Is it Ever Okay to Kill

[ChristOurCaptain]

Does that mean you do have read it?

Of course I read it. What kind of rhetorical trap are you preparing this time?

 

[quatona]

Of course I read it. What kind of rhetorical trap are you preparing this time?

I´m not preparing anything - your paranoia are showing.
I just asked a straightforward question. You hadn´t answered it the first time.
So you did read the autobiography of Rudolf Hoess. Great.

An ever recurring point in the autobiography of Rudolf Hoess (well, the one that I have read - don´t know what was to your availability) was his excuse that he acted upon the command of the political authorities.
Don´t know about you, but to me this constitutes some relevance to your claim that killing on command of political authorities renders the killing justified.

At least more relevance than to drinking coke light.

 

[ChristOurCaptain]

I´m not preparing anything - your paranoia are showing.
I just asked a straightforward question. You hadn´t answered it the first time.
So you did read the autobiography of Rudolf Hoess. Great.

"It" was assumed to be = your post, and you know this.

An ever recurring point in the autobiography of Rudolf Hoess (well, the one that I have read - don´t know what was to your availability) was his excuse that he acted upon the command of the political authorities.
Don´t know about you, but to me this constitutes some relevance to your claim that killing on command of political authorities renders the killing justified.

Because executing a murderer is comparable to the attempted genocide of entire peoples.....

 

[quatona]

"It" was assumed to be = your post, and you know this.

No, I have been asking about the autobiography of Rudolf Hoess all the time, and you know this. "It" was assumed to be the book I asked about.

So you haven´t read it? Ok. Thanks for finally answering my question.
How, then, did you conclude on its relevance or lack thereof regarding your statement?

Because executing a murderer is comparable to the attempted genocide of entire peoples.....

Is that your position? (Because it certainly wasn´t mine, nor did imply it was - and I´m sure you aren´t intending to put up a strawman).
Just to remind you - in case you don´t recall - here´s your original statement:

It [killing of people] is also OK to kill when you are an executioner, carrying out a sentence.

 

[michaelG1949]

reading the last couple pages, i don't believe as a christian, that i have the right to take a life. but, going only with the NT, when Jesus intervened for the adultress, i don't recall him condemning the sentence or the law. i don't recall him saying that the government had no right to carry out the sentence on his physical body. stephen broke the law and his physical body was forfited, nothing being said about right or wromg on the sentence, the same with paul and peter. not that i believe the unrepentent or unsaved that established that law will be unpunished either. rudolf hoess had a choice. not an easy one. but peter, paul, and Jesus had a choice also. they knew the consequences of their choice. criminals know the consequence, no reason to blame the lawgiver if you have a choice and decide on death.

 

[Cactus Jack]

I forget where it says something to the effect of 'let he who is sinless cast the first stone'. Might be the same verse where Jesus protected the adultress.

 

[michaelG1949]

it is the same story, thats what i'm saying, he didn't condemn her, nor did he condemn the law that gave thedeath penalty.