Do You Believe?

I mean truly Believe!

Published on July 24, 2008 By Moderateman In Life

I bet most of you that clicked on this thought this was going to be another G-d article or another in a long line of Jesus freak articles. WRONG on both counts.

My question is really a simple one.

Can a man kill another man in a fight and be considered a good man and citizen if this man has never broken any laws for 40 years since then? This man has raised a family, instilled in them a respect for G-ds law and mans law but is not sorry in the least for the killing.

Comments (Page 3)

Texas Wahine

on Jul 25, 2008

Yes, he could be a good man. I don't know his motivations or why he doesn't feel remorseful, but it could be that there is a genuinely valid reason for why he feels he was in the right.

I would also say that in the situation where there is a fight, sometimes the outcome is bizarre. I have read stories of teens where one punched the other and the way the child who was punched fell killed him. Now the kid who struck the blow is a murderer, but all he did was punch the other kid...which isn't something so out of the ordinary or disturbing. A seemingly harmless fight can have a horrific and unexpected outcome.

Good citizen? Depends on if there was legal punishment required and if he managed to wrongly escape that punishment or if he fulfilled his obligations regarding his crime.

A lot of people do awful things in a moment of passion. A good person takes responsibility and doesn't continue to (intentionally) do awful things.

RoyLevosh

on Jul 25, 2008

Okay...

1. If the man killed the other man in a fight in defense of his life or safety or in the defense of another's life or safety then yes, he would be considered a good man.

2. If the man killed the other man while trying to commit another felony crime (i.e. robbery, burglary, sexual assault, etc.) against the other in a fight and, especially if he is not "sorry in the least," then no he is not a good man.

3. If it was just a regular bar room variety type brawl and the man did intentionally cause the death of the other man, and especially if he is not "sorry in the least," then no he is not a good man.

4. If it was just a regular bar room variety brawl and the man did not intentionally cause the death of the other man but, since he is not "sorry in the least", then no he is not a good man.

That's what I believe if I had to make such a judgment.

erathoniel

on Jul 25, 2008

I think that though the man is still a criminal (unless it was self-defense), he is not evil simply for his actions, other than his innate sinful nature.

Cedarbird

on Jul 25, 2008

Yes, a hypothetical person can still be a good person under those circumstances, but referring to a specific person I'd need to know more about them. I was always taught not to judge other people, but hypothetically yes, sure he can be a good person.

Moderateman

on Jul 25, 2008

Lots of interesting opinions happening here, would sure like to see the other 200 Plus people that viewed this article to speak up.

Moderateman

on Jul 26, 2008

Texas Wahine

comment 31

Yes, he could be a good man. I don't know his motivations or why he doesn't feel remorseful, but it could be that there is a genuinely valid reason for why he feels he was in the right. I would also say that in the situation where there is a fight, sometimes the outcome is bizarre. I have read stories of teens where one punched the other and the way the child who was punched fell killed him. Now the kid who struck the blow is a murderer, but all he did was punch the other kid...which isn't something so out of the ordinary or disturbing. A seemingly harmless fight can have a horrific and unexpected outcome.Good citizen? Depends on if there was legal punishment required and if he managed to wrongly escape that punishment or if he fulfilled his obligations regarding his crime.A lot of people do awful things in a moment of passion. A good person takes responsibility and doesn't continue to (intentionally) do awful things.

He "paid" for the crime by doing time, loys of time. remember he never committed another crime again and instilled respect for the law both G-Ds and mans law into his children.

Moderateman

on Jul 26, 2008

RoyLevosh

comment 32

Okay...1. If the man killed the other man in a fight in defense of his life or safety or in the defense of another's life or safety then yes, he would be considered a good man.2. If the man killed the other man while trying to commit another felony crime (i.e. robbery, burglary, sexual assault, etc.) against the other in a fight and, especially if he is not "sorry in the least," then no he is not a good man.3. If it was just a regular bar room variety type brawl and the man did intentionally cause the death of the other man, and especially if he is not "sorry in the least," then no he is not a good man.4. If it was just a regular bar room variety brawl and the man did not intentionally cause the death of the other man but, since he is not "sorry in the least", then no he is not a good man.That's what I believe if I had to make such a judgment.

Geeze joe could you hedge your comments just a little more?

Moderateman

on Jul 26, 2008

erathoniel

comment 33

I think that though the man is still a criminal (unless it was self-defense), he is not evil simply for his actions, other than his innate sinful nature.

How could you say he has a "sinful nature" ? did you even read the entire article?

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 26, 2008

He "paid" for the crime by doing time, loys of time.

doing time, means to pay for his crime with his own time being given up. He did not do that. In that case we all do lots of time even if we didn't create a criminal act. He went on with life per usual just like the rest of us making sure he kept clean the rest of his time, but that doesn't mean he "paid" anything. It should be a life for a life (whether that means capitol punishment or time in prison) unless it's self defense or accidental.

How could you say he has a "sinful nature

who doesn't have a sinful nature?

Moderateman

on Jul 27, 2008

KFC Kickin For Christ on Jul 26, 2008 He "paid" for the crime by doing time, lots of time. doing time, means to pay for his crime with his own time being given up. He did not do that. In that case we all do lots of time even if we didn't create a criminal act. He went on with life per usual just like the rest of us making sure he kept clean the rest of his time, but that doesn't mean he "paid" anything. It should be a life for a life (whether that means capitol punishment or time in prison) unless it's self defense or accidental.

Not very, "CHRISTIAN" OF YOU. if a court of law decided his punishment was 10 years lets say for the sake of a point, and the man served ALL TEN YEARS a court of law would say his debt to society was paid, yes? no? Now then he picked up his life, got married, changed the way he thought about life, had children taught them to respect man and G-ds law, in essence to be good people themselves, {he taught them by example}, yet YOU A "CHRISTIAN" are unforgiving, now you know why I call Christians full of shit!

How could you say he has a "sinful nature who doesn't have a sinful nature?

NO! you will not turn this into a religious forum for you to spout your religious hypocrisy!

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 27, 2008

Yes. Why isn't it Christian to believe this way?

yet YOU A "CHRISTIAN" are unforgiving, now you know why I call Christians full of shit!

Who says I'm unforgiving? To forgive and to to hold one accountable are two diff acts. I can forgive at the same time as hold one accountable for his actions.

Let's go to the Jewish OT scriptures to prove the point. David committed horrible acts of adultery and murder. God forgave him yet also held him accountable. The firstborn son of his with Bathsheba died as a result of his sin.

Adam and Eve. They sinned against God. God forgave them, clothed them even but did not let them off the hook. They were banished from a perfect lovely garden forever.

Cain killed Abel yet God forgave him and made him also to pay his debt by making him a vagabond and separated him from his family.

I can see you have animosity towards me MM for my opinions so I won't bother you again.

Moderateman

on Jul 27, 2008

KFC Kickin For Christ

comment 41

Not very, "CHRISTIAN" OF YOU. if a court of law decided his punishment was 10 years lets say for the sake of a point, and the man served ALL TEN YEARS a court of law would say his debt to society was paid, yes?Yes. Why isn't it Christian to believe this way? yet YOU A "CHRISTIAN" are unforgiving, now you know why I call Christians full of shit!Who says I'm unforgiving? To forgive and to to hold one accountable are two diff acts. I can forgive at the same time as hold one accountable for his actions. Let's go to the Jewish OT scriptures to prove the point. David committed horrible acts of adultery and murder. God forgave him yet also held him accountable. The firstborn son of his with Bathsheba died as a result of his sin. Adam and Eve. They sinned against God. God forgave them, clothed them even but did not let them off the hook. They were banished from a perfect lovely garden forever. Cain killed Abel yet God forgave him and made him also to pay his debt by making him a vagabond and separated him from his family. I can see you have animosity towards me MM for my opinions so I won't bother you again.

No animosity, I just will not let you turn this blog about this subject into a religious platform.

something you do all the time BTW on many many other blogs.

KFC Kickin For Christ

on Jul 27, 2008

No animosity, I just will not let you turn this blog about this subject into a religious platform.

I was responding to Erath's and your comments #33 & #38 with my answer in #39.... and I said less than the two of you did MM. I feel like you jumped on me with no provocation. I was doing no such thing of turning this blog into a religious blog with my responses.

MasonM

on Jul 27, 2008

A single act doesn't determine whether one is a good man or not. It's the accumulation of his life's acts. Everyone, every single person, has made mistakes. Mistakes do not make one a bad person, merely human.

So, I would have to say yes, he can still be considered a good man. In my opinion 40 years of good far outweighs a single act of bad.

InfoGeek

on Jul 28, 2008

So the fact that he has instilled respect for the law both G-ds and mans law in his children and has lived a life of no crime in any way for forty years in your eyes he is still a criminal?

The fact he commited a crime, escaped justice and has shown no remorse nor asked his G-d for fogiveness makes him a criminal.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!