Death penalty: For or Against?

[ariastar]

Which, and why?

[tokenuser]

For. The whole biblical "eye for an eye" thing had some merit. There needs to be a punishment for life without parole ... because for some, that would be the best life they would ever have anyway.

I am against vigilante justice though. Capital punishment should only ever be considered when there was a loss of life, and after full judicial process has been followed. It also needs to be tightened up - 20 years on death row is just life with no parole.

[masherscf]

For. The whole biblical "eye for an eye" thing had some merit.

There's just as much biblical precedent toward forgiveness. Indeed, that was part of Jesus's entire message. Jesus spoke directly on the matter of capital punishment when he intervened in a stoning saying,"He who is without sin, cast the first stone." Indeed, the eventual unjust execution of Jesus seems to suggest a biblical disapproval of such things. If course, for you old testimate folk, there is a rather unambiguous commandment against killing.

In the words of Tolkien, "Some people who die derserve life, some people who live deserve death, would you deal it to them..., not even the wise can forsee all ends."

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Pro.

As for why -- I'm not like com, I see someone kill my family, you die. I don't just say: "Oh well, that sucks."

If someone kills someone else, that's still someone's family. They deserve justice.

If bad guys don't like it, here's a thought. DON'T FUCKING KILL PEOPLE.

[tokenuser]

As someone that is not religious at all, the "eye for an eye" tagline is just a pithy comment.

There are some crimes that are so harsh that permanent incarceration should not be the ultimate penalty. For those crimes it needs to be the death penalty ... but it should not be used for all crimes. Unless murder was involved, it should not be an option.

I am also pro-choice. With uneven laws across the country, that could mean that woman who has an abortion is considered a murderer, and could be sentenced to the death penalty. In reality, that scenario is unlikey, but the laws need to be carefully worded to protect personal rights and personal security to clearly define when capital punishment is an option.

It also needs to be a federal law, an not something determined on a state by state (or even county) basis. We are defining the value of a human life here - and saying that the exchange rate on a life is worth more or less in one state vs another is inconsistent.

[masherscf]

Pro.

As for why -- I'm not like com, I see someone kill my family, you die. I don't just say: "Oh well, that sucks."

If someone kills someone else, that's still someone's family. They deserve justice.

If bad guys don't like it, here's a thought. DON'T FUCKING KILL PEOPLE.

Well, I'm of two minds. If someone tries to hurt my family, they'll die by my hand. I'm willing to bear the responsibility for that with the justice system and with God.

What I don't like is people codifying revenge-murder into the legal system as a way to reflect responsibility. Family victims understandability want to see the guilty party suffer and die, but sometimes are unwilling to shoulder the responsibility for that murder.

On the other hand, I'm willing to accept the death penalty on practical grounds. I don't think fulfilling the revenge-murder motives of family victims is part of that.

This where I'll part company with many. Just as the accused state of hatred shouldn't have a bearing on the level of punishment, I don't think that a victim's passion for revenge has any bearing either. What if the victim's family are Quakers or Mennonites and the publicly forgive the murderer. Does that mean the murder should get a lighter sentence? I don't think so.


It also needs to be a federal law, an not something determined on a state by state (or even county) basis. We are defining the value of a human life here - and saying that the exchange rate on a life is worth more or less in one state vs another is inconsistent.

Many of the social issues are decided state-by-state. Part of the American way of doing things is a Federal Government having less control of issues that local communities should be able to decide for themselves. I think what may be acceptable for smaller communities may not hold for larger cities.

[bigshotprof]

Against, because you can't come back from it.

[phatlip12]

Against. I don't think it makes sense to teach a murderer his lesson buy murdering him/her. Do as I say not as I do?

The issue of the death penalty came up in my sociology class recently. My professor said he's against it because under certain circumctances a person will admite to anything.

He visited a man that was on death row several years ago. The man admittted to shooting several people coming out of a 7-11. While speaking to my professor though, the man denied it and said he was tortured into a confession. He claimed the police put electrodes on his testicles and shocked him to get him to confece to the crime. My professor told the man he thought that was BS. The man then stood up, dropped his pants and pulled his testicles out which had scars from burns on them. My professor said he had no idea if those scars were from the police or from "OTHER things the guy was maybe into" but said he would always remember that and that played a major role in his views on capital punishment from that point on.

[njshadow]

I'm for it. If you kill someone there really isn't any punishment that can fit that other than the death penalty. I basically agree exactly with what Crumbles posted.

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

[masherscf]

I'm for it. If you kill someone there really isn't any punishment that can fit that other than the death penalty. I basically agree exactly with what Crumbles posted.

Jesus disagrees...

[njshadow]

Jesus disagrees...

Actually he doesn't.

[masherscf]

Actually he doesn't.

Quote me Jesus's actual words on the matter. The place in the Bible where he says it's okay to murder someone for transgressing. I think you'll discover the only time that Jesus is witness to an act of capital punishment, he intervenes.

The key tenant of Christian thought is to forgive those who wrong you, no matter how severe the wrong. It's a hard ideal to live, I agree. But, Jesus demands no less of his followers.

I don't know what they teach you, but it's not Christianity.

[njshadow]

Quote me Jesus's actual words on the matter. The place in the Bible where he says it's okay to murder someone for transgressing. I think you'll discover the only time that Jesus is witness to an act of capital punishment, he intervenes.

The key tenant of Christian thought is to forgive those who wrong you, no matter how severe the wrong. It's a hard ideal to live, I agree. But, Jesus demands no less of his followers.

I don't know what they teach you, but it's not Christianity.

Actually, Jesus never talks about forgiving anyone for murder. They were going to stone Mary Magdalene for prostitution which is in fact, wrong. The Bible never says that prostitution is punishable by death but it DOES say that murder is. Take a moment and think first.

[tokenuser]

Actually, Jesus never talks about forgiving anyone for murder. They were going to stone Mary Magdalene for prostitution which is in fact, wrong. The Bible never says that prostitution is punishable by death but it DOES say that murder is. Take a moment and think first.Really?

"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you... whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." Mat. 5:38-39

Forgiveness. Its the only law from the old testament Jesus basically repelled.

[masherscf]

Actually, Jesus never talks about forgiving anyone for murder. They were going to stone Mary Magdalene for prostitution which is in fact, wrong. The Bible never says that prostitution is punishable by death but it DOES say that murder is. Take a moment and think first.

I did think. Jesus did not believe in answering murder with another murder. There are many Christian denominations that believe vehemently that the death penalty is anti-Christian. Among these are the radicals of the Roman Catholic Church like the Pope. If your church believes in the death penalty, it's outside mainstream Christian beliefs.

But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. Mathew 5:39

[njshadow]

I did think. Jesus did not believe in answering murder with another murder. There are many Christian denominations that believe vehemently that the death penalty is anti-Christian. Among these are the radicals of the Roman Catholic Church like the Pope. If your church believes in the death penalty, it's outside mainstream Christian beliefs.

But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. Mathew 5:39

Only they're not smiting you on the cheek, they've killed you, so most likely your cheek is decomposing right now. That's a verse taken out of context a lot around here.

[tokenuser]

Except that Jesus is talking about revenge ... as in "not taking revenge for a wrong that has been done to you."

It is a metaphysical cheek and not a physical assault to an individual.

===
As mentioned earlier, I am all for the death penalty ... but I am not going to try to hide behind the bible to justify it.

[njshadow]

Except that Jesus is talking about revenge ... as in "not taking revenge for a wrong that has been done to you."

It is a metaphysical cheek and not a physical assault to an individual.

Yeah, I know that. The death penalty doesn't necessarily mean it's revenge. That's why it's called a PENALTY. The ref isn't trying to get revenge on a a player when calling a high-sticking penalty, that's what you get as a result of what you did.

[xibalba]

smite
1: to strike sharply or heavily especially with the hand or an implement held in the hand
2 a: to kill or severely injure by smiting b: to attack or afflict suddenly and injuriously
3: to cause to strike
4: to affect as if by striking

:D

[njshadow]

smite
1: to strike sharply or heavily especially with the hand or an implement held in the hand
2 a: to kill or severely injure by smiting b: to attack or afflict suddenly and injuriously
3: to cause to strike
4: to affect as if by striking

:D

Yeah, and obviously they weren't talking about killing in the verse since he survived after the first smite to turn the other cheek.

So...............:D

[masherscf]

Yeah, I know that. The death penalty doesn't necessarily mean it's revenge. That's why it's called a PENALTY. The ref isn't trying to get revenge on when calling a high-sticking penalty, that's what you get as a result of what you did.


1. You shall not worship any other god but God.
2. You shall not make a graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of God in vain.
4. You shall not break the Sabbath.
5. You shall not dishonor your parents.
6. You shall not kill.
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not commit perjury.
10. You shall not covet.





Seems pretty unambiguous to me. There's no footnote here allowing for killing for judicial judgment.

[burkhartmj]

Jesus disagrees...

Jesus doesn't disagree. As was stated by Token [despite him not saying it for religious reasons], the stoning was an example of vigilante justice. Beyond people being angry, there was no court system that issued for the stoning, just a bloodthirsty mob. that's vastly different from capital punishment, which is exercised by a government.

I heard awhile back that God holds government as a sacred institution, which would give it the right of capital punishment, but don't take my word for it. I need to see if I can find the verse that was referred to when I was told that.

EDIT: and the turn the other cheek verse is also referring to issues between individuals, not the punitive law of a government. Between individuals, forgiveness and "turning the other cheek" should be exercised, but governments are not individuals, and are not seeking vengeance or revenge for a crime. Strictly punishment.

It's not like it's easy to get capital punishment. It takes an excessively violent crime, and then the courts give the defendant ample chance to appeal [remember in the hate crime thread about the guy sentenced to death in 1972 going through his last appeal just recently?]. Not even straight up murder can get you death penalty, there have to be extra circumstances warranting the harsher penalty.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

6. You shall not kill.

Seems pretty unambiguous to me. There's no footnote here allowing for killing for judicial judgment.Actually there is. First, you should read "how good is good enough." Second, that's referring to killing people without cause. Innocent people. Someone who kills someone is hardly innocent.

God ordered the destruction of entire cities, just to allow the Jews to have a homeland in the Middle East.

What about the flood? God killed everyone except Noah, his wife, his sons, and their wives in the flood.

The question is were they killed unjustly.

[njshadow]

1. You shall not worship any other god but God.
2. You shall not make a graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of God in vain.
4. You shall not break the Sabbath.
5. You shall not dishonor your parents.
6. You shall not kill.
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not commit perjury.
10. You shall not covet.





Seems pretty unambiguous to me. There's no footnote here allowing for killing for judicial judgment.

I'm pretty sure it means DO NOT KILL as in you are not to murder anyone. The death penalty is not murder. My verse about the death penalty came from the same book.

[tokenuser]

Seems pretty unambiguous to me. There's no footnote here allowing for killing for judicial judgment.Actually there is some ambiguity that arises from the translation of the word "murder" and "kill" from Hebrew to English. Same/similar word with slightly different meaning that needs to be read in context to derive actual intent of the meaning.

[tokenuser]

I'm pretty sure it means DO NOT KILL as in you are not to murder anyone. The death penalty is not murder. My verse about the death penalty came from the same book.So, intentionally taking another persons life is not murder?

There goes the anti-abortion argument.

[masherscf]

I'm pretty sure it means DO NOT KILL as in you are not to murder anyone. The death penalty is not murder. My verse about the death penalty came from the same book.

The death penalty is murder.

[njshadow]

The death penalty is murder.

Oops, I should have thought before posting that. You're right.

[bigshotprof]

Most of these pro-death penalty posts presume to know that the person who did it actually did it. We are finding out more and more every day how often we are wrong about that. Of course we would all like to strike out and take the life of someone who killed our families (many of you are pretty confident that you have what it takes to do it), but winnowing out the ill-advised passionate response is why we have a judicial system. I for one am sure that were I murdered I would not want someone I cared about to exact revenge. I wouldn't want that soul crushing weight on anybody I loved.

Oh and for the record, knowing that the killer was killed really doesn't help.

[tokenuser]

How often is the death penalty actually used?

When it is used:
It is not issued lightly.
It is not issued as a revenge.
It is not issued by the family.

The death penalty is the most severe form of punishment the US judicial system has for committing a crime (murder ... can;t it be used for other crimes?).

It is supposed to be a deterent, not a solution.

But, there are some crimes that are seen as being so heinous, that incarceration is too light a sentence.

Will there be people wrongly convicted? There always are. You would hope that the number of those is decreasing with increased evidence gathering methods. There also needs to be an appeals process - so that a second opinion can be determined. Those aspects and safeguards are in place. Its not like the old days with the judge riding into town on a Friday morning, sentence being issued by lunch time, and the hanging taking place over the branch of the old oak tree on Saturday. That level of "instant revenge" has gone.

[ariastar]

Actually he doesn't.

Forgiveness, let he who has not sinned cast the first stone, turn the other cheek...

[ariastar]

1. You shall not worship any other god but God.
2. You shall not make a graven image.
3. You shall not take the name of God in vain.
4. You shall not break the Sabbath.
5. You shall not dishonor your parents.
6. You shall not kill.
7. You shall not commit adultery
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not commit perjury.
10. You shall not covet.





Seems pretty unambiguous to me. There's no footnote here allowing for killing for judicial judgment.

Exactly. If there's some asterisk pointing somewhere else where there is a list of exceptions to these rules, I'd like to see it.

[ariastar]

Disturbing that people believe their superstitions should be the basis for what is done, even against those who don't believe in those superstitions. How about thinking for yourselves rather than because someone who many people don't believe exists (god) supposedly said something according to some other people. People take out of context what others say all the time.

I believe the death penalty should be abolished. Our system isn't infallible. Innocent people have been released from even death row after being exonerated. Putting to death innocent people is murder just the same as a lady sitting at home killed by an intruder. Killing innocent people to try to make sure some guilty people are killed too is wrong. These people shouldn't be seen as collateral murders.

Murder trials are emotional for all. Including the jury. They may not want to condemn a person to death, but they're going to end up so wrapped up emotionally that they want to see someone, anyone, pay for the murders they have to look at in photographs. An innocent person is far more likely to pay than a guilty person is to walk (OJ is the exception I can think of who walked).

When it comes to money, it costs a lot more to pay for all those appeals that must be used before someone is finally put to death than to jail them for life. Take out the TVs and what luxuries there are and bring back good ol' fashioned chain gangs. Make inmates work for their keep. True, some innocent people will be there, but at least they won't die. Once dead, there's no chance of being released because you were found innocent - because you're dead. Work the inmates, and if someone is found innocent, all the wages that person earned that prior to them had been going to pay his keep should instead go to that person, including interest, to help get his/her life back on track.

[tokenuser]

A question not worth its own thread ... but in keeping with the current theme.

Euthanasia. We are not talking about 14yo Japanese schoolgirls, but the ability for someone to choose to end their own life.

If they do it themselves ... it is called suicide.
If someone helps ... it is called assisted suicide by some, murder by others.

So - how does this relate to the death penalty? Is the death penalty actually assisted suicide? If someone repents for their crime, and accepts the death penalty, why do the assisted suicide statutes not come into play?

The legal aspects of death are amazing.

http://www.quizilla.com/user_images/L/Lorac/1034605593_turesdeath.jpg

[burkhartmj]

A question not worth its own thread ... but in keeping with the current theme.

Euthanasia. We are not talking about 14yo Japanese schoolgirls, but the ability for someone to choose to end their own life.

If they do it themselves ... it is called suicide.
If someone helps ... it is called assisted suicide by some, murder by others.

So - how does this relate to the death penalty? Is the death penalty actually assisted suicide? If someone repents for their crime, and accepts the death penalty, why do the assisted suicide statutes not come into play?

The legal aspects of death are amazing.

I'm on the fence about doctor-assisted suicide. I can see it's merits, but I don't think it's a good path to go down. As far as your question in relation to the death penalty, it wouldn't be assisted suicide because A] the verdict was handed down as punishment without consulting the person convicted, and B] according to your phrasing, he wouldn't want to die, he'd just be resigned to the fact that he deserves to die.

I imagine if someone yelled at the judge that they wanted the death penalty, they'd likely steer themselves towards a mental hospital instead, because the judge wouldn't be comfortable A] giving into the desires of the criminal, and B] usually being so adamant about being killed is a pretty good indicator of mental health issues.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

A question not worth its own thread ... but in keeping with the current theme.

Euthanasia.Good question. Not sure how I feel about that one. I guess when God wants me, He'll take me.

[tokenuser]

Good question. Not sure how I feel about that one. I guess when God wants me, He'll take me.And if God doesn't want you, will you be doomed to an eternity of hell with the rest of us heathen, unwashed masses?

[ariastar]

Assisted suicide is the desire of the person who will die. The death penalty, when passed down, is not. Even if the person comes to accept it, or even feel it's deserved and consent to it, that doesn't change the fact that when the sentence was ordered it was against what the person wanted.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

And if God doesn't want you, will you be doomed to an eternity of hell with the rest of us heathen, unwashed masses?What are your religious beliefs token?

[tokenuser]

What are your religious beliefs token?Null and void. More agnostic than atheist. Belief that actions are not dictated by a higher power, but come from within (ie the "take responsibility for your own actions" doctrine). Belief in the act of "fair play" (ie the "do unto others" clause, with the addition of "all actions have a consequence"). That leads to more of an eastern philosophy (which I am yet to identify) than a western religion.

[secret-steve-crumbles]

Null and void. More agnostic than atheist.By agnostic do you mean you believe in a God, you just don't know which, or do you mean the existence of God is impossible to prove, so you don't bother.

Just as a footnote, I do know what agnostic means, but you'd be surprised how many people I talk to think that agnostic means one thing when it means the other...

[tokenuser]

By agnostic do you mean you believe in a God, you just don't know which, or do you mean the existence of God is impossible to prove, so you don't bother.

Just as a footnote, I do know what agnostic means, but you'd be surprised how many people I talk to think that agnostic means one thing when it means the other...The existence of God is impossible to prove, so I don't bother.

Whether or not there is a God pretty much means the same thing to me. I am not hedging my bets that there might be a God. If there is ... so be it, without embracing organised religion, I still live a life that many would find "Christian" without the hypocrisy surrounding such an imposed belief structure. If there's not a God (my Atheist leaning) I'm not particualry worried either - but I don't treat people one way or another because that is the "Christian" thing to do, I treat them that way because it is the right thing to do ... and I'll become worm food just as easily as they will.

[esophagus]

Death Penalty: Firmly against it. Not something that you can exactly correct. I don't think death is a fitting punishment for anything. Not even murder. Especially not when revenge seems to be the prime motive.

Euthenasia: I don't think it should be illegal, but I don't think it should be something people just do. A lot of thought needs to go into that one.

[comhcinc]

Most of these pro-death penalty posts presume to know that the person who did it actually did it. We are finding out more and more every day how often we are wrong about that.

that is pretty much my take on it.

Question: if a person is put on death row and then killed and later it is found to be innocent who is punished and how? according to this whole "eye for an eye" thing everyone one keeps talking about it would seem to me some one else now has to die. so who? the guy that "pulled the switch''? the juror? the d.a. ? the judge? the detectives? all of the above? that is a death.


It is supposed to be a deterrent, not a solution. is there any proof that it is any more of a deterrent and life without parole?

[guytheninja]

I did think. Jesus did not believe in answering murder with another murder. There are many Christian denominations that believe vehemently that the death penalty is anti-Christian. Among these are the radicals of the Roman Catholic Church like the Pope. If your church believes in the death penalty, it's outside mainstream Christian beliefs.

But I say to you, That you resist not evil: but whoever shall smite you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also. Mathew 5:39

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more".
John 8:3-11

Indeed I think this is good evidence that Jesus Christ was against capital punishment. I agree with you.

[masherscf]

Indeed I think this is good evidence that Jesus Christ was against capital punishment. I agree with you.

The biggest irony is that Jesus himself was executed by the state for capital crimes that he didn't commit.

The idea that Jesus would approve of putting a person to death in his name is a blasphemy. I understand execution as a law enforcement tool, but it is not mandated by Christianity. Jesus died for everyone.

[bigshotprof]

[I]"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

And out of the crowd did run a woman bent with age who did pick up a large stone and did smite the adulterer. Jesus turned to the woman and did say "Mom!!??"

[comhcinc]

And out of the crowd did run a woman bent with age who did pick up a large stone and did smite the adulterer. Jesus turned to the woman and did say "Mom!!??"

dude come on, there is a lot of proof that could not have happen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeq2Utm0nU

[njshadow]

"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
11She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more".
John 8:3-11

Indeed I think this is good evidence that Jesus Christ was against capital punishment. I agree with you.

Um, did you not read my post? Mary Madelene was a prostitute, thus she should not have been stoned or condemned to death. It was THE STATE/TOWN that condemned here to death, not God/Jesus so of course he would say go and sin no more, it wasn't a sin punishable by death.

[masherscf]

Um, did you not read my post? Mary Madelene was a prostitute, thus she should not have been stoned or condemned to death. It was THE STATE/TOWN that condemned here to death, not God/Jesus so of course he would say go and sin no more, it wasn't a sin punishable by death.

Was that Mary? Or, just generic adulteress number 10? I thought Mary was the washing the feet with the tears chick.

[comhcinc]

Um, did you not read my post? Mary Madelene was a prostitute, thus she should not have been stoned or condemned to death. It was THE STATE/TOWN that condemned here to death, not God/Jesus so of course he would say go and sin no more, it wasn't a sin punishable by death.
Um, have you read the bible? Under Mosaic law, prostitution was a stoneable offensive. see those pharisees guys? another name for those guys are judges.

for some one who claims to be christan you continually show that you don't really have a clue

[njshadow]

Um, have you read the bible? Under Mosaic law, prostitution was a stoneable offensive. see those pharisees guys? another name for those guys are judges.

for some one who claims to be christan you continually show that you don't really have a clue

The pharisees were corrupt and I don't think they were judges. Yes, they were seen as religious scholars but were often arrogant and, like I said, corrupt.

[masherscf]

The pharisees were corrupt and I don't think they were judges. Yes, they were seen as religious scholars but were often arrogant and, like I said, corrupt.

So, capital punishment is not valid if the legal system is corrupt?

[burkhartmj]

Mashercf, I understand if you're not comfortable or something, but what is your religious stance? I'm just curious, if you wanna take it to PM's that's cool.

[comhcinc]

The pharisees were corrupt and I don't think they were judges. Yes, they were seen as religious scholars but were often arrogant and, like I said, corrupt.

according to this page (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sadducees_pharisees_essenes.html) the pharisees interpreted the torah laws with an oral tradition. interpreting laws, sounds like judges to me.

[comhcinc]

Mashercf, I understand if you're not comfortable or something, but what is your religious stance? I'm just curious, if you wanna take it to PM's that's cool.
you know that shouldn't matter at all to this litte debate. there are plenty of information on the bible and plenty of religious leaders (like the pope) who find that jesus was against such punishments.

[masherscf]

Mashercf, I understand if you're not comfortable or something, but what is your religious stance? I'm just curious, if you wanna take it to PM's that's cool.

I'm a life-long Episcopalian. My dad was a priest. My dad was one of the smartest and most rational men I have ever known. He was a Ph.D. history professor before he felt called. He had a rock solid perspective of Christian history and read the Bible in it's original text. He believed in Jesus but he also believed in people.

As a career Mathematician, I can't divorce myself from that cold perspective. I believe in the big bang. I don't believe in creation or intelligent design. I believe the Universe creates life because that's what it was meant for. I believe we're more than the sum of our parts.

I believe that a person can live righteously every day and never hear of the name "Jesus" and that person will be saved.

The rest, I'll keep to myself.

[guytheninja]

I'm a life-long Episcopalian. My dad was a priest. My dad was one of the smartest and most rational men I have ever known. He was a Ph.D. history professor before he felt called. He had a rock solid perspective of Christian history and read the Bible in it's original text. He believed in Jesus but he also believed in people.

As a career Mathematician, I can't divorce myself from that cold perspective. I believe in the big bang. I don't believe in creation or intelligent design. I believe the Universe creates life because that's what it was meant for. I believe we're more than the sum of our parts.

I believe that a person can live righteously every day and never hear of the name "Jesus" and that person will be saved.

The rest, I'll keep to myself.

Christian philosophers and apologists actually use the Big Bang in one of the arguments for the existence of God -- The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument

Islamic apologists have contributed to this argument as well.

[esophagus]

The pharisees were corrupt and I don't think they were judges. Yes, they were seen as religious scholars but were often arrogant and, like I said, corrupt.
And our legal system is perfect? Again, what about the people wrongfully accused?

[sir_scutter]

My problem with the death penalty is that it's under government control.

Please go to http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ to see some interesting statistics. The government screws everything else up, why let them have control over something so serious.

We are talking about killing a human being. I don't care who it is. Feed him cheap food and lock him up forever. I'll pay for it if it saves lives. I don't see the legitimacy in a program that forces me from my money and on top of that uses it to murder others. (I guess I'm against the military, huh). And eye for an eye is barbaric and biblical (and yes I used both those terms as negative things).

That being said, I know if it was my family member who was murdered, I'd wanna kill the son of a bitch. But the emotional shouldn't be making the decisions.

[phatlip12]

As a career Mathematician, I can't divorce myself from that cold perspective. I believe in the big bang.


I believe this as well but view it as the scientific explanation of gods work. Now, having such a belief obviously means I don't believe in the bible word by word.

I believe in Jesus and accept him as my savior etc. So, that by definition makes me a christian. However, all the other stuff falls into the beliefs of the church of Phatty.

[cacogen]

For. The whole biblical "eye for an eye" thing had some merit. There needs to be a punishment for life without parole ... because for some, that would be the best life they would ever have anyway.

I am against vigilante justice though. Capital punishment should only ever be considered when there was a loss of life, and after full judicial process has been followed. It also needs to be tightened up - 20 years on death row is just life with no parole.


Certainly there are people that deserve death. That is certainly not the point for anyone who thinks at all. Civilized governments are not empowered to kill innocent people. To the extent that capital punishment leads to the possibility or probability, that innocent people are put to death with state sanction, it should not be policy. Better for the vicious to receive a life of imprisonment, as default, than for there to be a possibility that innocent people are destroyed. If Kant were alive I would love to tell him to go f@ck himself.

[cacogen]

I believe this as well but view it as the scientific explanation of gods work. Now, having such a belief obviously means I don't believe in the bible word by word.

I believe in Jesus and accept him as my savior etc. So, that by definition makes me a christian. However, all the other stuff falls into the beliefs of the church of Phatty.

That's fine, but what if I assured you that Jesus' real name is "Apollo?" You think the Universe is governed by some Jewish fellow that flew up into the sky, and can now read your thoughts?

I hope you don't expect rational people to go in for that horsesh!t.

[burkhartmj]

you know that shouldn't matter at all to this litte debate. there are plenty of information on the bible and plenty of religious leaders (like the pope) who find that jesus was against such punishments.

I wasn't asking for the sake of the debate, hence offering to move to PMs, I was just curious because he was using very Christian language and terminology.

EDIT: That's fine, but what if I assured you that Jesus' real name is "Apollo?" You think the Universe is governed by some Jewish fellow that flew up into the sky, and can now read your thoughts?

I hope you don't expect rational people to go in for that horsesh!t.

Move it to a different or new thread. This isn't about attacking or disproving religious beliefs. I was simply asking a question of curiosity but apparently that was enough to start the painful derailment of the thread. Sorry guys.

[ryudo]

Shut up with the religious crap.
It's a politics forum and a thread about death penalty.
(yeah yeah sure you can put witty jokes how religion and politics are side by side) But please keep religion out of this.

Bible thump else ware please.:rolleyes:

[tokenuser]

Shut up with the religious crap.
It's a politics forum and a thread about death penalty.
(yeah yeah sure you can put witty jokes how religion and politics are side by side) But please keep religion out of this.

Bible thump else ware please.:rolleyes:I'd agree for most areas, but items such as the death penalty, and pro-choice are so tied up with personal emotions - often centred around religious beliefs - that in this case you can't really have one without the other.

If this specific topic was on taxes (hmmm, temples of money lenders) or universal health care (screw the sumaritans) then religion would have less to do with it.

[masherscf]

Christian philosophers and apologists actually use the Big Bang in one of the arguments for the existence of God -- The Kalam Cosmological Argument.

People who are looking for certainty in the universe are going to be sadly disappointed. Not even things that are scientifically accepted can be tangibly observed with 100% accuracy. Heisenburg's uncertainly principle is an uncomfortable truth about the nature of the Universe, not everything is knowable. The cosmos neither proves or disproves god because the cosmos doesn't require a god. We're humans, we're a product of this cosmos. We are inside it and capable only of observing things within it.

As humans, our brain was wired by a million years of survival. It's difficult for us to naturally visualize anything outside that experience. For, example with visualize the universe in three dimensions that operate under a rectangular geometry where the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and parallel lines never meet. However, Einstien's general theory of relativity, that has been verified by experiment, describes a universe with a hyperbolic geometry. Humans, when confronted with this geometry, instinctively reject it.

What do I believe? Jesus was born and walked on the Earth. Jesus had important things to teach us about how we should act towards other humans. Jesus taught us to stop being for just ourselves. Jesus was crucified for crimes he didn't commit. Jesus is an example for how we should bear pain for others and not hate them for it. Jesus returned from the crucifixion. Did he rise from the dead? The people at the time thought so. Can I explain it? I wasn't there. In modern times, people have often "risen from the dead" when viewed from an ancient perspective. Some even call it a miracle. The Bible is a second hand account at best. But, people believe he resurrected and that's important. However, Jesus did not remain on earth for long after that. Jesus's spirit is still an important social factor in human society.

[phatlip12]

That's fine, but what if I assured you that Jesus' real name is "Apollo?" You think the Universe is governed by some Jewish fellow that flew up into the sky, and can now read your thoughts?

I hope you don't expect rational people to go in for that horsesh!t.

Ah I see. You're one of those elitist assholes that thinks you're better and smarter then anyone on the planet with religious beliefs. You do realize you just essentially called billions and billions of people stupid right? All because they don't believe the same thing you do. I'm sorry, I didn't realize anyone that didn't have the same opinion as yours was incapable of rational thought. You can't disprove anything I've said. Until you can and do, you sir the the one that's irrational.

Atheists like you crack me up. You're the type that bitches and moan about religious people. You probably complain that they cram their beliefs down your throat and won't shut up. Yet, you're the one that won't shut the hell up. You're the one that goes around passing judgement on people. You sir are the one that thinks everyone that doesn't think you're way is irrational. I never once looked down on an atheists for their beliefs.

You know. I may be a "religoius whacko" but at least I respect what other people believe in. Call me crazy, but I just believe you should at least disprove something a person says before you call them irrational. But what do I know? I'm just one of "those" people. But hey, if being a whacko means I respect others beliefs and wait to prove something wrong until I call it irrational I think I'll say a whacko.

This all sort of responds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wts-dntnyh4

Okay. I said everything I wanted to say. :)

[skyz]

against

buddha a mortal man who died a mortal death taught (as the first precept)against 'harming living beings'

in fact you are not supposed to even think harmful thoughts toward any living being

why ? because harmful deeds actions and thoughts / feelings end up harming the individual and society


it is not a matter of belief or faith it is a matter of ultimate logic

[bigshotprof]

And the LORD did travel among the Digitalia and traversed through the system of the tubes. And there he came upon a rabble. And the rabble had strange names and graven icons and did slander one another and did spew invective at their peers. Jesus looked upon the rabble and was not pleased. "Listen!" he said "and heed my new commandment. Thou shalt not be a dick to thy peers! . . . Now, logoff and call your mother; she misses you." And the rabble did disperse and did do as he commanded.

Save one, known among the rabble as Token, son of Mod, who did linger and ban the LORD for using the word dick in a public forum. Jesus went and would not pass this way again.

Twitterians II:3-5

So sayeth I, so sayeth the LORD.

[tokenuser]

Token, son of Mod, does not favour the worship of false Gods.
Blessed be the geek, for the geek shall inherit whats left of the earth.

[burkhartmj]

Well, those last 2 posts were pretty creepy. And I see that this thread has been completely derailed. Oh well.

[comhcinc]

creppy?

[tokenuser]

It was a typo. I think he meant "crappy".

[burkhartmj]

I definitely meant [and spelled correctly] "creepy" so I assume you're talking about comhcinc.

[tokenuser]

I definitely meant [and spelled correctly] "creepy" so I assume you're talking about comhcinc.I am pretty sure it said creppy when I replied. Odd.

[xibalba]

I am pretty sure it said creppy when I replied. Odd.

Maybe ya were tired and not seeing well.

[comhcinc]

i was making a joke. it turned out to be a very bad joke it seems.

[straylightrise]

not for it because taking a life for a life just doesn't make sense to me.

[cacogen]

And the LORD did travel among the Digitalia and traversed through the system of the tubes. And there he came upon a rabble. And the rabble had strange names and graven icons and did slander one another and did spew invective at their peers. Jesus looked upon the rabble and was not pleased. "Listen!" he said "and heed my new commandment. Thou shalt not be a dick to thy peers! . . . Now, logoff and call your mother; she misses you." And the rabble did disperse and did do as he commanded.

Save one, known among the rabble as Token, son of Mod, who did linger and ban the LORD for using the word dick in a public forum. Jesus went and would not pass this way again.

Twitterians II:3-5



So sayeth I, so sayeth the LORD.

Thanks, Dad. What would we do without you?

[cacogen]

People who are looking for certainty in the universe are going to be sadly disappointed. Not even things that are scientifically accepted can be tangibly observed with 100% accuracy. Heisenburg's uncertainly principle is an uncomfortable truth about the nature of the Universe, not everything is knowable. The cosmos neither proves or disproves god because the cosmos doesn't require a god. We're humans, we're a product of this cosmos. We are inside it and capable only of observing things within it.

As humans, our brain was wired by a million years of survival. It's difficult for us to naturally visualize anything outside that experience. For, example with visualize the universe in three dimensions that operate under a rectangular geometry where the shortest distance between two points is a straight line and parallel lines never meet. However, Einstien's general theory of relativity, that has been verified by experiment, describes a universe with a hyperbolic geometry. Humans, when confronted with this geometry, instinctively reject it.

What do I believe? Jesus was born and walked on the Earth. Jesus had important things to teach us about how we should act towards other humans. Jesus taught us to stop being for just ourselves. Jesus was crucified for crimes he didn't commit. Jesus is an example for how we should bear pain for others and not hate them for it. Jesus returned from the crucifixion. Did he rise from the dead? The people at the time thought so. Can I explain it? I wasn't there. In modern times, people have often "risen from the dead" when viewed from an ancient perspective. Some even call it a miracle. The Bible is a second hand account at best. But, people believe he resurrected and that's important. However, Jesus did not remain on earth for long after that. Jesus's spirit is still an important social factor in human society.

Let's say a teapot is in orbit around the sun. It's a nice teapot, but it's too small to be seen by any telescope that will ever be invented. I can't prove that teapot is non-existent. The likelihood of the existence of that teapot is nonetheless, not 50-50, far from it... (thanks to the quite dead B. Russell). ...you would think everyone's heard this stuff.

[travelingteam]

They should give the person a choice
1. Rot in jail till they die
2. Get Executed the same way they killed there victim. If they shot someone then they get shot. If they stabbed someone they get stabbed.

[skyz]

Um, did you not read my post? Mary Madelene was a prostitute, thus she should not have been stoned or condemned to death. It was THE STATE/TOWN that condemned here to death, not God/Jesus so of course he would say go and sin no more, it wasn't a sin punishable by death.

mary of magdela was not a prostitute nor an adulteress

the mary in danger of being stoned was mary of bethany

your confusion is understandable it was pope gregory who fostered this 'opinion'

mary of magdela was obviously an extraordinary woman especially for her day

she was the person closest to jesus the first witness to his resurrection and a major church leader after his death

christianity owes a lot to her

[guytheninja]

Let's say a teapot is in orbit around the sun. It's a nice teapot, but it's too small to be seen by any telescope that will ever be invented. I can't prove that teapot is non-existent. The likelihood of the existence of that teapot is nonetheless, not 50-50, far from it... (thanks to the quite dead B. Russell). ...you would think everyone's heard this stuff.

Yea, I've heard of that statement. I usually hear it from Dr. Ravi Zacharias's lectures on youtube.

Actually the God question is rather important. For instance...

1. Why is there something rather than nothing (one of the biggest questions in philosophy).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hv_kb3vGJ0

2. If God exists, has He given us morality (is morality subjective or objective), and is Anyone out there keeping score?
3. Is truth objective or subjective?
4. Are naturalism and evolution compatible, or must God be involved in order to guide evolution? (a question asked by Dr. Alvin Plantinga at Notre Dame)

Plantinga, R. "Naturalism Defeated". Unpublished. 1994. source (cited Sep 20, 2008) <http://philofreligion.homestead.com/files/alspaper.htm>

Dr. Plantinga's page: http://philofreligion.homestead.com/plantingapage.html

5. Does human life have meaning and value -- outside of our own minds? Are we just like the other animals? Or are we more than the sum of our parts?
6. etc.. etc...

A teapot, orbiting the sun has very little -- if any effect on our lives as human beings. The existence of God, and His very nature, has a direct effect on your life -- possibly an eternal effect.

Also, you don't have philosophy professors, spending their lives working on or revising philosophical arguments for and against the existence of some teapot in space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God

BTW, life long atheist philosopher, Dr. Anthony Flew, is now a deist -- based on evidence.

"Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces. He still stands behind this evidentialist approach, though he has been persuaded in recent years that such evidence exists, and his current position appears to be deism. In a December 2004 interview he said: I'm thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

"One month later, Flew told Christianity Today that although he was not on the road to becoming a Christian convert, he reaffirmed his deism: 'Since the beginning of my philosophical life I have followed the policy of Plato's Socrates: We must follow the argument wherever it leads.'" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew

I just think you should be aware that this question is far from answered on a philosophical level. In fact Dr. William Lane Craig argues that Christianity is leaving the "fundamentalist closet" and is going through a philosophical Renaissance right now -- in public universities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig