Why have so many american problem with abortion of small americans...but no Problem

[B'alaam]

Hmmm...raping, torturing, and then murdering a ten year old child is wrong. Is that a given?

Forgive me for not immediately responding. I have to go to the store pretty soon. During that time, I'll try to come up with a reply that not only reflects my views, but also (hopefully) makes some sense to you

Later!

 

[allhart]

You Know its hard to live up to everyone's expectations. I'm glad I live for God.

 

[cantata]

What benefit does the death penalty bestow?

 

[quatona]

allhart, again: I am not a native English speaker, and I am having problems understanding your rudimentary and fragmentary sentences. Maybe you aren´t a native English speaker either, and you can´t help it. But if it lies in your capacities I´d be grateful if you´d try to string together complete sentences, connected in a more conventional manner.

So, if get up in the mornin and I don't feel like going to work. Is it O.K. and if do it a couple of days. Do I Rationalize the right and wrong of the matter or do I go with my feelings on the matter.

Presumably neither. I´d wager you approach it pragmatically, and decide which of the option matches your needs better, all things considered.

The reality of it is. If you don't work you don't eat.

See - entirely pragmatical decision.

Who said that? God did!!!

Not to boast about my intelligence, but somehow I managed to figure such simple causalities without being told by a god.

 

[PastorJim]

If I wanted to argue from the biblical perspective, I would say that yes, the old testament God is vengeful and punishes people with death. Jesus, however, comes along and gives us a new commandment - a commandment of love.

First of all, you did argue from a Biblical perspective the moment you said "but didn't Jesus...?"

Second, Jesus is the same God in the New Testament that He was in the Old Testament.

Jesus never told the state that they're to love murderers to the exclusion of punishing them. In fact, in Romans, His word says that God has ordained the government to carry out the death penalty.

He then demonstrates what he means by this - he associates with the sinners that society shunned, he forgave them. He told us to find himself in all others, without exception.

No, He didn't. And He certainly never told the state that they were not to punish criminals.

You seem to be confusing what Jesus told His followers with the role God has ordained for the state.

Does the fact that God states that the authority of the state comes from him require us to unquestioningly accept all that the state does? I don't believe that to be the case.

No. That isn't what I said.

I said that Jesus pointed out to Pilate that His authority to carry out the death penalty comes from God, not "all the state does".

The fact that Jesus submitted to the law of the time, and the fact that the law of the land unjustly killed him, is surely evidence of the inadequacies of the death penalty as a punishment and the potential for it to be used by the powerful for their own ends.

Whether it's inadequate is a whole different argument. We're talking about it's morality, not it's effectiveness.

Personally, as an agnostic, I don't believe that Jesus is God.

Then you have no right to tell us what the Bible allegedly says.

If you don't believe that Jesus is telling the truth when He states that He is God, then you have no way of knowing whether or not He is telling the truth when He says other things.

I am therefore happier to argue about the words and actions of Jesus as himself on earth rather than "his" actions in the old testament.

You can't seperate the two. They're the same person.

When I look at Jesus I see someone who preached a message which was non-violent, a message of love and respect for humanity.

Right. The same Jesus who said that men are sinners and that He's going to judge them and send them to Hell?

I don't see how Jesus, the man whose teachings have been passed down for thousands of years, would support the penalty which, in the act of his own death, is demonstrated to be unjust.

And I don't see how you can say that He wouldn't support it when He's the one who instituted it in the first place.

I don't see how Jesus would accept that that penalty was just for any person, sinner or not, criminal or not, because in each person he told us to see himself.

Jesus never said that.

 

[B'alaam]

Sorry for my loooong delay, and I hope to summarize quickly what I was talking about before (in the post where I said "Forgive me for not immediately responding.")
If a loved one of mine (parents, lover, spouse, child, etc) was raped, tortured and murdered, the question naturally arises- "Would I want the perpetrator to die?"

Of course I would.
Duh.
I would (and I can only weakly imagine, having never been through that scenario) want not only for that person to die, but I might likely also want to kill that person at my own hand.

Simple enough.
Of course, now some people might think Im in favor of state sanctioned Death Penalty. Of course, those people could not be more wrong.

I *would*, most likely, want the perp to die most heinously. In the above scenario described, I might be so angry and vengeful as to want the perp to be brutally raped, tortured, mutilated, and then killed (again, possibly, by my own hand) in the most heinous way possible.

But the question remains- WHY would I want that?

The answer is simple- emotion.
To wit (and to take it from simple to a bit more complex)- Anger, Rage and the desire for Revenge.
I'm woman enough to admit that I would, most likely, feel that way.
I'll go so far as to say that if I had a gun in my hand I might shoot the perp. Such is the power of emotion and the apparent need for revenge.


Do I support state sanctioned killing of a human?
Not at all.
Period.
End of story.

My emotions should *not* influence state or federal law. The emotions of anger, the lust for revenge, should NOT influence state or federal law. *AND* if the law (regarding the death penalty) is based on anger, rage, vengeance and revenge (and dont give me that tripe about "justice") then it should be done away with.

No matter how much I might *want* to kill the killer of my loved one.


And for those of you arguing "But.....but....but... the bible says...the -Law-says, blah blah blah"
The bible, thankfully, is NOT the arbiter of laws in the majority of countries in the 21st century.

And *NEVER* should have been.

 

[nolongerhome]

Ok Jim, I'm not going to go through comment by comment because I think that just gets really hard to read and gets us sidetracked from the real discussion, so I will identify a couple of the broader problems you had with my position and see what I can say about them

1. My biblical interpretation

First, the reason why I put in that initial proviso about "If I wanted to do a Biblical interpretation..." is because I'm not a believer and therefore don't require Biblical sources to make a judgment about morality. I don't know why I don't have a "right" to argue from a Biblical perspective, however. I was raised through Catholic schooling and have a fairly decent knowledge of the content.

You are correct to say that if I don't believe that Jesus is God I can't believe that everything he says is inerrant truth. But, considering that you do believe that, I think it is a useful thing for me to do. I may see Jesus only as a wise man ahead of his time, not God, but I don't think that renders all my interpretation invalid.

2. Jesus's Message

I was always taught that Jesus, in the new testament, created a new covenant - simply that we love one another as Jesus loves us, that we should love others as we love ourselves. Is this a correct interpretation? Is this the overriding message Jesus had for the people of earth? That is he message I get from the sermons on the mount and on the plain - love, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, not passing judgment on others, treating others as we would wish to be treated ourselves...

You disagreed repeatedly that Jesus told us to see him in all others... what is your interpretation of Matthew 25:31-40?

It is clear also that Jesus saw the value of those that society shunned, there are many examples of this.

Overall, I don't see what is wrong with my interpretation of how Jesus would have us treat other people, and I don't see any reason to believe that he would support the death penalty as a moral thing to do because of those teachings about how we ought to love and forgive.

3. God's relation to Caesar - the authority of terrestrial government

I don't really understand your position here.

You argue that the authority of the state on earth comes from God. I had a problem with this, as to me it implies that all that the state does it does through the authority of God. States, however, commit terrible crimes against people, crimes which I don't see anyone being able to defend - states murder and torture, they steal... do they do these things thanks to God's authority?

If the answer to that question is yes, then should we simply just passively accept that which states do? I don't believe you can argue that

If the answer is no, doesn't that then open up the possibility that the death penalty is potentially morally wrong?

I don't understand why you see there being a difference between the message Jesus had for his followers and God's giving of authority to the state. Is the state not simply the way humans organise themselves? Shouldn't those humans follow what Jesus taught them?

4. Efficacy

You disagreed that the effectiveness of the punishment should have a role in our questioning of the punishment's morality.

However, if you are going to argue that God gives the authority to the state to act in matters of a terrestrial nature, then one ought to judge the actions of the state through terrestrial means. In that case, the effectiveness of the punishment is inherently linked to its morality. If the punishment is a punishment which is not effective, that surely has an impact on our understanding of its value and worth from a moral perspective? This is especially true in this case, where we are killing a human being. Surely we should have solid grounds for believing this to be a just act, and that part of those solid grounds would reflect our understanding of why we punish people, what we want that punishment to do. As my earlier posts on the matter demonstrate, the death penalty doesn't do all of what we want a punishment to do, and the things that it does do can be done better by other means which do not have the potential to kill the innocent, which would be complete tragedy.

 

[B'alaam]

Second, Jesus is the same God in the New Testament that He was in the Old Testament.

Right
Sure
Kill all of the Amalekites.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
I can see the similarity.
Of course, those people who are more familiar with the OT would disagree with you as well, but that's neither here nor there is it?

Jesus never told the state that they're to love murderers to the exclusion of punishing them. In fact, in Romans, His word says that God has ordained the government to carry out the death penalty.

Chapter and verse please?

No, He didn't. And He certainly never told the state that they were not to punish criminals.

And he never said that homosexuals were sinners, and he never said anything about atomic structure, and he never said anything about state sanctioned killing.
We can make a long list about what Jesus "never told" anyone.

If you don't believe that Jesus is telling the truth when He states that He is God, then you have no way of knowing whether or not He is telling the truth when He says other things.

I was going to leave the rest of your post alone until I saw this. Do you believe me when I say that I am the Creator Goddess?
Most likely not.
Then, by your logic, you have "no way" of knowing if 2+2=4 when I state such. BTW, I state that 2+2=4, just in case you are wondering.
You, of course, in your mind, aren't saying this, but that's how your statement reads on the surface.

 

[WatersMoon110]

...According to the Romans, He committed sedition. They believed He was plotting an uprising against the state.

Pilate knew Jesus had not done this but, like all spineless politicians, caved in to a small but vocal minority of his constituency and used the Jews accusations of blasphemy to prosecute Jesus...

But Jesus was innocent of this crime, from a legal perspective. According to the Bible, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that He was actually going to cause the Jewish people (and His followers during His life did seem - to me - to still consider themselves Jewish).

I mean, I believe that Jesus went through the sacrifice of being wrongly put to death to save us all. But He was innocent, from my much later perspective. I think that we should allow Jesus to be the last sacrifice, and be the last human put to death against their will*, so far as we can.

*Since unborn humans do not yet have a will, I believe that they can be removed by elective abortion until such a time where there is an option that allows for their removal without killing them. After medical viability, a woman should (in my opinion) be allowed to call for the removal of an unborn human through induced labor or C-Section. If there comes a point in time (and I hope there will) where unborn humans can be removed before around 26 weeks without a huge probability of dying; that is, if we perfect artificial wombs and/or fetal transplant surgery, I feel that should be done instead of elective abortion.

 

[PastorJim]

I was always taught that Jesus, in the new testament, created a new covenant - simply that we love one another as Jesus loves us, that we should love others as we love ourselves. Is this a correct interpretation?

That's one thing that He taught but it isn't everything that He taught. He also taught that He will judge sinners and cast them into Hell.

He taught that we should have nothing to do with those who teach false doctrines.

Is this the overriding message Jesus had for the people of earth?

No. Jesus' message was that men are sinners and will be judged and punished by God, but God has made a way for them to be forgiven by repenting and putting their faith in Christ and His atonement on the cross.

That is he message I get from the sermons on the mount and on the plain - love, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, not passing judgment on others, treating others as we would wish to be treated ourselves...

Jesus never said we shouldn't judge. In fact, Jesus commands us to judge many times in the Bible.

You disagreed repeatedly that Jesus told us to see him in all others... what is your interpretation of Matthew 25:31-40?

Exactly what it says: that the sheep are saved and the goats are not saved and go to Hell.

Over and over throughout scripture, the image of sheep is used to illustrate those who are saved. The image of goats is used to illustrate those who are not.

How can Jesus be in everyone when the Bible tells us over and over that the carnal man is at emnity with God?

How can Jesus be in everyone when the Bible tells us that we do not become children of God or receive His Spirit until we're born again?

Overall, I don't see what is wrong with my interpretation of how Jesus would have us treat other people, and I don't see any reason to believe that he would support the death penalty as a moral thing to do because of those teachings about how we ought to love and forgive.

When did Jesus ever tell the state to love and forgive and not punish murderers?

The only examples of Jesus telling anyone to love and forgive are His followers, not the state.

Remember, it is Jesus who established the death penalty in the first place and the New Testament repeats this.

You argue that the authority of the state on earth comes from God. I had a problem with this

I see. So, when Jesus says that we're to love people, you believe that. When Jesus says that we're to do acts of charity, you believe that. But when Jesus says that the authority of the state to carry out the death penalty, all of a sudden, you don't believe He knows what He's talking about?

as to me it implies that all that the state does it does through the authority of God. States, however, commit terrible crimes against people, crimes which I don't see anyone being able to defend - states murder and torture, they steal... do they do these things thanks to God's authority?

And if you knew the Bible as well as you say you do, you'd know that the Bible tells us that God gives authority to all governments, but only just governments act in that authority. Those who do wicked things act outside of that authority.

I don't understand why you see there being a difference between the message Jesus had for his followers and God's giving of authority to the state.

Because one is the government, the other is the church.

Is the state not simply the way humans organise themselves? Shouldn't those humans follow what Jesus taught them?

Individually? Absolutely. As a government, they should follow the rules God has established for government, just as, individually, they should follow the rules God has established for individuals.

You disagreed that the effectiveness of the punishment should have a role in our questioning of the punishment's morality.

Right. Things are not moral or immoral depending on whether or not they're effective. That's pragmatism.

In that case, the effectiveness of the punishment is inherently linked to its morality.

If that were the case.

This is especially true in this case, where we are killing a human being. Surely we should have solid grounds for believing this to be a just act, and that part of those solid grounds would reflect our understanding of why we punish people, what we want that punishment to do. As my earlier posts on the matter demonstrate, the death penalty doesn't do all of what we want a punishment to do, and the things that it does do can be done better by other means which do not have the potential to kill the innocent, which would be complete tragedy.

There is a 0% recidivism rate among those who have been punished with the death penalty. By your logic, that makes it complely moral.

 

[PastorJim]

Right
Sure
Kill all of the Amalekites.
Love your neighbor as yourself.
I can see the similarity.
Of course, those people who are more familiar with the OT would disagree with you as well, but that's neither here nor there is it?

Really? Who?

Chapter and verse please?

Romans 13:1-4

And he never said that homosexuals were sinners

Actually, Jesus said that everyone is a sinner, not just homosexuals.

I was going to leave the rest of your post alone until I saw this. Do you believe me when I say that I am the Creator Goddess?
Most likely not.
Then, by your logic, you have "no way" of knowing if 2+2=4 when I state such. BTW, I state that 2+2=4, just in case you are wondering.

The difference, of course, is that there is evidence that Jesus is God. There is no evidence that you are god.

You, of course, in your mind, aren't saying this

But that isn't going to stop you from sayng that I am.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I will request you to prove a fetus is totally innocent.

Sorry dude, but moral people follow the principle of innocent until proven guilty. I request you prove that a fetal human is guilty of anything worthy of the death penalty.

 

[KarateCowboy]

I will request you to prove a fetus is totally innocent.

There is absolutely no contradiction between supporting the death penalty for certain murders and opposing the destruction of innocent human life.

Well said. They are two different teachings.

One says you shall not kill innocents. The other says you shall punish the guilty.

 

[stan1980]

The difference, of course, is that there is evidence that Jesus is God.

Flimsy evidence at best.

Reliable evidence? No, not in the slightest.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Flimsy evidence at best.

Reliable evidence? No, not in the slightest.

Dying and coming back to life three days later is pretty good evidence, IMHO.

 

[PastorJim]

Flimsy evidence at best.

Reliable evidence? No, not in the slightest.

I disagree. I find it to be very compelling.

 

[PastorJim]

Dying and coming back to life three days later is pretty good evidence, IMHO.

500 witnesses thought so.

 

[stan1980]

Dying and coming back to life three days later is pretty good evidence, IMHO.

You don't know that happened.

I disagree. I find it to be very compelling.

You would.

 

[PastorJim]

You would.

Yes, I would and I do. Millions of others have, too.

Even if what you say is true, and it were just "flimsy evidence", "flimsy evidence" beats the complete lack of evidence that atheists present to disprove the claims of Christ or the historicity of His ministry, death, and resurrection.

 

[stan1980]

500 witnesses thought so.

Can anything outside of the bible verify this public event happened exactly like it was supposed to have happened? No? oh.... that's strange, with it being such an extraordinary event

Some people will believe anything.