The family member shooting the robber is by action saying that the lives of family members are more sacred in those circumstances and the legal system would in essence be upholding that opinion.
I think the guy starving himself to death is saying that his belief about gay marriage is more sacred than his life. I do believe in the principle that all life is sacred. I also see that in actual, day to day living, people make choices that express imo, their belief in degrees of sacredness. I do too. For example, as much as I hate to do it, I will kill certain bugs if I find them in my house. I say a little prayer for them. But dispatch them I do! On Sunday, January 5, 2014 12:23 PM, "authfri...@yahoo.com" <authfri...@yahoo.com> wrote: The legal system would exonerate the shooter, but not because the robber's life was considered "less sacred" than the lives of the shooter and his or her family. << Judy, assuming this is what you mean by a question, >> (As if you didn't know. As I said, lame.) << I think preserving life and preserving the sacredness of life are two different issues because though life is inherently and unconditionally sacred in principle, there are degrees of perceived sacredness in actuality. >> Then you're saying you don't believe in the principle itself, because it doesn't allow for "degrees of perceived sacredness." That would put conditions on it. Nothing wrong with that; I don't believe in it myself. But you've been beating around the bush--sliding off the road--instead of coming right out with it. Now tell us how your belief applies to the guy who claims he's going to starve himself to death if same-sex marriage isn't prohibited. Is his life less sacred than...whose? << For example, if a robber with a gun broke into a family's home, a family member would shoot him based on the principle that at that moment, in those circumstances, the lives of the family members were more sacred than the life of the robber. And the legal system would uphold this idea. >> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 11:25 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Oh, PLEASE, Share! If you can't or don't want to answer the question, just say so. Don't pretend you can't find it. How lame. << Judy, except for the first sentence of this post of yours, I don't see where you actually asked me a question! If I missed it, could you repeat? >> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:44 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: I don't believe I said one way or the other whether I agreed with the principle, did I? No, I'm not against abortion. Try again. See if you can keep the car on the road this time and actually answer the question I asked. << From that line of reasoning, Judy, can we assume that you are against abortion? >> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:31 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Oh, do elaborate for us on why you believe preserving the sacredness of life is a different issue from preserving life, given that the principle in question is that life is inherently and unconditionally sacred. << Judy, I don't agree with you about what it takes to preserve the sacredness of life. Yes, I agree that to preserve life, one must stay alive. But that's a different issue imo. >> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 10:20 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Um, Share, what it takes for the sacredness of life to be preserved isn't a matter of opinion or ideas, it's a matter of biological facts. If you die by your own hand, you have deliberately destroyed the sacredness of your own life. You aren't engaging with what wayback and I are saying. As usual with any matter of dispute, your mind is like a car on an icy road--you keep sliding off the point at issue rather than dealing with it directly. You use this as a tactic to prevent rational discussion that might show you to be on the wrong side of the issue when you can't come up with a solid case. << Judy, I agree that life is sacred. And I also recognize that other people may have very different ideas than mine about what constitutes that sacredness, what is necessary for it to be preserved. >> On Sunday, January 5, 2014 9:57 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Non sequitur. << But wayback, if one were to die in battle or put one's self in front of a bullet, that entails violence and violence involving another person or persons! Whereas starving one's self does not involve getting or giving harm to another. >> The point is that suicide (in this case by starvation) for a "cause" that does not involve preventing physical harm to another is against the principle of the sacredness of life. << Like I said, I don't agree with his cause, but I admire that he's taking a strong, non violent stand about it. >> He's doing violence to himself. That is not the only way--and certainly not the most effective way--to take a "strong, non violent stand" against gay marriage. << BTW, he didn't sound like a martyr to me at all. Not that I've spoken with any martyrs! >> Of course he thinks of himself as a martyr: "a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle" He is most likely mentally disturbed. wayback wrote: Share, I disagree, especially for an action like gay marriage, that really does not harm you or harm others. It is a difference of opinions. There are so many many other truly significant issues on this planet. Starve yourself to death over this? Please, go find someone to donate your time or money to - someone suffering or hungry. Another thought, it is my understanding that in Judaism life is held to be so precious that individuals are not expected to martyr themselves. Fighting for a cause, dying in battle, putting yourself in front of a bullet meant for your loved one - all good. But martyrdom is another. It is not really considered admirable. I like that approach.
