Annals he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians"[23] and identifies Christians as Nero's scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome.[24]

Honestly worrying about labels. Who has the time ? It's used 3 times in the New testament so I have no problem with it.
In modern English it's a suffix and means of, or associated with. Like buddhist, Jewish and so on.

 

[Vi]

Since God knows all better than we perceive them and becuz God uses all to His Will, and since salvation is offered to all... Hey, God is the potter. So yr asking abt mattering to us humans... But God is the only rightful judge.. Ya know

 

[sparow]

Wiki
he first recorded use of the term (or its cognates in other languages) is in the New Testament, in Acts 11:26, after Barnabas brought Saul (Paul) to Antioch where they taught the disciples for about a year, the text says: "[...] the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch." The second mention of the term follows in Acts 26:28, where Herod Agrippa II replied to Paul the Apostle, "Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian." The third and final New Testament reference to the term is in 1 Peter 4:16, which exhorts believers: "Yet if [any man suffer] as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf."

Kenneth Samuel Wuest holds that all three original New Testament verses' usages reflect a derisive element in the term Christian to refer to followers of Christ who did not acknowledge the emperor of Rome.[19] The city of Antioch, where someone gave them the name Christians, had a reputation for coming up with such nicknames.[20] However Peter's apparent endorsement of the term led to its being preferred over "Nazarenes" and the term Christianoi from 1 Peter becomes the standard term in the Early Church Fathers from Ignatius and Polycarp onwards.[21]

The earliest occurrences of the term in non-Christian literature include Josephus, referring to "the tribe of Christians, so named from him;"[22] Pliny the Younger in correspondence with Trajan; and Tacitus, writing near the end of the 1st century. In the Annals he relates that "by vulgar appellation [they were] commonly called Christians"[23] and identifies Christians as Nero's scapegoats for the Great Fire of Rome.[24]

Honestly worrying about labels. Who has the time ? It's used 3 times in the New testament so I have no problem with it.
In modern English it's a suffix and means of, or associated with. Like buddhist, Jewish and so on.

I can accept Cristianoi means follower of Christ, but I don't have permission from Christ to use any man as an authority; whether it be the Church fathers, Ignatius, Polycarp or Paul. A person who abrogates the Law does not follow Christ but follows traditions of men instead. Most who call themselves Christian use only Christ's name but not his covenant.

I don't remember how we got started down track; it doesn't have anything to do Muslims but it does have to do with who is important. It is not worrying about labels it is wether the label is true or a lie; among other things any definition of Christian includes being a follower of Christ; Most who call themselves Christian use only Christ's name and use men as their teachers; they follow men not Christ who is prophesised to accuse them of Lawlessness.