Ethical Question

[Kevin]

Flight (if possible) is an obligation. It is your duty to preserve your own life. The example of David fleeing (escaping) is a counter point to the citation of Godly men in the scripture who sat in jail.

One issue overlooked in the discussion here, is the nature of modern prison vs the ancient concept. In our day long terms are the norm as part of the punitive process. In the ancient world jail was mearly a holding place for (relativly) short periods of time. In the Hebrew law code it was unknown.

The fact that some men may (and have) forgone this opportunity to escape (such as Paul did with divine assistence!) for some reason does not prove that remaining incarcerarted is the "christians duty". in my opinion

 

[Anton Bruckner]

sorry for leaving this almost open ended guys. But when I say wrongly convicted, I mean that a real crime was committed, just not by you. The prosecutor was sincere, the jury was sincere and the judge was sincere and the cops were sincere. The only problem is, since they were not omniscient, they got the wrong guy "You". And you were wrongly convicted. Now the opportunity came to escape. Would you do it?

ps thanks for the preceeding responses and the eventual proceeding responses.

 

[Gryphonette]

He's not being in the slightest bit obtuse, AAMOF.

The difference between the two examples is rather glaring, surely? Murder is explicitly forbidden, while the same is not true of escaping from prison when unjustly accused/convicted.

Since we're told to obey the laws of the government so long as they are not in conflict with the laws of God, then a Christian could not murder upon the government's command, but could - and I'm thinking should - obey the government's law against escaping from prison.

I can see where it would be awfully tempting to escape if the opportunity arose, but isn't that basically indulging in a spot of situation ethics?

Unless the law specifically allows prisoners to escape so long as they didn't actually commit...to their own mind, anyway...the crime of which they've been accused, and I'm fairly certain there's no such caveat in any nation's laws. Including ours.

Considering fallen mankind's propensity for rationalizing sin, saying that it's permissible to break the law by escaping prison if one is convinced one has been wrongly accused/convicted is tantamount to erasing the law entirely. We're capable of convincing ourselves it wasn't really theft because we were owed money; it wasn't murder, it was self-defense; etc.

A few years ago at a mission luncheon at church we heard from someone who'd been to North Korea, training pastors. Naturally this is not acceptable to the government there, and the word had come down that the authorities were aware of the actual reason for the man's visit and where the meeting would take place, and was going to swoop down and arrest everyone.

The speaker admitted he was scared almost witless at the thought of winding up in a foreign prison, and there was discussion at the meeting with the pastors as to whether it should be canceled and moved. The pastors were puzzled as to why this should be necessary. Virtually all of them had spent time in prison for their faith, and as one of 'em put it, "I can evangelize just as well in prison as out of it! They need to hear the gospel, too, and if that's where the LORD wants me to preach it, that's where I'll be."

Humbled by these men's cheerful faith and ready acceptance of possible imprisonment, the meeting continued (with no visit from the authorities, BTW).

Point being, if we wind up in prison for a crime we didn't commit, it doesn't mean the LORD slipped up somehow. Presumably He wants us in that place at that time, for reasons of His own (evangelization of other prisoners or guards, whether through word or example?), and is perfectly capable of arranging us to leave without breaking the law through an illegal escape.

 

[RamistThomist]

originally posted by the Apostle Paul
II Cor. 11:32 In Damascus the governor under King Aretas had the city of the Damascenes guarded in order to arrest me. 33But I was lowered in a basket from a window in the wall and slipped through his hands.

So, I guess you can escape from the wicked, Rom. 13 Government if they are on their way to arrest you. But, if you have already been arrested, then you cannot escape... riiiight.

I'd also add that Kear posted of Peter escaping prison. I guess you could say, "But this was God's command. God's desire." But so it was too regarding Joseph and Daniel. So if the former can't be used to show that you can escape in some instances, then the latter can't be used to prove that you cannot escape in any instance. So, at best, those proof texts have been negated.

I cited reference to Paul doing precisely what many here said would be a no-no.

And so again, depending on the details given, my answer would be that I would in some instances, probably not in others. I spelled out some reasons why.

 

[Herald]

I am trying to prove - and I have quite succinctly - that Muslim law is on par with Egyptian or Babylonian. Both are as idolatrous and ungodly as Islam. If you're going to justify your escape on the fact your captors are Muslim, then you don't have biblical precedent. Now, as to your obligation to your family, that's not in question. We all have that - even those who are imprisoned in "Christian" nations.

But I didn't "justify it by the mere fact that they were Muslim."

And, I never disputed that one law was not on par with another (though that could be debated too). So, then your admitted "proof" was actually totally irrelevant to my post.

I wonder what you could be arguing. Something like this:

1. If Joseph and Daniel did X, then we should.

2. Joseph and Daniel satyed in jail.

3. Therefore we should stay in jail.

Okay, then you argument logically leads to you including your children in the covenant. If x = inclide your children in the covenant, that is. The argument would follow. I guess you coud deny P1, but then you don't have an argument. Which is why I asked you what you thoguht you were proving. It's either too little or too much.

I mean, c'mon now, using examples where people were told by God to stay put, and were part of redemptive history for revelatory purposes, isn't exactly the paradigm of analogicality!

So, as I said, what, exactly, were you trying to prove?

So far you've gave a self-defeating argument (in that it would refute your credo baptist views, which you don't want), and made a totally irrelevant (to my post) comment.

I'm heading out to work in few moments, so I will answer your post completely this evening. But answer me this: what does the OP, your post (that I responded to) and my reply have to do with baptism?

 

[Jim Johnston]

He's not being in the slightest bit obtuse, AAMOF.

.

Actually, he was.

I know the cases are different.

But, he postedsome verses with NO commentary.

This lead the reader to believe his argument was that you should saty put in jail if the gov. put you there because you should do *everythin* a gov. commands.

If this *wasn't* his argument, then without supplying commentary, he's made *no* point. if you don't *always* have to obey the gov. and you put forward *no* argument saying that x case is a case where you do, then you've done *nothing* to help the discussion out.

I just get bothered when people put forth a verse, and nothing else, and think that somehow proves their case. It's as if they are saying this: "Well of course I'm right, God's word is obviously on my side here."

So, yes, my point about Hitler was *very* relevant, and his comeback was obtuse.

 

[Jim Johnston]

I am trying to prove - and I have quite succinctly - that Muslim law is on par with Egyptian or Babylonian. Both are as idolatrous and ungodly as Islam. If you're going to justify your escape on the fact your captors are Muslim, then you don't have biblical precedent. Now, as to your obligation to your family, that's not in question. We all have that - even those who are imprisoned in "Christian" nations.

But I didn't "justify it by the mere fact that they were Muslim."

And, I never disputed that one law was not on par with another (though that could be debated too). So, then your admitted "proof" was actually totally irrelevant to my post.

I wonder what you could be arguing. Something like this:

1. If Joseph and Daniel did X, then we should.

2. Joseph and Daniel satyed in jail.

3. Therefore we should stay in jail.

Okay, then you argument logically leads to you including your children in the covenant. If x = inclide your children in the covenant, that is. The argument would follow. I guess you coud deny P1, but then you don't have an argument. Which is why I asked you what you thoguht you were proving. It's either too little or too much.

I mean, c'mon now, using examples where people were told by God to stay put, and were part of redemptive history for revelatory purposes, isn't exactly the paradigm of analogicality!

So, as I said, what, exactly, were you trying to prove?

So far you've gave a self-defeating argument (in that it would refute your credo baptist views, which you don't want), and made a totally irrelevant (to my post) comment.

I'm heading out to work in few moments, so I will answer your post completely this evening. But answer me this: what does the OP, your post (that I responded to) and my reply have to do with baptism?

I thought it was rather obvious. I even spelled it out with an argument above.

I say we can escape in some situations.

You say, "No, we can't, look at the examples of Daniel and Joseph."

I say, "What does that prove?" (drawing you into my web )

You say, "it proves those govs were sinful to, and they stayed."

I say, "Okay, so I guess your argument is:

1) If Jospeh and Daniel do x, we should too.

2) J & D stayed in jail.

3) We should too.

Now, if that *wasn't* your argument, they *what* were you trying to prove. That a Muslim country was "just as bad" as the countries that imprisoned J & D? Well, despite this questionable assumption (i.e., have you studied the ANE here? Read detailed histories of Egypt and Babylon, etc.? Have you studied modern reports on Muslim countries. Do you have any detailed analysis to go along with you claim, etc.), we can let it slide for now. Because even *if* it were true, it has no relevance to my argument. Unless, you assume something like the above argument (1-3).

If so, we can do this:

1) If Jospeh and Daniel do x, we should too.

2*) J & D did (or would have) included their children in the covenant, and given them the sign.

3*) We should too.

Now, this is valid just like my representation of your argument above. The only debatable premise is (1), if it is true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, you are bound to baptise your children!

Now, of course you can deny (1), but then what happens to your positive argument against my position? It vanishes.

So, either come up with another argument against my post, or become a paedobaptist!

 

[Jim Johnston]

I can see where it would be awfully tempting to escape if the opportunity arose, but isn't that basically indulging in a spot of situation ethics?

.

There's nothing wrong with a "spot of situation ethics."

Guess what, in some situations I would not lie, in others I would (to protect a wife from a husband looking to murder her).

Guess what, in some instances the right thing for me to do is to save your grandchild from a burning building, not in others (if *my own* child was in there and I only had time to save one. I have a higher moral obligation to my own children than yours).

Many, if not most, Christian ethicists have recognized a place for situational ethics within a broader Christian framework.

Read J.M. Frame's "Doctrine of the Christian Life" for a more robust defense of this position.

 

[Herald]

But I didn't "justify it by the mere fact that they were Muslim."

And, I never disputed that one law was not on par with another (though that could be debated too). So, then your admitted "proof" was actually totally irrelevant to my post.

I wonder what you could be arguing. Something like this:

1. If Joseph and Daniel did X, then we should.

2. Joseph and Daniel satyed in jail.

3. Therefore we should stay in jail.

Okay, then you argument logically leads to you including your children in the covenant. If x = inclide your children in the covenant, that is. The argument would follow. I guess you coud deny P1, but then you don't have an argument. Which is why I asked you what you thoguht you were proving. It's either too little or too much.

I mean, c'mon now, using examples where people were told by God to stay put, and were part of redemptive history for revelatory purposes, isn't exactly the paradigm of analogicality!

So, as I said, what, exactly, were you trying to prove?

So far you've gave a self-defeating argument (in that it would refute your credo baptist views, which you don't want), and made a totally irrelevant (to my post) comment.

I'm heading out to work in few moments, so I will answer your post completely this evening. But answer me this: what does the OP, your post (that I responded to) and my reply have to do with baptism?

I thought it was rather obvious. I even spelled it out with an argument above.

I say we can escape in some situations.

You say, "No, we can't, look at the examples of Daniel and Joseph."

I say, "What does that prove?" (drawing you into my web )

You say, "it proves those govs were sinful to, and they stayed."

I say, "Okay, so I guess your argument is:

1) If Jospeh and Daniel do x, we should too.

2) J & D stayed in jail.

3) We should too.

Now, if that *wasn't* your argument, they *what* were you trying to prove. That a Muslim country was "just as bad" as the countries that imprisoned J & D? Well, despite this questionable assumption (i.e., have you studied the ANE here? Read detailed histories of Egypt and Babylon, etc.? Have you studied modern reports on Muslim countries. Do you have any detailed analysis to go along with you claim, etc.), we can let it slide for now. Because even *if* it were true, it has no relevance to my argument. Unless, you assume something like the above argument (1-3).

If so, we can do this:

1) If Jospeh and Daniel do x, we should too.

2*) J & D did (or would have) included their children in the covenant, and given them the sign.

3*) We should too.

Now, this is valid just like my representation of your argument above. The only debatable premise is (1), if it is true, then the conclusion follows necessarily. Therefore, you are bound to baptise your children!

Now, of course you can deny (1), but then what happens to your positive argument against my position? It vanishes.

So, either come up with another argument against my post, or become a paedobaptist!

I hate to unravel your "web" but I believe words mean things. Show were I said that because Daniel and Joseph were imprisoned by ungodly captors that it prohibited you from escape. Read my words carefully. All I did was take away the relevance of your Muslim comment in relation to biblical precedent. In light of that I think you should revisit the whole or your retort.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

There's nothing wrong with a "spot of situation ethics."

*Gasp* He's a relativist!!!

 

[sastark]

So, either come up with another argument against my post, or become a paedobaptist!

QFT

 

[Jim Johnston]

I hate to unravel your "web" but I believe words mean things. Show were I said that because Daniel and Joseph were imprisoned by ungodly captors that it prohibited you from escape. Read my words carefully. All I did was take away the relevance of your Muslim comment in relation to biblical precedent. In light of that I think you should revisit the whole or your retort.

No, because my argument is multi-pronged.

You see, Bill, this is precisely why I asked you just what you thought you were proving.

You did not take away my Mulsim comment.

This is *exactly* what I said,

If it was---I don't know, say---in a country run by Muslim law, and they imprisoned me on trumped up charges while I was visiting, I would escape if I could.

I have a higher obligation to get back and be there for my family, honoring Muslim law isn't on the top of my priority list.

I never mentioned bad laws, Egypt, Babylon, etc.

I simply *described* a situation where I would try to escape if I could.

So, your comment, which is the other side of my web, has been rendered totally irrelvant.

I made an argument for why I could escape. You posted in response. Sorry, I guess I confused you for trying to make a relevant rebuttal to my argument.

So, we can agree, that as it stands now, you did nothing to undermine my argument and so my argument has been left unchallenged.

Btw, I *also* made an argument from the "ungodly" Roman gov. and II Cor. 11. That had the *opposite* conclusion you tried to draw. So, I have completely rendered your comments superfluous.

This was the intent.

This is why I asked you what you were trying to prove.

I knew you wouldn't accept the paedo reductio, so you took the other horn of the dilemma--irrelvance.

So I take it you agree that you have no put forward a positive case for why we shoulld *not* try to escape jail in any and all instances with your Joseph and Daniel comment.

Lastly, though I won't press you, you didn't prove what you think you did. You simply *asserted* that the govs and laws were on par. You have shown no detailed familiarity with the required background reading in order to make the claim you did.

So though your response to my post was irrelevant to my post, it also didn't prove what you (now) say it did. Assertions are not proofs.

This is all why I asked you what you thought you were trying to prove.

Sorry the web was so sticky.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Romans 13:1-5
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. [2] Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: [4] For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. [5] Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.


It would seem that conscience would dictate not escaping and trusting that God would vindicate you. In my humble opinion

Those "higher powers" are just as subject to God as you are. You have no duty to obey a higher power who is in direct violation of God's law. If they command something He forbids or forbid something He commands you have no duty to obey. Remember, ALL power is of God and is subject to His law.

 

[Pergamum]

I don't think so. I have also struggled with what to do in hard situations where it appears that no avenue exists to avoid one sin without committing another. In these cases, one must choose the higher principle, such as the lying to Nazis to prevent them from knowing you are hiding Jews classic scenario. This is far from relativism.

 

[DMcFadden]

Actually, depending upon the situation, we may be overthinking this one a bit.

If you "know" that the man is guilty because he says so, and he is asking you if it is appropriate to try to escape from an American prison, then be careful.

While some innocent people do get wrongly convicted, it is not uncommon for a guilty person to plead innocence to soft-hearted, well-intentioned Christians. How about them transient folks who come by the church office with their amazing stories of being a diabetic who cannot afford the insulin, or needing money to go see a sick relative, or the "pastor" who needs to fix the transmission on his car to get back to his family, etc. I am perhaps too cynical. However, it would take a lot to convince me that a prisoner was wrongly incarcerated and needed to get out via an illegal escape from an American prison.

 

[Christusregnat]

If a person is wrongfully convicted of a crime and is imprisoned and got an opportunity to escape what should he or she do?

This text is the first thing I thought of when I read your question.

Peter was therefore kept in prison, but constant prayer was offered to God for him by the church. And when Herod was about to bring him out, that night Peter was sleeping, bound with two chains between two soldiers; and the guards before the door were keeping the prison. Now behold, an angel of the Lord stood by him, and a light shone in the prison; and he struck Peter on the side and raised him up, saying, "Arise quickly!" And his chains fell off his hands. Then the angel said to him, "Gird yourself and tie on your sandals"; and so he did. And he said to him, "Put on your garment and follow me." So he went out and followed him, and did not know that what was done by the angel was real, but thought he was seeing a vision. When they were past the first and the second guard posts, they came to the iron gate that leads to the city, which opened to them of its own accord; and they went out and went down one street, and immediately the angel departed from him. And when Peter had come to himself, he said, "Now I know for certain that the Lord has sent His angel, and has delivered me from the hand of Herod and from all the expectation of the Jewish people." (Acts 12:5-11, NKJV)

So God helps Peter escape from prison. I wouldn't be too hasty to condemn it then.

Cheers,

 

[Jim Johnston]

Dennis, did you read the entire thread???

 

[etexas]

What about Providence? You are in some backwash Nation and they trump up charges to pinch your families life's savings! Now follow me! The jailor slaps you around one day then goes to his desk pulls out a bottle of homemade hootch and drinks till he passes out. You notice the front door is open! He never does this! Then you look and see the jailor left the keys in the lock! The jailor is a drunk and very cruel BUT he is always very careful about the keys and the doors! How do you not know this is the very Hand of Providence! I mean Brethren! That is how I would view it. Suppose you just did a peek around and outside is a jeep with his keys in switch! Are you going to say this might be the hand of Providence! Or, do you slide on back in, lock yourself in the cell and say "Boy-Howdy I am HOLY for not leaving!" Just a hypothetical!

 

[ChristopherPaul]

Obtuse?

Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse?
Warden Samuel Norton: What? What did you call me?
Andy Dufresne: Obtuse? Is it deliberate?
Warden Samuel Norton: You're forgetting yourself.

 

[Gryphonette]

Actually, he wasn't. Not "obtuse."

Now, if you want to say he wasn't as careful as he should have been to clarify his thoughts, fine.

That's not being obtuse, though. "Obtuse" has a specific meaning when used as you did, which pretty much is "thick as a brick."

You've every right to be bothered when someone sticks a verse or two out there without explanation or commentary, but it's outside the bounds of charity to call him or her obtuse.

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Actually, he wasn't. Not "obtuse."

Now, if you want to say he wasn't as careful as he should have been to clarify his thoughts, fine.

That's not being obtuse, though. "Obtuse" has a specific meaning when used as you did, which pretty much is "thick as a brick."

You've every right to be bothered when someone sticks a verse or two out there without explanation or commentary, but it's outside the bounds of charity to call him or her obtuse.

"Thick as a brick"...No, it's worse than that--

Obtuse: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect: INSENSITIVE, STUPID....(Merriam Webster's Deluxe Dictionary: Tenth Collegiate Edition

I didn't come here to be insulted. I done with this thread!

 

[Jim Johnston]

Actually, he wasn't. Not "obtuse."

Now, if you want to say he wasn't as careful as he should have been to clarify his thoughts, fine.

That's not being obtuse, though. "Obtuse" has a specific meaning when used as you did, which pretty much is "thick as a brick."

You've every right to be bothered when someone sticks a verse or two out there without explanation or commentary, but it's outside the bounds of charity to call him or her obtuse.

No it's not, especially when he knew perfectly well why he cited that verse.

He knew perfectly well what my Hitler comment meant.

I meant it as you say, so, yes, "obtuse."

 

[Gryphonette]

It's quite possible that TomBombadil wasn't clear on the definition of "obtuse", remember. I think it's one of those words a lot of people think they know how to use, but actually don't.

Dollars to donuts he'll apologize nicely.

 

[Jim Johnston]

Actually, he wasn't. Not "obtuse."

Now, if you want to say he wasn't as careful as he should have been to clarify his thoughts, fine.

That's not being obtuse, though. "Obtuse" has a specific meaning when used as you did, which pretty much is "thick as a brick."

You've every right to be bothered when someone sticks a verse or two out there without explanation or commentary, but it's outside the bounds of charity to call him or her obtuse.

"Thick as a brick"...No, it's worse than that--

Obtuse: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect: INSENSITIVE, STUPID....(Merriam Webster's Deluxe Dictionary: Tenth Collegiate Edition

I didn't come here to be insulted. I done with this thread!

I didn't come here to have verses dogmatically thrown out at me without any commentary as if I were so "obviously wrong" that a plain reading of the text would shut my argument up. I'm done with this thread!

 

[Jim Johnston]

ob·tuse /əbˈtus, -ˈtyus/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[uhb-toos, -tyoos] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. not quick or alert in perception, feeling, or intellect; not sensitive or observant; dull.
2. not sharp, acute, or pointed; blunt in form.
3. (of a leaf, petal, etc.) rounded at the extremity.
4. indistinctly felt or perceived, as pain or sound.

I meant it in sense #1, minus the "feeling."

Again, he intimated that: "whatever the goverment says you should obey, therefore if they say you are to saty in jail, you should, no matter what."

*That* was his argument. He *knows* that that was his intended meaning.

If it wasn't, then his post was irrelevant. But I'm giving him credit. He's sharper than to post an irrelevant post.

So I offer the reductio.

He says, "Those are aples and oranges."

Here's where he's being obtuse: (a) I knew that Hitler telling you to murder Jews wasn't the same as him telling you to stay in jail. (b) if he stayed with his intended meaning of the verse as it bears on the argument, he would have to say, "Oh, okay, I don't think we should *always* obey the gov." In which case I would say, "Okay, good, now present an actual *argument* for why we should *always* stay in jail under any gov. any circumstance, and for any reason." But that's harder to do. So, rather than get busy with an argument, he started acting obtuse as to my point.

My comment wasn't a name calling as in a play ground or school yard. It was presenting what I took to be the objective state of affairs given hgow I knew he was arguing. Now, the other option is that he didn't think we had to always obey the gov in any and all instances. But if *that* is the intended meaning, then I am at a loss as to the point of his posting Rom. 13. So, either he was being obtuse or irrelevant.

 

[sastark]

Just to clarify, obtuse can also mean "indirect or circuitous" - which would apply if someone posted a verse with out any explanation accompanying it.

See: obtuse - Wiktionary

 

[Presbyterian Deacon]

Actually, he wasn't. Not "obtuse."

Now, if you want to say he wasn't as careful as he should have been to clarify his thoughts, fine.

That's not being obtuse, though. "Obtuse" has a specific meaning when used as you did, which pretty much is "thick as a brick."

You've every right to be bothered when someone sticks a verse or two out there without explanation or commentary, but it's outside the bounds of charity to call him or her obtuse.

"Thick as a brick"...No, it's worse than that--

Obtuse: lacking sharpness or quickness of sensibility or intellect: INSENSITIVE, STUPID....(Merriam Webster's Deluxe Dictionary: Tenth Collegiate Edition

I didn't come here to be insulted. I done with this thread!

I didn't come here to have verses dogmatically thrown out at me without any commentary as if I were so "obviously wrong" that a plain reading of the text would shut my argument up. I'm done with this thread!

You presume too much. Simply because my post appeared after yours in the thread does not mean that it had anything to do with what you had written.

Fact of the matter is, I hadn't read your post until after I wrote mine.

Rather than judging me, and jumping to conclusions a reasonable question would have been, "Why did you cite that reference? Does it have bearing on what I wrote in the post before it?"

Then perhaps a reasonable discussion could have ensued. But alas, such is not the case!

 

[Jim Johnston]

"Thick as a brick"...No, it's worse than that--



I didn't come here to be insulted. I done with this thread!

I didn't come here to have verses dogmatically thrown out at me without any commentary as if I were so "obviously wrong" that a plain reading of the text would shut my argument up. I'm done with this thread!

You presume too much. Simply because my post appeared after yours in the thread does not mean that it had anything to do with what you had written.

Fact of the matter is, I hadn't read your post until after I wrote mine.

Rather than judging me, and jumping to conclusions a reasonable question would have been, "Why did you cite that reference? Does it have bearing on what I wrote in the post before it?"

Then perhaps a reasonable discussion could have ensued. But alas, such is not the case!

You should provide commentary along with your verse.

Anyway, either you took your verse to say that we should escape, or that we should't. The odds are, based on the verse, that you meant it to say we shouldn't. If you didn't meant it for either, then your post was more irrelevant that I previously thought. If you meant it that we should not escape, then my argument stands. If you meant it that we should try to escape, then I will offer apologies but also add that that is the weirdest bit of eisogesis I have ever seen. So, giving you the best credit, I read you as meaning that we should not try to escape. In that case, my comments stand.

 

[Gryphonette]

Speaking as a moderator, do yourself - and us - a favor and stop explaining.

You're not helping.

I'd prefer the whole thing be dropped right now. Okay, gentlemen? No need to respond.

Thanks ever so.

Anne

 

[Herald]

I'm done with this thread!

Really? We'll see.