Are all sins equal?

[bluethread]

Given the events of the last year is it wrong to condemn all lawless violence, and acceptable to permit some forms of lawless violence while viewing other forms of lawless violence as absolutely unacceptable to the exclusion of all other forms of lawless violence?

[DanieltheDragon]

Given the events of the last year is it wrong to condemn all lawless violence, and acceptable to permit some forms of lawless violence while viewing other forms of lawless violence as absolutely unacceptable to the exclusion of all other forms of lawless violence?

I am essentially a pacifist and would not promote violence. That doesn't mean I am not pragmatic. For example, let's say a husband beats and rapes his wife in a drunken stupor every night for 10 years. One night after all the violence she assaults him in his sleep leaving him barely alive and flees.

Do we condemn both of them equally? Do we excuse the wife? Should we lock them both up?

[ttruscott]

Given the events of the last year is it wrong to condemn all lawless violence, and acceptable to permit some forms of lawless violence while viewing other forms of lawless violence as absolutely unacceptable to the exclusion of all other forms of lawless violence?

I don't see the relationship between the title Are all sins equal? and the questions here...

As a teacher of self defence for many years I believe some violence, that is, a use of force against another is justified both morally and legally. I am glad rioters have quit attacking the cops and are now attacking each other...serves them both right.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

As a Christian I am firmly against the use of violence. Christians are under obligation to be peacable with all people.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

I would condemn all forms of lawless violence. I also condemn the man who incites violence in his followers against peaceful protest, who brags about committing violence against women and who calls the KKK and neo-nazis fine people. The most dishonest president ever, who falsely claims that there has been violence on both sides.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

As a Christian I am firmly against the use of violence.

I admire the strong stand and I generally agree that violence should be avoided at all possible cost.

Christians are under obligation to be peacable with all people.

Are you sure about that?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Matthew 10:34New International Version (NIV)

34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ersion=NIV

Luke 22:36New International Version (NIV)

36 He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

The first quote we could write off as Jesus himself being metaphorical, but the second quote is hard to avoid. Are the swords the disciples were to buy just for decoration?

As for the OP, just going by the title, if we use sin as defined in the Bible then the short answer is yes. The Bible is pretty clear that sin is sin. If you mean some non Biblical definition (i.e. breaking secular laws, etc) then my answer and opinion would be no. Not all 'unlawful' acts are equal. Stealing food from my neighbor's fridge is hardly equal to brutally killing his wife in their bedroom. One can be resolved by replacing the food and apologizing profusely, the other has no practical remedy.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 6 by benchwarmer]

I don't interpret those verses as you do. Can you recongize that not everyone interprets the bible as you do?

JW

[bluethread]

The most dishonest president ever, who falsely claims that there has been violence on both sides.

I noticed that you side stepped the issue of the law. Though the white supremacists had a permit for their protest, Antifa were engaging in unlawful assembly. That said, are you also saying that they were just innocent bystanders?

Peter Beinart wrote Wednesday in The Atlantic. “They’re troubling strategically because they allow white supremacists to depict themselves as victims being denied the right to freely assemble. And they’re troubling morally because antifa activists really do infringe upon that right.�

Anti-Defamation League National Director Jonathan Greenblatt has also acknowledged the Antifa violence. Mark Pitcavage, an ADL senior researcher said, “I don’t know how you can put together a calculus of violence where some sort of act of violence is unacceptable if one group does it but if another group commits it, that’s acceptable,� he said. “We’d just rather not see violence.�

Though the ideological and actual violence of white supremacists is greater, that does not negate the fact that there is unlawful violence on both sides. IMO it is more important to support first amendment values, than to protect society from exposure to repugnant ideologies. Regardless of what one thinks of President Trump, there was unlawful violence on both sides and the focus of the government should be on maintaining the rule of law, not favoring one ideology over another. If that is the focus, those who are most violent will naturally face the most resistance from the government and exposure of the ideology allows it to be properly addressed in the market place of ideas.

By the way, how many times in this century have politicians allowed white supremacist violence go unchecked? There are several examples of Antifa and BLM being permitted to run wild.

[McCulloch]

The most dishonest president ever, who falsely claims that there has been violence on both sides.

I noticed that you side stepped the issue of the law. Though the white supremacists had a permit for their protest, Antifa were engaging in unlawful assembly. That said, are you also saying that they were just innocent bystanders?

According to the Washington Post, the counter demonstration did have a permit.
www.washingtonpost.com news fact-checker - president trumps false claim that counter demonstrators lacked a permit
Now let's not argue about which claim is true. The president, who has been lying more than any other president in the history of the USA or the professional journalists who cite their sources. It is a moot point. The debate is about unlawful violence. The counter demonstrators didn't run over pedestrians, killing one and injuring others. The counter demonstrators didn't come armed with clubs, torches or guns. The counter demonstrators are not the ones seeking to memorialize those who violently battled to suppress human rights.

So please present evidence that there was violence on both sides.

… the focus of the government should be on maintaining the rule of law, not favoring one ideology over another.

Maybe it is just me, but I think that if a bias is shown, the agents of the government of the USA should side with the supporters of the protection of human rights. They should be against those who identify with the enemies of the nation in the 1860's and the 1940's.

[ttruscott]

[Replying to post 1 by bluethread]

As a Christian I am firmly against the use of violence. Christians are under obligation to be peacable with all people.

JEHOVAHS WITNESS

Was Michael and his army being violent or just using the justified use of force when he used the sword of truth to defeat Satan and expel him to earth?

Does “Blessed be the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle – my loving kindness and my fortress, my high tower and my deliverer, my shield and the One in whom I take refuge, who subdues my people under me.� Psalm 144:1 refer only to spiritual battles and not hand to hand fighting with a murderous demonic human?