Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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 youHmmm...raping, torturing, and then murdering a ten year old child is wrong. Is that a given?
Presumably neither. I´d wager you approach it pragmatically, and decide which of the option matches your needs better, all things considered.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.
See - entirely pragmatical decision.The reality of it is. If you don't work you don't eat.
Not to boast about my intelligence, but somehow I managed to figure such simple causalities without being told by a god.Who said that? God did!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Personally, as an agnostic, I don't believe that Jesus is God.
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.
When I look at Jesus I see someone who preached a message which was non-violent, a message of love and respect for humanity.
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.
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.
RightSecond, Jesus is the same God in the New Testament that He was in the Old Testament.
Chapter and verse please?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.
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.No, He didn't. And He certainly never told the state that they were not to punish criminals.
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?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.
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)....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...
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?
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.
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?
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?
You disagreed that the effectiveness of the punishment should have a role in our questioning of the punishment's morality.
In that case, the effectiveness of the punishment is inherently linked to its morality.
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.
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?
Chapter and verse please?
And he never said that homosexuals were sinners
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
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.I will request you to prove a fetus is totally innocent.
I will request you to prove a fetus is totally innocent.
Well said. They are two different teachings.There is absolutely no contradiction between supporting the death penalty for certain murders and opposing the destruction of innocent human life.
The difference, of course, is that there is evidence that Jesus is God.
Dying and coming back to life three days later is pretty good evidence, IMHO.Flimsy evidence at best.
Reliable evidence? No, not in the slightest.
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.
Dying and coming back to life three days later is pretty good evidence, IMHO.
I disagree. I find it to be very compelling.
You would.
500 witnesses thought so.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?