VisorCentral.com - Biblical principles and death penalty

Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- Biblical principles and death penalty (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=17658)

Posted by Toby on 08-17-2001 08:25 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
...Phew! I was afraid I was the only Pagan left!

Nah...I'm not even a Pagan. I'm an equal opportunity heretic/heathen.

Posted by septimus on 08-17-2001 08:26 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Nah...I'm not even a Pagan. I'm an equal opportunity heretic/heathen.

Ah, I misinterpreted earlier posts. I am not a pagan either (unless you count rabid zen-wannabe agnosticism a deity!)

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by chuckster on 08-17-2001 08:47 PM:

quote:
I disagree. Research has shown that a shocking number of death row inmates have mental problems that preven them from understanding the consequences of their actions. Spreading the "eye for an eye" message won't reduce murders. Stopping child abuse, recognizing mental disabilities early, and providing a network of support for the above will.

Well, I have to agree with the part about child abuse. I think that the most important thing is in each individual's home. I also think that recognizing mental disabilities is very important. I do however believe that the majority of murders are committed by those who do not have such disorders.

Posted by septimus on 08-17-2001 08:53 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by chuckster
I do however believe that the majority of murders are committed by those who do not have such disorders.

Dang.. I have to do more research here, but as I said earlier, it's quite surprising to hear the number that do. Most definetly more than 50%

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by chuckster on 08-17-2001 08:58 PM:

I'm not one for research or numbers, I guess I should do some though. I still doubt that it is more than 50%. I could be wrong...it wouldn't be the first time.

Posted by MHCohn on 08-17-2001 09:46 PM:

Excuse me, Burns, but just WHICH Bible is it you are suggesting that U.S. conduct should be based upon?

My Bible, the Torah is different from the one which is apparently yours. In mine for instance, the Commandmant was not Thou Shalt Not Kill, in the original it was Thou Shalt Not Murder. Two different things. And the 613 rules, or Mitzvot we were enjoined to follow, we were honestly told to follow, there was nothing about, "Well, I'm giving you these rules which I know you won't be able to follow, just to show you that you can't or aren't perfect. In fact, there are none of them which can't be followed.

I'd debate with you the purposes of sacrifices during the time of the Temple, but that would be kind of pointless in the context of this discussion, as my religion long ago evolved to the point were the sacrifices you speak of, requiring the killing or putting to death of any living creature, are not asked for. By the way, those changes came about AFTER the ultimate sacrifice of the Rabbi who you believe in. But it had nothing whatsoever to do with his death.

Anyway, enough about the differences, I really don't wish to or think that a PDA forum is the place to get into these things, and so I won't respond to or discuss further here our different religious perspectives beliefs or Bibles. I am willing to discuss, but only if we really must, whether this is a suitable place to air those religious differences, even if they're posted in a section labeled off topic.

My sincere preference would be not to have either of those discussions here at all. God - mine, yours and the one of the Muslims, Hindus and Wiccans to name just a few - knows there are enough other places for us to debate and discuss those topics.

__________________
-Michael-

Posted by septimus on 08-17-2001 10:16 PM:

MHCohn is right, and I've contributed a great deal to the problem. When it was limited to Inane Ramblings, that was one thing, but now religion is bloating all over the board. I hereby stop (unless seriously and majorly dragged into something)

Sorry, all. :/

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Madkins007 on 08-17-2001 10:20 PM:

MHCohn- I understand your reluctance to have this site host such a debate, but this thread is as good as anyplace to do so, and it IS within the topic of 'off-topic'!

My 2 cents worth:

The Bible clearly teaches that human life is a gift from God, and He and he alone has the right to give it or take it at His whim. In fact, if one of us unsurps his right, without his commanding it, we must forfeit our own life. The commandment 'You will not murder' means exactly that- remembering that to murder is to kill unlawfully as opposed to killing in a 'lawful' war or for other 'lawful' reasons.

Sure the Bible also teaches pacifism and forgiveness. It also teaches that there 'is a time and a place for everything'- and someone who studies the Bible for what it is discovers this. What some see as contradictory teachings often become useful advice for people in specific and opposite situations.

However, basing our society on the Bible would indeed be, in my mind, silly. While the Bible, like many other similar books, offers some practical advice for living and society, its primary focus is on an individual's or a specific people's relationship with God.

I am not really sure God would approve of us adopting it as the laws for the country. His people can live by His rules in our society nicely with very little conflict with the laws that man makes. The Bible itself reminds us to live by the laws of the land- even when not based on those of God (Yes, I know there are a few exceptions taught in the Bible).

Posted by mensachicken on 08-17-2001 10:26 PM:

Re: Biblical principles and death penalty

quote:
Originally posted by Burns
No flames, please. This is going to be a mature conversation without bashing people or their beliefs or else I will ask the moderator to remove this thread.

I didn't read the other thread so maybe I'm completely wrong in my interpretation of the post that started this one... are you saying that the bible should form the basis of law?

If so, I accuse you of "bashing people or their beliefs" in the very post you claimed was not for that purpose.

mc

Posted by MHCohn on 08-18-2001 02:57 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Madkins007
However, basing our society on the Bible would indeed be, in my mind, silly.

It would be more than silly Madkins, it would really be contrary to the basic foundation and tenets of this Country (not to mention its Bible: the Constitution.)

Yes, we were founded as one nation, under God. But not under one interpretation of God or Her words. My version of the Bible IS different than yours in many ways, and even in ways you accept as Universal in your post. That's Okay with me, it's absolutely fine, for you to believe what you want, to believe in your interpretation of the Bible and believe in what books comprise that Bible. Your ability to do so, as well as my ability to believe in something different is what makes our country so great. But if we start basing our laws on one or the other group's idea of what the Bible is or encompasses, then we are surely mixing church and state in a way our forefathers did not intend.

For that matter, put aside, the differences between your and my beliefs. What about U.S. citizens who may be Muslim, Seik, or Hindu or anything else. Should they be compelled to live under laws based primarily upon "our" Bible? What if a law we pass which is perfectly consistent with both your and my Bible violates the Quran or the Baghavad Gita, or even the Book of Mormon? It may be hard for you (duh and me at the moment) to think of such a law, but if we allow the possibility, then we begin to tread into deep holy ****. And if it's only "silly" to do so, then the possibility remains that you or I may someday think or believe that under other circumstances, it's not so silly.

Now, did anyone happen to notice where I left that small wooden step I used to climb up onto this soapbox? I'd think I'd like to step off now.

__________________
-Michael-

Posted by Thunderbird291 on 08-18-2001 03:22 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by MHCohn

Now, did anyone happen to notice where I left that small wooden step I used to climb up onto this soapbox? I'd like to get off now.

Jump! Jump! Jump! You can do it! Jump off the soapbox! Ahhhh....just bringing humor to this thread.

Posted by Yorick on 08-18-2001 03:57 AM:

Originally posted by MHCohn
Yes, we were founded as one nation, under God.

Not hardly.
The Declaration of Independence, which was how the United States were founded, only mentions God in passing:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ..."

The Constitution, written to create an actual system of government for the fledgling nation, makes no mention of God or a creator.

That's it. It assumes a creator and a god, but does not place the nation under it. That comes from the Pledge of Allegiance, written by a Christian Socialist in 1892. Over a hundred years later.*

I mean, feel free to have interpretations and beliefs, but let's not mess with facts.

* Special note: I completely stopped pledging my allegiance to a flag as a high school freshman, having stopped saying the words years before. A flag is a symbol. My allegiance is to my country, except when some leader does something totally boneheaded and stupid. In which case I yell at the newspaper or TV.

And now I go to put my dander down before I really start instigatin'.

edit: fixed formatting error and shrunk everything from the Special note down, then added sentence following "boneheaded and stupid."
later edit: fixed misspelling in last edit note (smacks head with blunt object)

__________________
The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.

Posted by Burns on 08-19-2001 02:02 AM:

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back into this thread, but I've been away from the computer for awhile (a nice thing when you program for a living).

O.k. Here's to clearing up a few things. My point was not to base the U.S. laws on the entirety of the Bible. What I am trying to say is that this country would be in better ethical standing if they considered the ethical standards presented by the Bible when making laws and considering consequences of breaking said laws. As for which Bible to use, it is my belief that the correct Bible is the one with the true translation. MHCohn, you said your Bible, the Torah is different from mine. That statement is only true in the fact that my Bible contains additional books. But my Bible also contains the Torah. If my Bible carried the translation from the original writings, our "Torah" sections would indeed match. It is only the many translations that the Bible has gone thru that have changed a few words here in there (depending on what English translation is used). I say all this to back up my point that the true Bible is the one that has the translation closest to the original writings. So far, in my studies (I'm bivocational) I have seen descrepancies in every translation. The closest I've seen is the KJV. Some may sneer, I know it's horrendous negotiating all the thous, thees and the lisp the translators seemeth to haveth. There are other translation that are close so I am not going to say that the KJV is the only word of God. That would mean that some Swahili or German translation was not and that would not be true.

As far as asking for no flames, I was trying to say that I want a clean discussion and that I would not be flaming anyone and I wanted the same treatment in return. So far this has been an adult/mature conversation and I appreciate that.

I realize that there are other religions in the States. I am not for repressing or denying these religions their rights. I believe that most religions have very similar code of ethics: be good, or else something will happen to you.

My point about not being catholic is was simply to inform so that no discussion would be brought up about the atrocities performed by the catholics in the past.

As my final point, I will say that the ethical standards of the Bible should not be the ONLY basis for the laws of the States. I would agree that this would be a silly notion. We might end up cutting babies in half or something.

- Burns

__________________
Check out my page on Visors:
Burn's Visor page

Posted by dick-richardson on 08-19-2001 02:45 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Burns
My point about not being catholic is was simply to inform so that no discussion would be brought up about the atrocities performed by the catholics in the past.

Which we pay for over and over again because of ignorant people who have not the decency to judge a man based on his own merit, rather than the color of his freaking hat. What religion do you profess, so that I may hold you personally accountable for some atrocity done by one of your kind?

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by mensachicken on 08-19-2001 03:13 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Burns
I realize that there are other religions in the States. I am not for repressing or denying these religions their rights. I believe that most religions have very similar code of ethics: be good, or else something will happen to you.

i'm curious whether you've read "Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country"
by Peter McWilliams, Jean Sedillos

i highly recommend you do.

mc

Posted by MHCohn on 08-19-2001 08:49 PM:

I may be straying into a different topic here, so anyone
besides Burns, please say so and I will continue this in private

quote:
Originally posted by Burns
MHCohn, you said your Bible, the Torah is different from mine. That statement is only true in the fact that my Bible contains additional books. But my Bible also contains the Torah. If my Bible carried the translation from the original writings, our "Torah" sections would indeed match.

Burns, everything you have learned about the Torah has been taught to you by people who honestly and fervently believe that it has been superceded or augmented by something far far better. Even if they taught you to read it in the "original" the meanings of words have been shaded or influenced by that belief.

Since you are a programer, this in my view is very much akin to someone being taught how to program in Java by a group of Microsoft Certified Professionals. If later on in your life you were to try to create a "program" for living and you sincerely wanted it to be the very best you could make it, how could you (why would you want to) resist the temptation to include the additional functions, routines and improvements you have learned from your teachers, but which were not in the original language of Java?

This is NOT to say that the original Java is better than the MS version (I'm not saying that in my analogy or in reallife;-)). Just that I learned the original, purer if you will, form of Java, and at that time I was also taught how to use it (without any of the later improvements) to solve all of the life programing problems and decisions I would face.

If there is one difference between us it is that I have had a lot more exposure in my life to your "newer" version of Java than you have to mine. I learned the older version first but since then I've been exposed to your version in radio, tv, books, movies, December sitcoms and from countless Microsoft representatives who have tried to persuade me of the advantages of using the improved version. I've been living for 52 years in a Microsoft dominated world. I've looked sincerely into the newer version and occasionally gone back to my teachers to ask if and how yours is different from mine and whether the changes merely improve the old version or really alter it in many ways.

Maybe in your view I'm missing out, or having to use some unnecessarily difficult methods to solve my problems or get my results, but so be it. My version IS different, though it would seem that in most cases our programs arrive at the same results. That's good because it results in few conflicts between our programs. Yours is a great, powerful useful and much more user friendly version than mine. Still, I really don't want to have to be compelled by any truly well meaning Microsoft reps or my country to use the improvements. That's monopolization and I'm glad my country has laws to prevent it. I'm not so sure, though about George W.

__________________
-Michael-

Posted by Toby on 08-19-2001 09:10 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Burns
[...] As for which Bible to use, it is my belief that the correct Bible is the one with the true translation. [...]

There is no such thing.

quote:
The closest I've seen is the KJV.

You know ancient Greek? You studied the culture in the first couple centuries CE to learn exactly what slang and colloquialisms they would have used?

quote:
As far as asking for no flames, I was trying to say that I want a clean discussion and that I would not be flaming anyone and I wanted the same treatment in return.

Ever consider that by claiming any particular version of the Christian bible should be a basis for the actions of the citizens of a country, you might be insulting any number of people that don't believe that? Including many of the founding fathers? What do you think of the Jeffersonian Bible?

quote:
I realize that there are other religions in the States. I am not for repressing or denying these religions their rights. I believe that most religions have very similar code of ethics: be good, or else something will happen to you.

And what about those of us that don't need religion to have ethics?

quote:
My point about not being catholic is was simply to inform so that no discussion would be brought up about the atrocities performed by the catholics in the past.

There have been undoubtedly just as many atrocities performed _upon_ Catholics in the past. My own ancestors would have probably never come here were it not for a particular one.

quote:
As my final point, I will say that the ethical standards of the Bible should not be the ONLY basis for the laws of the States. I would agree that this would be a silly notion. We might end up cutting babies in half or something.

I vehemently disagree. The ethical standards of the Bible should not be _ANY_ basis for the laws of the States.

Posted by homer on 08-19-2001 09:31 PM:

I'm not exactly sure what the point of this discussion is, as it really seems like a debate on religious virtues, which is typically a pointless argument.

Anyways, there are a few things that need to be responsed to. A few people are explaining that the bible is a good resource for ethical guidelines. For some people, it is, but it is not for all people, and some of these comments imply that everyone does (or should) believe in God and the Bible.

quote:
I agree that the Bible should not be used by the government to establish laws. It should however, be used in each persons life as an ethical standard.

The Bible is only a text used by those that partake in Christianity, and, of those, it only pertains to those within Christianity that take it as a serious part of their lives.

This is a LOT of people, but by no means most people on this planet. When one brings a religious text into a discussion of politics, it alienates a LOT of people. This is a bad thing. The ONLY time religion should be brought into government issues is when it is a mere part of an overly broad theoligical discussion. (including aethism, btw...)

quote:
If people would just live good wholesome lives, we wouldn't have to worry about the death penalty

Define 'wholesome'. Right now we typically use the death penalty as a punishment for murder (and, for some inane reason, treason). Convince me that murder is 100% bad all of the time. If you can convince me of that, then you've convinced me that the death penalty is wrong from an ethical standpoint.

quote:
As I said above, these were God's standards. Therefore they are perfect.

What does that have to do with anything?

Don't forget, the bible wasn't written by god. It was written by people. That, in itself, invalidates it as being the word of god. (it is, in fact, and interpretation of the word of god).

quote:
What I am trying to say is that this country would be in better ethical standing if they considered the ethical standards presented by the Bible when making laws and considering consequences of breaking said laws.

I doubt that. I think there are bible-believing christians that may believe that, but I'm thinking a majority of the US would have to disagree with that.

Until humans put ourselves first, as a society, we will always have theological debates that are often detrimental to human existence.

Religion isn't a bad thing, but it is not all things to all people...a point a lot of religious politicians forget (or ignore).

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

Posted by thorin on 08-20-2001 12:08 PM:

heh, im do lazy to do much more then skim this thread, but i thought id shoot my mouth off.

jesus, and the new testament are what makes christianity NOT judeasim.

And when you ask yourself WWJD, you just know it'd be 'kill that rapist bastard'.

__________________
-thorin

I have a webcomic. You should read it, or I may do something rash. <b><a href=http://driveby.keenspace.com/>Drive-by Loitering</a></b> is updated every monday, wednesday and friday.

<!img src=http://www.frontfly.com/myrouter/vcsig2.gif alt="Soundsgood is too elite for the punks."><img src=http://www.frontfly.com/vcsig.gif ><!img src=http://www.frontfly.com/myrouter/vcsig2.gif alt="Soundsgood is too elite for the punks.">

Posted by homer on 08-20-2001 03:07 PM:

quote:
jesus, and the new testament are what makes christianity NOT judeasim.

And when you ask yourself WWJD, you just know it'd be 'kill that rapist bastard'.

What does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

If you are going to reply to a thread with a relevant post, it may help to NOT just skip it...

Not sure what Jesus would do in this situation...

__________________
We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
-David Byrne

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:41 AM.

Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page