Originally posted by Suzianne The fact remains that you are NOT going to keep a "radicalized terrorist" from killing you merely by telling him what you imagine he "wants to hear". Whether you deny Christ or not has absolutely zero bearing on his willingness to kill you. But you will be quite sorry in a rather immediate way that you used your last words on this earth to deny your Savior.
If you think Grampy Bobby's scenario is nonsense, why don't you say so?
Do you think you have an obligation to tell the truth to a "radicalized terrorist" threatening to kill you?
Do you think, if you say to a "radicalized terrorist" that you don't believe in Jesus, that it means that you really and actually don't believe in Jesus?
Originally posted by Suzianne However, not denying your Savior under extreme duress is often called martyrdom. How would you rather be remembered? Please realize that this man with a gun to your head will probably kill you no matter what you say. I'd rather keep my dignity and my faith in God.
"But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved." -- Matthew 24:13, KJV
I agree that divegeester's scenario is naive. The problem is that in a realistic scenario it'll involve torture and you are going to have a job on your hands resisting that. They can work on you physically and psychologically. There are people who have succeeded in resisting forced conversion under torture, but I really don't think that someone who broke under torture would be automatically damned (assuming God exists).
There are a few examples I can think of, incidentally all involving the torture of Pagans by Christians, some of whom successfully resisted until the end (see e.g. the bottom of the Wikipedia page about Olaf Tryggvason). In one case princes of the Isle of Wight (the King died in the battle) were forceably converted to Christianity and then executed on Cadwallah's orders.
The literary example, which is non-religious, but relevant is from 1984. Winston Smith tries to resist and forms a plan to consciously capitulate, but unconsciously resist. The problem is O'Brian is wise to that and they totally break him in room 101.
Originally posted by JS357 Does either of you have data? I'm not sniping, I'm interested. A little googling suggests that mass and serial murderers are sociopathic.
Correct. Serial killers are sociopaths.
The 2011 UN study does not give any information on sociopathy, however the
breakdowns suggest that sociopaths are not the majority of killers.
For instance page 11 shows that worldwide 70% of females are killed by their spouse, exspouse, relative or acquaintance. The figure is 50% for males. Clearly these are not serial killings.
I would think crimes of passion are typically committed by non-sociopaths.
I'd also think that claim 'all murders are sociopaths' is false if there is just one case in which a murderer has felt genuine regret for what they have done.
Originally posted by JS357 Does either of you have data? I'm not sniping, I'm interested. A little googling suggests that mass and serial murderers are sociopathic.
I can figure that out without google. It's interesting that wolfgang can't.
To harken is to do more than just listen. But I'm guessing you know this and just wish to bust my chops over this trivial detail.
That's a better example of misdirection, though. Subtle and not immediately obvious. Making me waste more time explaining myself for no reason. FMF might approve.
Originally posted by JS357 Yes but I suspect a distinct minority of murders are mass and serial murder.
Sociopathy is a specific diagnosed disorder but the word is used by lay people more loosely.
That's true. I'm also guessing that most murderers aren't exactly "salt of the earth"/"heart of gold" types. By murdering someone, one is, almost by definition, putting one's needs ahead of society's.
Originally posted by wolfgang59 Correct. Serial killers are sociopaths.
The 2011 UN study does not give any information on sociopathy, however the
breakdowns suggest that sociopaths are not the majority of killers.
For instance page 11 shows that worldwide 70% of females are killed by their spouse, exspouse, relative or acquaintance. The figure is 50% for males. Clearly these are ...[text shortened]... w.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/statistics/Homicide/Globa_study_on_homicide_2011_web.pdf
Wow. You read a paper, now suddenly you're a psychologist.
Originally posted by Suzianne To harken is to do more than just listen. But I'm guessing you know this and just wish to bust my chops over this trivial detail.
That's a better example of misdirection, though. Subtle and not immediately obvious. Making me waste more time explaining myself for no reason. FMF might approve.
Who cares what "harken" means, it's a stoopid word to use in a debate.
Originally posted by Suzianne That's a better example of misdirection, though. Subtle and not immediately obvious. Making me waste more time explaining myself for no reason. FMF might approve.
Try not to talk like Shakespeare and people won't get distracted.
Things You'd Rather Die Than Do
16 Oct '14 23:02
Back to Top