Destino Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 I don't trust DA's and frankly I can't understand how anyone can. Hell Sean Taylor alone shows you how completely shady they are in how they charge people. That and the fact that we know for certain that innocent people are put on death row.... For me supporting the death penalty knowing all that means that I'd be supporting murder. Putting innocent people to death is murder. I favor life in prison because at least there is a chance that an innocent man can be set free. Live to see his name cleared and walk a free man no matter how late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Actually 'thrtzch means murderThe Jewish system had the avenger of blood who could kill someone guilty of murder. When does the killing stop? The avenger kills....in the name of god? Hmmmmm..... The bottom line is killing continues but what religious folks are saying is that some killing is justified while other killing is not. Murder is perception because war is murder as well. The only difference between murder and war is that war is state sponsored murder for what both sides percieve as a just cause. I just cannot see a GOD talking about of both sides of his/her/it's mouth... If I'm am not mistaken their is a bible verse that states God is not the author of confusion but this issue has produced more confusion than it has clarified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 No God isn't the author of confusion,therefore perhaps you should look at what is leading to your confusion on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 No God isn't the author of confusion,therefore perhaps you should look at what is leading to your confusion on the issue. I am looking at your bible and comparing it to the actions of people who supposedly are doing "Gods will". Ok...if God is not the author of confusion as you suggest then why is some killing considered justified while other killing is not. From what I've read of bibles they say Thou shall not kill...I saw no exceptions. The words say one thing and the actions of the "believers" show something completely contrary. So the confusion is not on my part....:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 Eh, death penalty works in preventing crime. Atleast studies show Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 2, 2007 Share Posted December 2, 2007 I am looking at your bible and comparing it to the actions of people who supposedly are doing "Gods will"."supposedly" is the operative word there Ok...if God is not the author of confusion as you suggest then why is some killing considered justified while other killing is not. Perhaps you need to read a bit more? If you are truly interested I will provide links that may help clarify the issue. From what I've read of bibles they say Thou shall not kill...I saw no exceptions. The words say one thing and the actions of the "believers" show something completely contrary. You (like those you condemn)) are probably guilty of forcing your own prejudices onto the meanings. So the confusion is not on my part....:laugh: If you say so ,but you were given the answer to the kill/murder conflict already....accepting or rejecting it is part of your free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I am looking at your bible and comparing it to the actions of people who supposedly are doing "Gods will".Ok...if God is not the author of confusion as you suggest then why is some killing considered justified while other killing is not. From what I've read of bibles they say Thou shall not kill...I saw no exceptions. The words say one thing and the actions of the "believers" show something completely contrary. So the confusion is not on my part....:laugh: Actually, yes, the confusion is on your part, and frankly I'm confused because earlier you actually thanked somebody for clearing it up, then went right back to your erroneous position. :whoknows: Therefore, I will be very explicit. The reason you are confused is that you are thinking of the King James, which reads "Thou shalt not kill". This is not surprising... the King James was a seminal work in English literature, and its wording has had a tremendous impact on the very language itself. It is also, however, a translation done 400 years ago in a time when they may have spoken English, but the words did not necessarily mean exactly what they do today, and it further does not make use of modern advances in textual criticism, and so is not the best source when examining such an issue. All of the more modern translations use the word "murder", not kill. Click here for a parallel translation list. Why do they use the translation murder? In that list, you will see the original Hebrew, and the word used is "ratsach", which translates thusly. The best word in our modern English is "murder", not kill. As to the difference between killing in self-defense or defense of country and murder, well, I hardly think I need to explain that to you, do I? As to the idea that the fact that confusion among God's followers calls into question anything about God Himself, that idea is just silly. Humans are not perfect, nor are we omnisicient. If we were, we wouldn't need the Bible for guidance. As such is it really so surprising that some (or all) of us would get some (or all) of it wrong, even the crystal clear parts? And that doesn't even get into deliberate misrepresentation for personal gain, which has happended once or twice in human history... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Even in light of the difference between killing and murdering "do not murder" is hardly a mandate to kill probable murderers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 When does the killing stop? The avenger kills....in the name of god?Hmmmmm..... The bottom line is killing continues but what religious folks are saying is that some killing is justified while other killing is not. Murder is perception because war is murder as well. The only difference between murder and war is that war is state sponsored murder for what both sides percieve as a just cause. I just cannot see a GOD talking about of both sides of his/her/it's mouth... If I'm am not mistaken their is a bible verse that states God is not the author of confusion but this issue has produced more confusion than it has clarified. No the avanger kills in the name of justice, biblical war was as ordained by God was just as there were warning for people, so they could avoid what was to happen. There was also strict rules governing the the battles and very few of the actual battles in the bible involved humans killing humans, and when they did it was not a case of vitory going to superior strength or fire power. Laws on self defense and use of weapons was also differnt, what passes off as self defense now a days would be murder by biblical standards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Even in light of the difference between killing and murdering "do not murder" is hardly a mandate to kill probable murderers. That's certainly true, and the Christian's position on the death penalty is likely drawn from other verses. This particular verse, however, does not preclude capital punishment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I think the New Testament is more troublesome. That whole, do not judge, lest ye be judged yourself thing, is trouble I tell you. I mean not only does it mean no capital punishment. It means no judiciary, judges, prisons, police, investigations, or practically any rule of law whatsoever. Heck taken literally, teachers can't even grade homework assignments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I think the New Testament is more troublesome. That whole, do not judge, lest ye be judged yourself thing, is trouble I tell you. I mean not only does it mean no capital punishment. It means no judiciary, judges, prisons, police, investigations, or practically any rule of law whatsoever. Heck taken literally, teachers can't even grade homework assignments.Context...:slap:Do it again, and you'll get a :whippin: :jk: on the second part of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Context...:slap:Do it again, and you'll get a :whippin: :jk: on the second part of course. There's that judging thing again :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 That's certainly true, and the Christian's position on the death penalty is likely drawn from other verses. This particular verse, however, does not preclude capital punishment. Neither does Genesis 9:6, but of course it can be understood as a justification (or even a call) for followers to shed blood of those who shed blood of other men... A number of very different positions can be drawn from the Bible, especially if one knows the position one needs to derive in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
headexplode Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Context...:slap:Do it again, and you'll get a :whippin: :jk: on the second part of course. Isn't that the main problem with the Bible, though? Context? Why can't anything just mean what it says? You'd think an all-knowing, all-seeing deity would have the foresight to put his commands into words that needed no further contextualization. (I can already see you rolling your eyes, Z. Know that I'm only half-joking.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Isn't that the main problem with the Bible, though? Context? Why can't anything just mean what it says? You'd think an all-knowing, all-seeing deity would have the foresight to put his commands into words that needed no further contextualization. (I can already see you rolling your eyes, Z. Know that I'm only half-joking.) Q:What is the number 1 thing that evangelicals get accused of with regards to the bible? A: Literalism What I was getting on Bugold about (half-jokingly ) was that you just can't take one verse among thousands and apply it without considering the context. Who, what, when, where, to whom etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Isn't that the main problem with the Bible, though? Context? Why can't anything just mean what it says? You'd think an all-knowing, all-seeing deity would have the foresight to put his commands into words that needed no further contextualization. (I can already see you rolling your eyes, Z. Know that I'm only half-joking.) Why not continue that thought? The deity could have made us with those commands internalized, but did not. Instead we get words, and words by definition can mean different things depending on the context. This suggests having humans select the proper context (and therefore meaning) is the very point of the excercise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Why not continue that thought? After all the deity could have made us with those commands already internalized, but did not. Instead we get words, and words by definition can mean different things depending on the context. This suggests having humans select the proper context (and therefore meaning) is the very point of the excercise. Aack... Religion by rationalization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Aack... Religion by rationalization. Hey, the religion we get now is a product of many, many people trying to make rational sense of irrational beliefs... Here is the funny part - it is very likely that Evolution actually created God Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I've always believed that a God who believed in free will... that is the evolution of thought, would also believe in the evolution of physical form. Afterall, what would be more meaningful to God, a spiritual selves or physical? If God believes that we should have transformative power in our lives... why would he be against physical form transformation. Especially, when the bodies are mere vessels and dust. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 I gave this question some thought the other day and came up with a point that I feel needs to be considered. The difference between moral and immoral often times is the intent, not the action. Killing isn't wrong or right on it's own, it all depends on why. If you kill a man who is trying to kill your family is it wrong? The point is that we know that wrath is a sin. Hate is a sin. So then if you support the death penalty out of rage and hatred for the killer then you are embracing and giving into to sin. The road leads absolutely no where good. All those posts you see when a killer is caught around here demanding a slow death and torture... all that is evil. One could argue however that supporting the death penalty in the interest of keeping people safe isn't anti-christian. The danger would be if you are simply telling yourself this is why you do it... repenting is hard if you lie to yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Huckabee on the death penalty: The death penalty is the only decision that I make as a governor that is totally irrevocable. Once an execution is carried out, a life has ended. I kept a box of files near by desk to review them in the days prior to the execution. One unsettling part of the evidence [in the Fretwell case] were interviews conducted with Fretwell & his brother. The description of their family life revealed a childhood of abuse, humiliation & degradation. I was moved to tears, but that did not alter the crime. However, a juror said he had been told that if Fretwell was found guilty, he would get life in prison without parole and that was the reason he voted for a guilty verdict. The problem I then faced was that I was unwilling to be a man who had ignored late evidence in a death penalty case to avoid the complications that come with clemency. If the justice system would not work for the "least of these among us," then neither would it work for me or anyone else. I commuted the sentence to life in prison. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Huckabee_Crime.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Zguy despite the usual chatter about choosing between two evils, I think that if either Obama or Edwards win the nomination and go against Huckabee... we might have an election that's win win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted December 3, 2007 Share Posted December 3, 2007 Zguy despite the usual chatter about choosing between two evils, I think that if either Obama or Edwards win the nomination and go against Huckabee... we might have an election that's win win.I'm definitely hearing you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted December 4, 2007 Share Posted December 4, 2007 What does Huckabee have to say about helping parole a rapist? Especially to his later victim?.......OOPS? I realize this is a bit unfair,but both in this case and capitol punishment ones there are more lives affected than the victim and perpetrator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.