"You are free to believe that a nation whose president is wanted by the ICC for orchestrating the murder of over a thousand people is not violent."

I fail to see the relevance of your point. I have already said there was violence in 2007. But other than this episode, you have failed to provide any indication that Kenya is a violent place. Kenya has a 50 year history and this is the only episode of large-scale political violence that has been seen.

"Are these countries peaceful? No"

What on earth is your definition of peaceful, then? A total lack of crime?

"But I'm talking to the guy that used to praise North Korea."

And I'm talking to yet another person who can't get through a post without irrelevant ad hominem attacks. Nor can you even cite where I "praised North Korea".

Also, the fact that the people being charged have submitted to and appeared before the ICC demonstrates Kenya's commitment to the rule of law.

I find it hard to understand why you guys are even having this conversation when the originator of this thread believes it is just and reasonable to kill a baby to punish the baby's father.

Touche.

Mujus doesn't believe it's just for a person to kill a baby to punish the father, Jamie. And while he maybe believes that is just if God does it, you do not believe in God. So it seems that everybody on the thread is agreed that, when it comes to the entities you believe in, it's not OK.

So I don't really see the relevance of your point to this thread. Perhaps you could elaborate.

@semck - I didn't claim to believe it. I was pointing out what the single largest sect of Christianity believes vis a vis Mujus' post.

@semck: "Perhaps you could elaborate"

Well it's all part of God's wonderful plan, isn't it? Who is Mujus to question God's motives?

The relevance is since Mujus doesn't think murder is inherently wrong, what standing does he have to complain? Everyone is a sinner. Everyone deserves death.

Exactly, Putin - thank you.

"The relevance is since Mujus doesn't think .........."

........ that is why he is a God-botherer. Blind-ignorant allegiance to a faith is a key step to religious fanaticism & fundamentalism.

Nigee, usually you can only pull off tearing a sentence in half and taking it out of context when the original sentence isn't three posts above.

Putin, my definition of safe is certainly not a nation dealing with political riots, as Brazil and Turkey are, and it's definitely not a leading nation in the sex trafficking industry.

Here's just one incidence of post-2007 violence. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/24/kenya-killings-elections_n_1828591.html

Here's another just for kicks: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/kenya-killings-tana-river-48_n_1821134.html

bo - sorry, didn't read any more, that was all the context I was looking for :-)

"The relevance is since Mujus doesn't think murder is inherently wrong, what standing does he have to complain? Everyone is a sinner. Everyone deserves death."

Murder is the unjustified killing of a person by another person, and I'm sure Mujus thinks it's wrong. Indeed, murder *is* a sin, which is exactly why he *would* care about it.

Criticize somebody's ethical system if you want to, but at least don't constantly portray it as completely different than it is. What on earth is the point of that?

Last I checked Christians defined their god as a person.

I fail to see why murder is a sin if there is nothing inherently wrong about it. Non-human persons can do it at will with impunity and not even lose their moral perfection.

"Last I checked Christians defined their god as a person."

That's a fair complaint. I used an ambiguous term in an ambiguous way. Substitute "humans." Thanks for the catch.

"murder is a sin if there is nothing inherently wrong about it. Non-human persons can do it at will with impunity and not even lose their moral perfection. "

Non-human persons can't murder for purely logical reasons, under the above definition. Whether *killing* is a sin for non-human persons is an interesting question, and would depend on the context and the reasons. God, in any case, would only kill justly.

I don't know where you stand on the death penalty -- presumably you support it in *some* cases, since it was used so extensively in the Soviet Union, though I'd be surprised if you support it in the US -- but anyway, there is an example (for those who can imagine supporting it, anyway) of deliberate killing of persons by persons (both human in this case) that still isn't murder.

Guys, don't forget that Putin actively supports the killing of unborn persons.

True, Draug.

putin has also been on record as being perfectly fine with the killing of the upper middle class.

" I used an ambiguous term in an ambiguous way. Substitute "humans." Thanks for the catch."

Or it's yet another example of theists changing their definitions as they go for expediency.

"God, in any case, would only kill justly."

You can't know that. And in any case, there is nothing inherently wrong about murder in the theist worldview and we all deserve death, and all deaths are part of god's "plan". So why bitch about it? Aren't you trying to intervene and/or question god's divine will?

"but anyway, there is an example (for those who can imagine supporting it, anyway) of deliberate killing of persons by persons (both human in this case) that still isn't murder."

I accepted your original definition, before you changed it conveniently enough to exempt god from any hypocrisy, as the 'unjustified' killing of another person by a person. Since someone accused of capital crime would be tried and convicted hopefully in a fair trial with due process, then it is not unjustified and therefore your point is irrelevant as well as a cheap attempt to derail the discussion.

The only thing you have to go on to claim 'murder is bad' is god said so. There is no rational reason to oppose murder, in a theistic worldview. We're all tainted with the sin of Adam, and nobody deserves life more than any other. Why should Christians shed a tear if humans kill humans but if god wipes out everybody on earth they heartily cheer and salute him for it? It makes no sense at all and renders all their moral hand wringing completely hollow.

"Guys, don't forget that Putin actively supports the killing of unborn persons."

Changing the definition of person again. And I don't "actively support" it. But why bother correcting you and Semck when you're having so much fun constructing strawmen and ad hominems instead of discussing the issue at hand.

"putin has also been on record as being perfectly fine with the killing of the upper middle class."

Even if true, why would you care? Are the upper middle class not sinners deserving of god's wrath and genocidal judgment?

"Are the upper middle class not sinners deserving of god's wrath and genocidal judgment? "

I give you this quote... "'Vengeance is mine,' sayeth the Lord. 'I will repay.' It is not our place to exedcute the judgement. At least not Biblically speaking. And yes, that means it is not our place to punish another with the death penalty. I have gone back and forth on this but have come down to the death penalty, as a Christian, being wrong. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." Christ didn't say we can cast the stone if our sin isn't as great. He said we had to be sinless to do so. All sin. Well, there is none amongst us who can meet that high standard, therefore even a judge and jury should have no right to put a man to death. Separate him from society in an attempt to protect society? Sure. But not kill. Killing is only justified in the direct porotection of self or others lives.

Octavious, Exodus 20:13 was translated "Thou shall not kill" in the King James Bible, published in 1611. Either the translators didn't have the best translation or English has changed enough in 400 years that the meaning has changed--I suspect the former. But here's a modern translation of the Hebrew, from the New Living Translation: “You must not murder."

Semck, Jesus did say to turn the other cheek, but where does it say to not resist evil?

Semck, I retract that question. "Resist not the evil person." And there are examples, but they do fall short of saving a life. And of course we do have Jesus' example of dying on the cross for the sins of others.

I still don't see why you care. It's all part of god's will. We're all maggots in the eyes of god who deserve nothing but eternal torment and death. Plus the dead are supposed to be in heaven and isn't heaven better than this evil earth place in the Christian view?

On every level Christians should be ok with mass killing and death. It's part of god's will. All humans are evil anyway. And the afterlife is better than the mortal life. Plus god has wiped out humans before and we're supposedly all better off for it.

"Or it's yet another example of theists changing their definitions as they go for expediency."

*shrug* You can say that if you want, but I haven't contradicted myself, just clarified. Letting somebody clarify his meaning is something anybody interested in pursuing truth in discussion should be fine with. Anybody not so interested is just wasting my time anyway.

"And in any case, there is nothing inherently wrong about murder in the theist worldview"

Yes there is -- at least in the sense that word takes in the theist worldview, which is to say, being against God's nature.

"and we all deserve death, and all deaths are part of god's "plan". So why bitch about it?"

Because it's wrong and forbidden.

"Aren't you trying to intervene and/or question god's divine will?"

No. You are trying to question God's divine commands.

" Since someone accused of capital crime would be tried and convicted hopefully in a fair trial with due process, then it is not unjustified [...]"

Which was exactly my point. God's killings are also not unjustified. Ours are, however, and it makes no difference that we're all sinners. Just as it would still be wrong of me to kill somebody who had been sentenced to death, it's still wrong for us to kill somebody even if God has condemned them to die (absent some reason otherwise, such as the death penalty).

"The only thing you have to go on to claim 'murder is bad' is god said so. There is no rational reason to oppose murder, in a theistic worldview. We're all tainted with the sin of Adam, and nobody deserves life more than any other. Why should Christians shed a tear if humans kill humans but if god wipes out everybody on earth they heartily cheer and salute him for it? It makes no sense at all and renders all their moral hand wringing completely hollow."

None of us can fully escape caring about right and wrong, as we are moral creatures who must recognize the goodness of God's nature, on some level. Christians simply differ in accurately describing the source and nature of this knowledge/drive.

"Are the upper middle class not sinners deserving of god's wrath and genocidal judgment?"

Are they deserving of God's wrath? Yes. Of ours? No. For us to kill them is a heinous wrong (same with the lower class, or the homeless).

Putin, please show me oine place in the New Testament where "god has wiped out humans before". Christ came to bring a new covenant between man and God.

"Christ came to bring a new covenant between man and God."

Did Christ wipe out the historical record in the process?

"Letting somebody clarify his meaning is something anybody interested in pursuing truth in discussion should be fine with. Anybody not so interested is just wasting my time anyway."

I have no experience with you being interested in truth in discussion. I would love for this supposed attitude of yours to be true. Considering the lengths you have gone to impugn my character, distort my comments, and the low cheap shots you use as standard debating tactics, your calls for high minded discussion are rather comical.

"Yes there is -- at least in the sense that word takes in the theist worldview, which is to say, being against God's nature."

Again with the word games. "Against god's nature" makes no sense as a definition for something that is inherently wrong. It's just garble. Lots of things are "against God's nature" - being mortal, for one. Being someone that exists within time. Being able to change. It tells us nothing about what is morally correct.

"Because it's wrong and forbidden."

So what? It's still something divinely willed.

"No. You are trying to question God's divine commands."

Because they logically contradict everything else about "god's nature".

"None of us can fully escape caring about right and wrong"

Dead is dead.

"Are they deserving of God's wrath? Yes. Of ours? No."

See above. I fail to see why the distinction.

"Which was exactly my point. God's killings are also not unjustified. Ours are, however, and it makes no difference that we're all sinners. Just as it would still be wrong of me to kill somebody who had been sentenced to death, it's still wrong for us to kill somebody even if God has condemned them to die (absent some reason otherwise, such as the death penalty)."

You can't know they are not unjustified. You have no concept of justice with which to judge god's actions. You blindly accept that god is always just, no matter what actions are taking place.

In a capital case, we have a mechanism for overturning unjustified convictions. Justified is not simply whatever the state decides no matter what. There's an independent concept of justification. We have a mechanism for reviewing due process. The system cannot simply execute whoever it wants willy nilly and this somehow be different than a random murder. You have no such process for your deity. How bizarre that such an anti-statist has such a blind acceptance of decisions made in God's State.