[Ken Carman]

.



It is a well know fact that legal definitions don't have to be based on the shared meaning of a word. Even going beyond that


The "reasoning" in this paragraph comes off as total gibberish to me, so I can't comment, except to say that if something isn't based on a "shared meaning" then it would be gibberish, legally or otherwise.

When have I suggested that anyone do anything illegal?

I find much of this is the same reason people use for breaking the law, pouring blood over records, breaking and entering, shooting or threatening clinics. If you can hold your own sense of "moral law," or some religious based, commonly held sense and not delve into such activities I admire your restraint.

Well, moral law as legally defined by God.

Paraphrasing Tom Paine, you have every right to that belief and I would defend your right to it. Everyone has a right to believe in God, Gods or... not. I would defend their rights too. As soon as someone attempts to force it on others legally, or by other means, I normally would get off the boat and cross over to the other side. On a rare occasion I might stand with those who do such things, understanding that I'm part of a revolutionary movement and sometimes revolutionaries get hung.

The next two paragraphs you typed I basically would havwe the same response.

Legality is the least important part of the discussion.

As far as the thread as a whole, I would somewhat agree. As far as the definition of "murder," I disagree. It's the most important part. Murder is legally defined, and has been long before Christianity or even Judaism. (Unless, of course, you are a biblical literalist. Then, once again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. That would probably take us way off what the mods would consider "topic.") In your church (or faith) murder may be defined otherwise. If you wish to define it as such, or any other way, fine. We just disagree.

When a nation's laws, the actions of its leaders, and the beliefs of its people are not in accordance with the moral law, it is on a very short road to devastation. A peaceful society is not possible without morality.

Hmmm, once again, I disagree. Whose moral law, what you and perhapsa others have decided is moral law? The Roman Empire lasted quite a while in conflict with many "moral laws" that most religions accept. I've heard people argue that the sam about the USA. Once again, this could get us into a whole new thread and tie up this topic. Meanwhile, many groups of faith-based settlers were exterminated by Native-Americans, weather conditions, "acts of God (irony)," wolves, bears and who knows what else. Of course, that depends upon your definition of "devastation."

Stalin legally murder millions of people, are saying that his actions are right or wrong? To make a statement that something is right or wrong is to make a moral judgement. Murder, as act defined by moral law is under the jurisdiction of the authority that instituted the law. Just as man can not change the laws of physics, he can change the moral law.

It was wrong, but once again I don't accept "moral law" as THE basis for "the law."
What he did was legal, under laws a set up under his corrupt administration, and past corrupt administrations. As I have said, sometimes people must stand up for the moral side over the legal one, but that doesn't mean the two are one in the same. "Moral law" is your construct, and the construct of various faiths over the history of humanity. They don't always use the same materials to build this consrtuct, but they often are similar. Sometimes law mirrors various constructs. Sometimes it does not. But unless we are talking theocracy, the connection is not more important than the law itself.

What stage of life a person is at has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a human being or not.

Disagree. The sperm is not "human." The zygote is not "human." The fetus is closer to human, but still forming.