Poll: Do you support capital punishment?

[Phred]

--I don't get it. The poster is for protecting society. It isn't her fault we're not doing a good job of it. As far as that goes, it is likely that she--as you--feels that "we need to do a better job here, now". She did not say "Turn all the criminals loose and God will eventually take vengeance." So where does your post come from? It seems you are angry that she believes in God and the idea of final judgement (even though she did not use her beliefs as an excuse for allowing injustice); the implication is that you are angry that you see no intervention from a deity and yet people like her still continue to have faith.

The implication is that belief in vengeance later, or a deity interfering now, clouds the thinking of what to do know, and what should be happening now. Where is the anger at a deity who can, I'm assured, save that fictional child with barely a thought and yet doesn't... yet is prayed to so that it won't rain on a bake sale? It's not the faith that bugs me, it's the way the faith is justified. Either this deity is going to interfere in this world or it's not. If it is then it needs to be held accountable for its actions.

 

--So you dislike her beliefs and disagree with them. You use her quote out of context as though she has washed her hands of the messy situation on earth and relinquished all responsibility to God in Heaven. And then you end by saying that you don't want any flak for "speaking about your beliefs"? Sure, you can believe or disbelieve all you want. You can argue your point of view, and dispute someone else's. But I didn't think your argument followed from her statement. It's not an argument against her. As I see it, you made an argument against belief in God.

I used that quote as the statement that keyed the thought. Throughout this thread there have been references to redemption and what God will do after the villain is dead. I think these thoughts of deities cloud one's thinking on the issue. As to my being proactive... it's usually fine to proclaim that Jesus is in charge, but suggest he isn't and... that's where that statement comes in. As... once again I'm explaining it.

 

ok so I can't figure out how to multi-quote properly)

YEA!

[Phred]

You're a very confused and angry man, Phred, if you believe this twisted statement.

mmmm... thanks for saving me years of psychoanalysis.

 

Those of us who believe in God the way you describe do not PRETEND the child is in a better place. We are CERTAIN of it in a way that only faith can comprehend.

And my kids are CERTAIN that Santa brings them presents. All Muslims are certain of it too... but it's a different god and a different "better place" that you can't go to because you aren't Muslim. In fact, that fictional but all too real child I described? If she's Muslim then she's not in a better place but she's burning in a horrible place right now. Isn't that right? CERTAIN in a way only faith can comprehend.

 

We are CERTAIN that the reality we live in every day is less than a shadow of the reality of Eternity and the life of God and heaven.

Which only those who believe in Jesus will attain. Unless you're a Jehovah's Witness... in which case only 144,000 will attain it. The rest of us are condemned to hades. Your belief casts all the Muslims of the world into the pit, am I not right? And all the Jews, the atheists, the agnostics, the Hindus, the pagans and anyone else who doesn't believe correctly.

 

For God to interfere in the here and now it must serve an eternal purpose. Humanity's free will serves an eternal purpose. And yes, we do praise our all-knowing and soul-comforting God.

Yes, I see... selling a house for example. I see what is prayed for. If these things can be prayed for, and the prayers answered... you're telling me this serves more of an eternal purpose than saving the life of a child from being horribly murdered? That's not worthy of praise.

 

Where in the world did you get the idea that we would be *more* bothered by a woman aborting her child than a man killing a child for thrills? What bothers us *more* is that society is SANCTIONING the abortion.

Where did I get the idea? By the amount of time and effort you spend trying to prevent one over the other. Instead of working for a society where we can all walk the streets in safety you worry about cells in freezers... it's mind boggling.

[akmommy]

I didn't answer the poll because I don't know, honestly. Sometimes I think I am, when I hear someone like John Coohey(sp?) recieve the death penalty I think it's what he deserves. But then I realize that I would not want to be the judge, or on the jury that has to make that decision, I could not be the executioner, and I think if I am not able to participate in it or take some responsibility for it then how can I support it.

 

So I guess my answer would be no I dont support it.

 

(FWIW Alaska does not have the death penalty)

[Phred]

you missed several points.

yes, we have absolute freedom to act - be it good or evil.

you claim christians are mindless followers who do not think, yet that is exactly what you seem to think a god should have created so no one would ever have to develop a conscience and no one would ever have to suffer.

Then quit pretending a god is involved. You want to have both, a personal deity that cares for you, that answers your prayers, that changes the world and supervises it AND you want absolute freedom to act.

 

ah but you are not for killing yourself. You are for other people doing the dirty deed for you.

You're for God doing it for you. I'm willing to be responsible and not try to pass the responsibility off onto an imaginary friend.

 

If you want to commit suicide, that's up to your free will. although suicide in and of itself is sign of mental disorder by every pyschological evaluation.

That's when we're jumping off buildings. She shoots! Awww, wide of the net.

 

euthaniasia is about other people, not the terminal one. When given a caring environment and proper medical care (for pain for example), many people who are given the option and ability of self-termination never use it.

And many fight for it. And many are no longer in enough control of their faculties to know.

 

My dh's grandmother died of alzheimers recently after dealng with it for over 5 years. Even when she didn't know us - we still knew and loved her. She was more than a shell with personality. She was a deeply loved person. And every act of care she received was an act of love freely given.

How nice that is was all about you. Sounds like you were talking about a stuffed animal. Were you around when she awoke at night terrified because she didn't know where she was? This is a human being we're talking about... not something you can be proud of that you visit in a museum. I'm sure you did love her. All the more reason to let her go.

 

 

 

Again, abortion is a seperate issue than the death penalty, imo.

Ok

[Phred]

Great reply, Martha.

 

Unfortunately, it seems that Phred is more interested in getting a response than engaging in enlightening exchange. It's easy to hurl out a bunch of rather stale rhetoric; it actually requires thought to defend it--and I don't see that happening. If you want to bring up the issues, why not actually talk about them? :confused1: Phred, you sucked me in. I had higher hopes. It's so hard to find a decent argument these days. *sigh*

You'll have to excuse me for having a life.

[Phred]

Thanks Peek. I had totally missed the disparagement of pregnant career mothers.

You guys are priceless. You pigeonhole the women getting abortions as desperate, lonely young women who need someplace to live. So I point out that it might be a career woman and now I'm disparaging career women.

 

Priceless.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

I understand delays in posting. I was referring to the fact that you were not directly responding to the issues.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

The implication is that belief in vengeance later, or a deity interfering now, clouds the thinking of what to do know, and what should be happening now. Where is the anger at a deity who can, I'm assured, save that fictional child with barely a thought and yet doesn't... yet is prayed to so that it won't rain on a bake sale? It's not the faith that bugs me, it's the way the faith is justified. Either this deity is going to interfere in this world or it's not. If it is then it needs to be held accountable for its actions.

 

--Dear Phred...may I call you Krusty?...and this has what to do with the original question of whether or not one supports capital punishment? It was an opinion poll. So there will be opinion involved--cloudy or otherwise. I would say that your own reasoning is rather clouded by your personal beliefs, but I don't think a tirade against your beliefs is appropriate or, more exactly, pertinent. And the OP didn't justify her faith. She made reference to it. You disparaged it. And if there is such a thing as a deity, it is accountable to no one. That is self-evident.

 

 

I used that quote as the statement that keyed the thought. Throughout this thread there have been references to redemption and what God will do after the villain is dead. I think these thoughts of deities cloud one's thinking on the issue. As to my being proactive... it's usually fine to proclaim that Jesus is in charge, but suggest he isn't and... that's where that statement comes in. As... once again I'm explaining it.

 

--You are not making a distinction between others quotes about God and your quotes against him. They quote their beliefs to support their position. You quote your beliefs (at least in the statement I originally referenced) for no purpose other than to decry others' expressed beliefs. Do you see that there is a difference? The problem, as I see it, has nothing to do with you "proclaiming that Jesus is not in charge." The problem is that you are reacting to those who do. That's reactive, not proactive. And maybe that's why "once again you are explaining it."

 

--And the whole statement about the 40 year old woman is way off topic, too--the topic of abortion, that is. Address the real issue. That's all I was asking for--arguments that speak directly to the issue.

[Murphy101]

Then quit pretending a god is involved. You want to have both, a personal deity that cares for you, that answers your prayers, that changes the world and supervises it AND you want absolute freedom to act.

 

The two are not exclusive of each other! He is my Father in Heaven. I am the mother of my children, I listen to them, I order their world and supervise it to a large extent, but my children still have freedom to act! As vigilant as I may be, I have to let them live their life too. And that means that sometimes they do stupid things. Sometimes it means other people aren't nice to my kids. It doesn't make me a bad mother. And it doesn't mean my Father in heaven either doesn't exist or doesn't care either.

 

You're for God doing it for you. I'm willing to be responsible and not try to pass the responsibility off onto an imaginary friend.

 

or cowardly.

 

And many fight for it. And many are no longer in enough control of their faculties to know.

 

If they are not in enough control of thier faculties to make such a decision, then no one should be assuming to make it for them and killing them off!

 

How nice that is was all about you. Sounds like you were talking about a stuffed animal. Were you around when she awoke at night terrified because she didn't know where she was? This is a human being we're talking about... not something you can be proud of that you visit in a museum. I'm sure you did love her. All the more reason to let her go.

 

What a sick and sad outlook on life. Her husband of over 55 years was there every night, along with 4 of her 5 children and 2 home health nurses taking turns every day to make sure she was as comfortable as possible. Including pain meds and anti-depression meds. She was not a museum piece. And she didn't want to be "let go" thank you very much. YOU presume that.

 

Yes she was loved very much. And every moment with her was worth it. She was a human being and her life was worth something even when you think it wasn't worth living.

[Peek a Boo]

You pigeonhole the women getting abortions as desperate, lonely young women who need someplace to live. So I point out that it might be a career woman and now I'm disparaging career women.

 

I'm not disaparaging you :) But can you tell me where one was "pigeonholing" someone who wants to get an abortion? I simply offered one option for those extreme cases --you know, the extreme cases that are usually tossed out there by the pro-choice groups: "but what about the women who....." Obviously if a woman doesn't need to make use of a resource, nothing is going to force her to.

 

If these things can be prayed for, and the prayers answered... you're telling me this serves more of an eternal purpose than saving the life of a child from being horribly murdered? That's not worthy of praise.

 

---

By the amount of time and effort you spend trying to prevent one over the other. Instead of working for a society where we can all walk the streets in safety you worry about cells in freezers... it's mind boggling.

 

 

and it is mind-boggling how you Yet Again show your lack of knowledge of the Christian community: you ASSUME that Christians spend more time on one than another, because that's what is reported and that's what you choose to see. You refuse to acknowledge the tons of time and money that go into community building in general by christian organizations around the globe. I'd say that Christians are probably MORE frustrated that we don't have as many resources [not more or less, but "as many"] for saving the unborn as we do for helping in the "here and now" as you put it. The media loves to portray that differently though --if it's controversial, it gets more airtime. Abortion is certainly more controversial than helping your neighbor. I thought you were smarter than to fall prey to how the media works. Try some research next time.

 

You still do not understand the purpose of prayer, you still assume that people do NOT pray for the safety of EVERYone, and you refuse to acknowledge the importance of free will in a religious community. But you will happily latch onto those issues instead of debating scientific ones.

 

 

Then quit pretending a god is involved. You want to have both, a personal deity that cares for you, that answers your prayers, that changes the world and supervises it AND you want absolute freedom to act.

 

You are absolutely right: we get to have our cake and eat it too. Is that what bothers you so much? That we have a system that allows so much freedom, yet you are trapped in your own responsibility? Considering that a great deal of the people helping the community are religious, I would posit that religious support is teh last thing you have to second guess.

 

i noticed you didn't bother replying to MY post. Either you have me on ignore or can't handle the answers. That's fine :) I'll just keep addressing your points and let the board see your refusal to answer.

Ms Riding Hood hit the nail on the head:

 

I understand delays in posting. I was referring to the fact that you were not directly responding to the issues.

 

....and so the whole discussion boils down to: instead of Phred defending his position of a person's worth or even what defines a Person so we can figure out who gets to live or die and who we are to be moral to, he'll just keep deflecting the demand that he back up his own beliefs to whining about another's belief in a god. gotcha. Can we have a discussion WITHOUT referring to any kind of god? Phred, you are coming off as more religious than anyone here, lol.

[SnowWhite]

And my kids are CERTAIN that Santa brings them presents.

 

Beans? China? I don't understand why the fact that your children believe a lie you tell them has anything to do with true faith in the true and living God.

 

All Muslims are certain of it too... but it's a different god and a different "better place" that you can't go to because you aren't Muslim.

Why should I care whether Muslims believe I can go to their idea of paradise?

 

In fact, that fictional but all too real child I described? If she's Muslim then she's not in a better place but she's burning in a horrible place right now. Isn't that right?

Wrong. I don't believe children ever go to any burning horrible place. As a matter of fact, I don't believe anyone goes "straight" to any burning horrible place (it's an after the white throne judgement punishment), but that's nitpicking Christian theology so I won't meander that far OT. The executed criminal? Oh, he'll wind up there eventually if he doesn't accept salvation through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. One more reason I'm AGAINST capital punishment.

 

I'm not going to engage in your "Christians are so mean because they believe people who are of other religions wind up in hades" debate. It looks like a smoke screen to me and it's completely off topic. I will say I don't believe very many Jews are outside of God's covenant, though they presently don't understand what Christ has done for them. There is also a passage in the Bible that talks about those who are in ignorance: Romans 2: 11-16 if you're at all curious.

 

I don't understand why you're so dead set on trying to make the point hammered by the Hollywood bunch all day on all the channels here on a homeschooling forum. If we wanted to hear about how ignorant and ill-advised Christianity was we'd turn off the forums and go watch the tube.

 

Why don't you start your own thread called "Phred uses his magnificent genius to poke holes in Christian logic"? Then the rest of us could discuss the various issues that arise without the inevitable "dumb Christian" pokes.

[Phred]

Beans? China? I don't understand why the fact that your children believe a lie you tell them has anything to do with true faith in the true and living God.

Really? Who told you the lie that there's a true and living God? You don't remember how sure you were that there was a Santa Claus? You can't compare the two? If you can't admit to that comparison then there's nothing to say... even the Pope admits his belief is faith and not fact.

 

Why should I care whether Muslims believe I can go to their idea of paradise?

Because they're just as sure as you are. More so actually, as some of them are willing to die for their belief.

 

Wrong. I don't believe children ever go to any burning horrible place. As a matter of fact, I don't believe anyone goes "straight" to any burning horrible place (it's an after the white throne judgement punishment), but that's nitpicking Christian theology so I won't meander that far OT. The executed criminal? Oh, he'll wind up there eventually if he doesn't accept salvation through Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. One more reason I'm AGAINST capital punishment.

Better read your Bible. Find out what Jesus has to say about it.

 

I'm not going to engage in your "Christians are so mean because they believe people who are of other religions wind up in hades" debate. It looks like a smoke screen to me and it's completely off topic. I will say I don't believe very many Jews are outside of God's covenant, though they presently don't understand what Christ has done for them. There is also a passage in the Bible that talks about those who are in ignorance: Romans 2: 11-16 if you're at all curious.

Of course there is... if I were inventing a religion I'd be sure to write one just like it. But that's not my point... my point is that what you believe is nonsense to more than half the world yet you're CERTAIN of it. And they're certain of what they believe. Yet nobody has any evidence to back up their claims at all. But you're willing to base your decision on whether or not to take a man's life on this belief. Whether or not you think he can be redeemed by a belief.

 

I don't understand why you're so dead set on trying to make the point hammered by the Hollywood bunch all day on all the channels here on a homeschooling forum. If we wanted to hear about how ignorant and ill-advised Christianity was we'd turn off the forums and go watch the tube.

 

Why don't you start your own thread called "Phred uses his magnificent genius to poke holes in Christian logic"? Then the rest of us could discuss the various issues that arise without the inevitable "dumb Christian" pokes.

And, as is customary, when a religionist is questioned what happens? Herd instinct. Pull together with those of like viewpoints so there is no more questioning.

[Peek a Boo]

... even the Pope admits his belief is faith and not fact.

 

 

but if you ask the Pope, his belief IS fact, but it's based on faith ;)

It is a fact that he [we] believe AS a fact.

 

What is your belief that embryos are worthless based on?

 

what is your belief that people who don't have the faculty [supposedly] to decide to live should just be killed based on?

 

What is your belief that the death of a child is wrong based on? facts? what facts?? you have presented none. Or in your own words: Yet nobody has any evidence to back up their claims at all.

 

Better read your Bible. Find out what Jesus has to say about it.

 

Jesus has quite a bit to say about little children. Have YOU read it??

To what are YOU referring? Did you miss the "Let the Little Children come to me" part? There are a few others. I dare you to find them.

 

And, as is customary, when a religionist is questioned what happens? Herd instinct. Pull together with those of like viewpoints so there is no more questioning.

 

I'm not "pulling together" --I'm still wondering where your ANSWERS are.

Christians disagree and question other Christians all. the. time.

 

i'm just pointing out where you are so very wrong.

Wrong assumptions.

Wrong facts.

Wrong in that you won't even stick to the topic.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

 

Your discussion MO is starting to resemble your avatar.

[Ms. Riding Hood]

Better read your Bible. Find out what Jesus has to say about it.

 

This is inane. Ignorance revealed. Or perhaps it was meant in a purely snide way?

 

And, as is customary, when a religionist is questioned what happens? Herd instinct. Pull together with those of like viewpoints so there is no more questioning.

 

What's a synonym for inane? I'll choose asinine. I don't have a problem with you questioning religion; I have a problem with you spewing at people. And the herd thing, well that isn't inane or asinine; it's more like paranoia: Psychiatry; a mental disorder characterized by systematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts, which are ascribed to the supposed hostility of others, sometimes progressing to disturbances of consciousness and aggressive acts believed to be performed in self-defense or as a mission.

 

And as far as calling names, you've forgotten the first rule of logic, which is: "I'm rubber, you're glue, bounces off me, sticks on you." Or even better, "Takes one to know one." Religion: 4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Religionist: one who follows a religion. And Peek-a-Boo and I did not conspire within the herd to figure that out. We both actually noticed it independently of one another. Maybe that's significant.

 

Phred, it's been fun--but it hasn't been real. I'll have to catch you on the flipside, cuz I'm outta here.

[PrairieAir]

I'm confused, Phred. It sounds as though you've switched your position. Has the discussion made you reconsider, or are you just so intent on arguing about other people's reasons for being opposed to capital punishment that you've gotten lost and forgotten your original position? Are you fer or agin capital punishment?:lurk5:

[Tami]

I have no problems with the death penalty and find that it agrees with Biblical teaching on crime and punishment. Some people have simply given themselves over to evil, and Scripture teaches us that such a person hurts, affects, and spreads evil to others. The Bible is replete with examples of the death penalty, instituted by God. Since God's character does not change, I see no good reason to abandon it. What is punishment to one is mercy to others.

 

If God has said he will punish offenders with the second death, are we know saying we are more 'merciful' and 'moral' than God by sparing capital offenders?

 

The problem I have with life sentences is that the cancer spreads. The inmates spur each other on and make each other sicker! Eventually many get out and what was "mercy" to the offender is now "punishment" to the rest of us who can no longer let our kids play at the park, trust our neighbors or let our children into public restrooms.

[HRAAB]

I have no problems with the death penalty and find that it agrees with Biblical teaching on crime and punishment. Some people have simply given themselves over to evil, and Scripture teaches us that such a person hurts, affects, and spreads evil to others. The Bible is replete with examples of the death penalty, instituted by God. Since God's character does not change, I see no good reason to abandon it. What is punishment to one is mercy to others.

 

God instituted the death penalty? But see, I do not believe that. It was instituted by man. It is man (human) who is sitting in the seat of the judge, handing out the death sentence. And because it is man making that choice, there will be mistakes. In this case, a mistake means an innocent human life was taken.

 

Janet

[Murphy101]

Really? Who told you the lie that there's a true and living God? You don't remember how sure you were that there was a Santa Claus? You can't compare the two?

 

No I can't because I never believed in Santa Claus and I wasn't raised christian. I joined the catholic church as an adult with 3 kids without anyone ever suggesting it. It was the first time I'd been in a church for anything other than a wedding or funeral, I researched what the church believed and taught then I went in to a mass with my dh and dc. 3 year and 3 more children later I was confirmed. My dh did not join, but agreed the children could.

 

Because they're just as sure as you are. More so actually, as some of them are willing to die for their belief.

 

What makes you think I wouldn't die for my faith? You sure do presume a LOT for someone who claims to just want reason and logic. Almost every saint died and or sufferred tremendously for their faith. Oh and suicide isn't dying for ones faith. Martyrdom means the only reason a person died was because they lived their faith. Not that they committed murder and then suicide and claimed it was for done for God.

 

 

Better read your Bible. Find out what Jesus has to say about it.

 

well I know what my bible says on the subject. I suggest you take your own advice.

 

my point is that what you believe is nonsense to more than half the world yet you're CERTAIN of it. And they're certain of what they believe. Yet nobody has any evidence to back up their claims at all. But you're willing to base your decision on whether or not to take a man's life on this belief. Whether or not you think he can be redeemed by a belief.

 

well more than half the world believes what you think is nonsense, yet you base the decision to kill babies and old folks off on it! belief is not based on a popularity contest. in my particuliar opinion on the death penalty, it was not based on christian redemption. being christian does not absolve one of consequences. my opinion was based on:

 

A: being such a serious threat to society as to be unsafe to keep around in any situation (for penalty) being trumped by

 

B: a system that cannot guarantee that the person is guilty thus I feel life is best so as to avoid putting the occassional innocent man to death.

 

And, as is customary, when a religionist is questioned what happens? Herd instinct. Pull together with those of like viewpoints so there is no more questioning.

 

well your questioning doesn't seem very clear or logical, but it does not appear that anyone is preventing you from doing posing them.

 

and, as is customary, when a nonreligious person cannot support their opinions they desperately grasp at straws. don't be a sore loser dear.:grouphug:

[Phred]

but if you ask the Pope, his belief IS fact, but it's based on faith ;)

It is a fact that he [we] believe AS a fact.

 

What is your belief that embryos are worthless based on?

 

what is your belief that people who don't have the faculty [supposedly] to decide to live should just be killed based on?

 

What is your belief that the death of a child is wrong based on? facts? what facts?? you have presented none. Or in your own words: Yet nobody has any evidence to back up their claims at all.

 

 

 

Jesus has quite a bit to say about little children. Have YOU read it??

To what are YOU referring? Did you miss the "Let the Little Children come to me" part? There are a few others. I dare you to find them.

 

 

 

I'm not "pulling together" --I'm still wondering where your ANSWERS are.

Christians disagree and question other Christians all. the. time.

 

i'm just pointing out where you are so very wrong.

Wrong assumptions.

Wrong facts.

Wrong in that you won't even stick to the topic.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

 

Your discussion MO is starting to resemble your avatar.

Is that why you throw quotes in at me that I haven't said? Conflating little children and embryos together... show me where Jesus asked for an embryo to come running to him. I can play the rhetoric game too Peek. It's useless for either of us. If you'd like to start an abortion thread I'm more than happy to participate but as you know my attempts have been deleted in the past. As for this thread... we're either going to have to agree to disagree or we're going to end up despising each other. I'd rather that didn't happen.

 

Ok... so you do deserve answers and I'm not trying to evade you or avoid you. It's just that you're not asking questions... you're taking what I say, changing it ever so slightly and then tossing it back. Like the pope comment above. I'm sure nobody ever questions that it's a fact you do believe. But that isn't what I said or referred to. It's irrelevant. What's relevant is that belief isn't fact or evidence based. You know it and I know it. So to say you're certain about anything regarding a god is... not valid. That's my point.

[Phred]

I'm confused, Phred. It sounds as though you've switched your position. Has the discussion made you reconsider, or are you just so intent on arguing about other people's reasons for being opposed to capital punishment that you've gotten lost and forgotten your original position? Are you fer or agin capital punishment?

I'm against capital punishment. Although there are those I'd like to see put to death for what they did... if they did what they're convicted of. What I'm not comfortable with is making a decision about a man being put to death based upon a 4,000 year-old book. Or worse, our varying interpretations of that book. I think that religion tends to cloud people's thinking in a way that nothing else can. If the folks that whipped up a frenzy over Terri Schiavo were to do the same thing over putting a certain convict to death I can't help but wonder what would happen.

 

There are over 30,000 different sects of Christianity in the United States alone. Each thinks they have the one true path to salvation. How in the world can we use this religion as a guide to an issue this important. "I wouldn't want a man put to death if there's a chance he could be redeemed." On top of it all there's a pressure for the poor guy on death row to convert.

 

And then the contradictions between the values of owning guns and abortion and capital punishment came into the fray. I'm sorry but things just rolled out of control. So thanks for the lifeline.

 

I'm against capital punishment. I'm against deciding a man's fate based upon religious motives.

[Phred]

don't be a sore loser dear.:grouphug:

Aw I'll try....:001_smile:

[Spy Car]

I have no problems with the death penalty and find that it agrees with Biblical teaching on crime and punishment. Some people have simply given themselves over to evil, and Scripture teaches us that such a person hurts, affects, and spreads evil to others. The Bible is replete with examples of the death penalty, instituted by God. Since God's character does not change, I see no good reason to abandon it. What is punishment to one is mercy to others.

 

 

I'm confused by this from a theological perspective. Didn't Jesus stop the stoning of an adulteress woman? Was Jesus defying "God's law"?

 

And didn't Jesus say "we" are not to judge, that that is God's role?

 

And wasn't Jesus a "victim" of capital punishment?

 

I may be undereducated on the subject, but I don't see how the teachings of Jesus supports capital punishment. Am I missing something?

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

Is that why you throw quotes in at me that I haven't said? Conflating little children and embryos together... show me where Jesus asked for an embryo to come running to him.

 

there's quite a bit in the bible affirming life even in the womb.

Since Jesus is seen throughout scripture, that IS Jesus talking.

 

the quote you referenced was:

Wrong. I don't believe children ever go to any burning horrible place.

 

and YOU replied w/

 

Better read your Bible. Find out what Jesus has to say about it.

 

Maybe you'd like to clarify what you think Jesus says about whatever "it" is you are referencing?

 

 

 

It's just that you're not asking questions... you're taking what I say, changing it ever so slightly and then tossing it back. ....What's relevant is that belief isn't fact or evidence based. You know it and I know it. So to say you're certain about anything regarding a god is... not valid. That's my point.

 

except quite a few questions HAVE been asked:

 

What is your belief that embryos are worthless based on?

 

what is your belief that people who don't have the faculty [supposedly] to decide to live should just be killed based on?

 

What is your belief that the death of a child is wrong based on? facts? what facts?? you have presented none. Or in your own words: Yet nobody has any evidence to back up their claims at all.

 

now here's where you start sounding a little wierd:

I'm against capital punishment. Although there are those I'd like to see put to death for what they did... if they did what they're convicted of. What I'm not comfortable with is making a decision about a man being put to death based upon a 4,000 year-old book.

 

you are again assuming that people want to put someone to death BECAUSE of religion. That's not what they were saying. What they were saying is that like YOU, they too believe there are those I'd like to see put to death for what they did... if they did what they're convicted of. But unlike you, they [we] have the added comfort of knowing that God will take care of those who are executed --one way or another. You obviously don't care what happens to anyone after death, so why are you getting so hung up on what others think? Or are you thinking that Christians go around wanting to kill everyone and let God sort it out?

 

But if you support people being put to death for a crime they committed, that IS supporting capital punishment. I made my own position clear in that EVEN IF we could tell beyond a shadow of a doubt in a perfect system that someone was guilty, i still could not *support* capital punishment from a scriptural standpoint. So it seems to me that religion is actually saving people's lives, not putting them to death.

 

You are willing to abort developing humans because of your own arbitrary belief of their worth, while religious nuts like myself want to protect their right to life. Another instance of religion supporting life, not death.

 

You are willing to consider euthanasia --killing another person because of an arbitrary belief of someone's value as a human. Most of us religious nuts aren't willing to do that. Again: religion=life, Phred's values = death.

 

add on to the topic that plenty of non-religious folk embrace the same values of LIFE as many religious people do, and you are back to needing something other than religion to attack.

 

when you consider the statements made thus far, religion is the last thing that a man has to worry about when it comes to his death.

 

There are plenty of religious folk that have supported --like you-- the same certain cases for capital punishment: as a consequence. But since plenty of atheists share that view, we can't say that's any worse than a decision "based on religion."

There are plenty of people supporting lwetting the guy live -even if red-handed guilty-- but since that comes from people on both sides of the religious fence, we can't say that some skewed view of religion is any worse than a non-religious view.

 

 

So based on your statement: Although there are those I'd like to see put to death for what they did... if they did what they're convicted of.

 

Is this just the evil side of Phred talking? a side that Phred himself says is morally wrong?, or do you really support capital punishment?

 

 

Why is it NOT contradictory to support abortion and euthanasia, but let guilty murderers live? because your belief system of arbitrary subjective statements based on emotion--Phredology-- says so?? Then your statements are no more valid than ANY religious nut's beliefs. They just have a best selling book to point to, and you don't.

 

The crux of these discussions boils down to how you see life. You have tossed in "do no harm" but have yet to define that very well. Killing someone even if they deserve it is harm. Killing a developing human --at any life stage-- is harm. You are going to have to settle those questions before we can get very far in a discussion. because at this point NOTHING you have said is evidence based either.

 

i do appreciate your past [and present] attempts to discuss life issues, I just wish you'd get down to the nitty gritty and leave your idea of god outta the picture, and I'll do the same ;)

[Peek a Boo]

I'm confused by this from a theological perspective. Didn't Jesus stop the stoning of an adulteress woman? Was Jesus defying "God's law"?

 

And didn't Jesus say "we" are not to judge, that that is God's role?

 

And wasn't Jesus a "victim" of capital punishment?

 

I may be undereducated on the subject, but I don't see how the teachings of Jesus supports capital punishment. Am I missing something?

 

Bill

 

 

I agree with you.

 

Many would say that Jesus was addressing the legalism in the adulteress scene: who was stoning the MAN if the two were "caught red handed"??

 

Many would say that there is a difference between judging one's ACTIONS vs judging one's salvation.

 

And yes-- Jesus was a victim of capital punishment. In fact, Christ DEPENDED on capital punishment. If the romans had done away with it, the whole of Christianity could have been in peril. People also look to OT situations where God commands death for certain scenarios.

 

many believe that the teachings of Jesus don't PREclude capital punishment: this is the same person who took a whip to the temple ;)

[Spy Car]

I agree with you.

 

Many would say that Jesus was addressing the legalism in the adulteress scene: who was stoning the MAN if the two were "caught red handed"??

 

Many would say that there is a difference between judging one's ACTIONS vs judging one's salvation.

 

And yes-- Jesus was a victim of capital punishment. In fact, Christ DEPENDED on capital punishment. If the romans had done away with it, the whole of Christianity could have been in peril. People also look to OT situations where God commands death for certain scenarios.

 

many believe that the teachings of Jesus don't PREclude capital punishment: this is the same person who took a whip to the temple ;)

 

Interesting! Thank you Peek a Boo. So many further questions, but perhaps best left for a future thread.

 

Play on!

 

Bill

[Phred]

the quote you referenced was:

Wrong. I don't believe children ever go to any burning horrible place.

 

and YOU replied w/

 

Better read your Bible. Find out what Jesus has to say about it.

 

Maybe you'd like to clarify what you think Jesus says about whatever "it" is you are referencing?

I did. Go back a couple of posts.

[Phred]

What is your belief that embryos are worthless based on?

I've never said this nor do I believe it.

[Phred]

what is your belief that people who don't have the faculty [supposedly] to decide to live should just be killed based on?

I don't believe that statement, nor have I ever made it. There's a huge difference between allowing a person to dictate their wishes before they are taken by a disease like altzheimers or what happened to Terri Schiavo and the statement you make above.

[Phred]

What is your belief that the death of a child is wrong based on?

I said "murder" of a child. Not death. It's based upon my own definition of what's right and wrong. You're welcome to take the opposite side on this one... but I don't see that as a very profitable enterprise.

 

facts? what facts?? you have presented none. Or in your own words: Yet nobody has any evidence to back up their claims at all.

Facts? It's just a story. A child is murdered. Something we all pretty much agree that we'd stop if we could. And here you are quibbling over the basic morality of the story? Pick something else then... I don't care... what do you think is wrong? There are thousands of examples every day that your deity does nothing to stop.

[Phred]

now here's where you start sounding a little wierd:

I'm against capital punishment. Although there are those I'd like to see put to death for what they did... if they did what they're convicted of. What I'm not comfortable with is making a decision about a man being put to death based upon a 4,000 year-old book.

 

you are again assuming that people want to put someone to death BECAUSE of religion. That's not what they were saying. What they were saying is that like YOU, they too believe there are those I'd like to see put to death for what they did... if they did what they're convicted of. But unlike you, they [we] have the added comfort of knowing that God will take care of those who are executed --one way or another. You obviously don't care what happens to anyone after death, so why are you getting so hung up on what others think? Or are you thinking that Christians go around wanting to kill everyone and let God sort it out?

You do know there are those who would do just that... but luckily not many. :D

 

What I'm saying is that, like me, Christians are outraged by a crime and wish justice. Unlike me some Christians then look at capital punishment and religion clouds their decisions. "perhaps the man could be redeemed, we'd best not kill him" is the example that flits to mind. What if we should put the man to death?

 

But if you support people being put to death for a crime they committed, that IS supporting capital punishment. I made my own position clear in that EVEN IF we could tell beyond a shadow of a doubt in a perfect system that someone was guilty, i still could not *support* capital punishment from a scriptural standpoint. So it seems to me that religion is actually saving people's lives, not putting them to death.

So your interpretation is different than others.

 

You are willing to abort developing humans because of your own arbitrary belief of their worth, while religious nuts like myself want to protect their right to life. Another instance of religion supporting life, not death.

Your words, your spin, not mine.

 

You are willing to consider euthanasia --killing another person because of an arbitrary belief of someone's value as a human. Most of us religious nuts aren't willing to do that. Again: religion=life, Phred's values = death.

Your words, your spin, not mine.

 

add on to the topic that plenty of non-religious folk embrace the same values of LIFE as many religious people do, and you are back to needing something other than religion to attack.

Gosh... I'll just have to ignore the last eight years. You can have all the religion you want as long as reason is in government.

 

when you consider the statements made thus far, religion is the last thing that a man has to worry about when it comes to his death.

But since I haven't made any of them it's really not a problem.

 

There are plenty of religious folk that have supported --like you-- the same certain cases for capital punishment: as a consequence. But since plenty of atheists share that view, we can't say that's any worse than a decision "based on religion."

There are plenty of people supporting lwetting the guy live -even if red-handed guilty-- but since that comes from people on both sides of the religious fence, we can't say that some skewed view of religion is any worse than a non-religious view.

Not like me.

 

i do appreciate your past [and present] attempts to discuss life issues, I just wish you'd get down to the nitty gritty and leave your idea of god outta the picture, and I'll do the same ;)

Sure... when gods are left out of the decision making process.

[HRAAB]

I'm against capital punishment. Although there are those I'd like to see put to death for what they did... if they did what they're convicted of. What I'm not comfortable with is making a decision about a man being put to death based upon a 4,000 year-old book. Or worse, our varying interpretations of that book. I think that religion tends to cloud people's thinking in a way that nothing else can. If the folks that whipped up a frenzy over Terri Schiavo were to do the same thing over putting a certain convict to death I can't help but wonder what would happen.

 

There are over 30,000 different sects of Christianity in the United States alone. Each thinks they have the one true path to salvation. How in the world can we use this religion as a guide to an issue this important. "I wouldn't want a man put to death if there's a chance he could be redeemed." On top of it all there's a pressure for the poor guy on death row to convert.

 

And then the contradictions between the values of owning guns and abortion and capital punishment came into the fray. I'm sorry but things just rolled out of control. So thanks for the lifeline.

 

I'm against capital punishment. I'm against deciding a man's fate based upon religious motives.

 

I might be on thin ice here, but what the heck. I agree with most of what Phred said here. I don't want laws instituted based upon one group's interpretation of Scripture; especially a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. From this discussion here, there are people backing up polar opposite positions on the death penalty and basing those positions on the Bible. I don't care to live under a theocracy, even a Christian theocracy especially if the Old Testament is going to be the basis of law. That scares the bejeezes out of me.

 

Please, no rotten tomatoes.

 

Janet

[Susan in TN]

I believe in general that our current system of justice is completely wrong because it leaves out the Justice part. Punishing a thief by making him/her sit in jail for a while is not justice. Making him work off his crime to make restitution to the person/people who were stolen from is justice. Obviously, that's not something that we're willing to take on in our society. Too much work :glare:. On the other hand, you cannot make restitution for intentionally taking a life with malice or for rape. For those things I support capital punishment.

[SFP]

Or are you thinking that Christians go around wanting to kill everyone and let God sort it out?

 

 

 

It's been done.

 

From the wikipedia article on violence:

 

"The Albigensian Crusade or "Cathar Crusade" (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by the Pope Innocent III of the Roman Catholic Church to eliminate the heresy of the Cathars of Languedoc. Béziers was a Languedoc stronghold of Catharism and the first city to be sacked, on July 22, 1209. In the bloody massacre which followed, no one was spared, not even those who took refuge in the churches. The commander of the Crusade was the Papal Legate Arnaud-Amaury (or Arnald Amalaricus, Abbot of Citeaux). When asked by a Crusader how to distinguish between the Catholics and Cathars once they'd taken the city, the abbot famously replied, "Kill them all, God will know His own" - "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet".[37] According to "Caesarius of Heisterbach: Medieval Heresies," after the city was taken, at a cost in life of thousands of defenders, about 450 heretics were "examined" by the inquisitors and many of them claimed to be good Catholicss rather than being heretics. Fearing the possibility that these were lying, must have caused the infamous phrase to first be uttered.[38] In the end, the Albigensian Crusade killed an estimated 1,000,000 people, not only Cathars but much of the population of southern France.[39]"

[HRAAB]

you are again assuming that people want to put someone to death BECAUSE of religion. That's not what they were saying. What they were saying is that like YOU, they too believe there are those I'd like to see put to death for what they did... if they did what they're convicted of. But unlike you, they [we] have the added comfort of knowing that God will take care of those who are executed --one way or another. You obviously don't care what happens to anyone after death, so why are you getting so hung up on what others think? Or are you thinking that Christians go around wanting to kill everyone and let God sort it out?

 

This wasn't address to me, but since I 'agreed' with Phred on this point, I wanted to clarify. I didn't understand Phred to be saying that Christians wanted to see people put to death because of religion. Rather that some Christians base their support of the death penalty (which results in the death of people) on their interpretation of the Bible. ("The Bible is replete with examples of the death penalty, instituted by God. Since God's character does not change, I see no good reason to abandon it. What is punishment to one is mercy to others.")

 

Then when Christians say "they [we] have the added comfort of knowing that God will take care of those who are executed --one way or another.", I think that sounds to non-Christians like a cop-out.

 

* We support the death penalty because it's in the Old Testament, and God condoned it.

 

* We support the death penalty because without capital punishment there might not be Christianity today. (A friend of mine used this as her basis for supporting the death penalty.)

 

* In the end, it will all be okay one way or the other because God will take care of it.

 

* If you believe in God, you shouldn't worry about the death penalty because God is in ultimate control. (Same friend...)

 

* We, society, give the final shot, pull the switch, whatever, but we're comforted because God will make it right.

 

Peek A Boo, I know you didn't make any of the above comments. I understand you do not support capital punishment. Just a sense I've picked from talking to Christians and from some of the posts in this thread.

 

These arguments don't work for non-Christians. Actually they don't work for this Christian either.

 

I'm only speaking to capital punishment, not abortion or euthanasia.

 

Janet

[PrairieAir]

I might be on thin ice here, but what the heck. I agree with most of what Phred said here. I don't want laws instituted based upon one group's interpretation of Scripture; especially a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. From this discussion here, there are people backing up polar opposite positions on the death penalty and basing those positions on the Bible. I don't care to live under a theocracy, even a Christian theocracy especially if the Old Testament is going to be the basis of law. That scares the bejeezes out of me.

 

Please, no rotten tomatoes.

 

Janet

 

The original question, though, was do you support or oppose capital punishment. You cannot mandate how someone decides what is right or wrong--their "moral compass" mentioned in another thread. Some will decide based upon the Bible, some will decide based on another religious book or other religious teachings, others will decide based upon a secular source, and still others will use their own reasoning (although even that is usually influenced by one or more other outside sources).

 

Now, each of us will decide who to vote for based upon how well the candidates views on the issues match up with their own. We will elect lower court judges, senators, representatives, a president, etc. Supreme Court appointments will be made by someone we vote into office. Therefore our laws and how they are carried out will be affected by the combined moral compasses of the nation--some of which will be a religious book or someone's interpretation of it.

 

Even in a different system, someone's the laws would have to be based on someone's moral code which would have to come from somewhere. If that moral code which influences the laws is simply based on what someone thinks is right with no reasoning or outside influence behind it, whose to say we'd like that any better. It's still someone's opinion about what is moral and just. But basically, all laws have to be based on some idea of morals (which come from somewhere, even if it's the mind of man) otherwise we would not feel any need for laws and would live in total anarchy.

 

Now the thing that keeps our laws from being based on just one group's interpretation of Scripture or their own moral code based on something else is the way our system is set up. We each have the right to vote and help decide. Our government has checks and balances. Every political position except for the Supreme Court has term limits so that if we decide we don't like the job our government is doing we can get new people in there to do it right. As far as I can see, this system is about the best and fairest we can get--this side of heaven anyway.

[HRAAB]

The original question, though, was do you support or oppose capital punishment. You cannot mandate how someone decides what is right or wrong--their "moral compass" mentioned in another thread. Some will decide based upon the Bible, some will decide based on another religious book or other religious teachings, others will decide based upon a secular source, and still others will use their own reasoning (although even that is usually influenced by one or more other outside sources).

 

I'm aware of what the original question was, and I answered that. But then it seemed this whole thread got derailed into a religious/non-religious debate.

 

You're absolutely right. People will vote and make choices based on their moral compass. I was actually thinking that while I was writing. We are all influenced, either positively or negatively, by our parents, friends, communities. People will vote on what I considered totally wrong headed interpretations of scripture whether I like it or not.

 

When in a conversation such as this, with people from varied backgrounds, someone supports the death penalty because 'it's in the Bible' or 'God instituted it', it doesn't help me to see their point of view. For the purpose of this discussion I would like to see facts. Does it reduce crime? Is it better for society? Is there no chance for rehabilitation? Are there safety nets that can be instituted that will assure an innocent will never be put to death? Something concrete. God instituted it is not concrete nor provable.

 

When they're in the voting booth, and they vote because the Bible says so or God ordained it, that is absolutely their right. But for the sake of a discussion such as this, I would like to see it backed up with evidence. Not with a book that is interpreted in more ways than I know. 'I believe ...... because it's in the Bible, but also can also offer evidence and defense of that belief.' Using the Bible in a vacuum will not convince many (other than like minded Christians) of your point of view.

 

Janet

[Peek a Boo]

I did. Go back a couple of posts.

 

still lost --i'll need you to point it out to me.

[Peek a Boo]

It's been done.

 

From the wikipedia article on violence:

 

 

 

sure --and there have been lots of deaths attributed to non-religious people too. But to assume that every person in a particular group is looking for that same thing is a bit blanket-statement-ish to me. I was offering phred the opp to clarify his understanding.

[SFP]

He comes across as clear-headed to me.

[Peek a Boo]

Unlike me some Christians then look at capital punishment and religion clouds their decisions. "perhaps the man could be redeemed, we'd best not kill him" is the example that flits to mind. What if we should put the man to death?

 

so you're saying your decision isn't clouded? How do you defend that? what evidence do you put forth to show your decision isn't any more clouded than a religious person's? Do you or don't you support capital punishment? First you said you didn't.... so why not? then you said you'd be fine w/ killing someone who deserves to die.

 

i said:

You are willing to abort developing humans because of your own arbitrary belief of their worth, while religious nuts like myself want to protect their right to life. Another instance of religion supporting life, not death.

 

you replied:

Your words, your spin, not mine.

 

except THESE are your words previously about the worth of developing humans:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=269066&postcount=215

 

If I stood on a crowded pier hurling petri dishes into the sea, no one would stop me... no one would even question me. Yet, dish after dish would send five or ten blastocysts to the bottom where they would cease to exist. Were I to take an infant there and start to throw him into the water I'll bet I'd be stopped and quickly taken into custody. The real world doesn't play semantic games. Blastocysts are not human beings. They never will be unless implanted into a woman. The women than created them have had their children and these are leftovers, destined for either the random few (thanks to desperate folks making a point) that become "snowflake children" or are quietly discarded. A few of these would create new stem cell lines which would feed research for years. Yes, reality says these are not human beings. We should be using them instead of losing them. Your stand that these are human life... oh so wonderful. Can't crack the door to approving of abortion, can we? So in your world everything possible must be done to secure those hatches. Even if it means others must die. Your argument is ... obscene. There is no suffering, there is no abortion, there is no human being having his or her life cut short. There is no moral issue here. There is only a religious one. Be honest... it's not research you're against, or using these unwanted blastocysts. It's abortion. This just get's caught up in your righteous fury.

 

so....where am i spinning your words that you --and you alone-- get to determine the worth of another developing human??

You yourself railed against Christians who are spending "more time" fighting for abortion instead of caring for the here and now... so you readily admit that a big part of the fight in abortion is driven by religious folk. more spin on my part?

 

==================

I said:

 

You are willing to consider euthanasia --killing another person because of an arbitrary belief of someone's value as a human. Most of us religious nuts aren't willing to do that. Again: religion=life, Phred's values = death.

 

yuo accuse me of spin, but refuse to defend what you said and show --w/ evidence-- how the spin is WRONG. The euthanasia thread was deleted, but you were clear on pointing out that there is a subjective worth to a human's life. Feel free to clarify that I really am spinning your words.

 

===========

I said:

when you consider the statements made thus far, religion is the last thing that a man has to worry about when it comes to his death.

 

you claim:

But since I haven't made any of them it's really not a problem.

 

yet... you are pointing to religion as playing a major role in the death of another. Maybe you should clarify what it is you don't see as a "problem."

 

===========

I said:

There are plenty of religious folk that have supported --like you-- the same certain cases for capital punishment: as a consequence.

you claim:

Not like me.

 

really?? you said you'd support seeing someone die as a consequence-- did I misread that? Did you misunderstand some Christians saying they would support the death penalty as a consequence? clarification, please.

 

=============

 

Gods are left out of the decision making process: we are talking about whether PEOPLE support capital punishment. Some do, some don't, and some of those bolster their view w/ scripture. o we are back to:

 

do you --or don't you-- support capital punishment? and why?

you said you didn't support it, but then said you did in certain cases ....... THAT's my biggest sincere question right now.

[Peek a Boo]

He comes across as clear-headed to me.

 

except blanket statements are NOT the sign of a clear head.

 

Or scratch that: they are the sign of a cleared head that doesn't take into account the rest of reality.

 

 

That's why I gave him the opp to clarify --and he did when he posted:

You do know there are those who would do just that... but luckily not many.

 

:D

[Peek a Boo]

This wasn't address to me, but since I 'agreed' with Phred on this point, I wanted to clarify. I didn't understand Phred to be saying that Christians wanted to see people put to death because of religion. Rather that some Christians base their support of the death penalty (which results in the death of people) on their interpretation of the Bible. ...

Then when Christians say "they [we] have the added comfort of knowing that God will take care of those who are executed --one way or another.", I think that sounds to non-Christians like a cop-out.

 

Peek A Boo, I know you didn't make any of the above comments. I understand you do not support capital punishment. Just a sense I've picked from talking to Christians and from some of the posts in this thread.

 

These arguments don't work for non-Christians. Actually they don't work for this Christian either.

 

I'm only speaking to capital punishment, not abortion or euthanasia.

 

Janet

 

I understand that Janet :)

 

But even non-religious people are held accountable to defend their beliefs. There are plenty of non-religious stands that sound like quite a cop-out to lots of people too ;) I would ask someone who's not religious to defend why they support killing someone. many Biblical grounds [the reasons God "condoned it"] deal directly to consequences --which tends to be the same secular argument FOR capital punishment.

 

If the secular reasons for NOT supporting capital punishment deal solely w/ the monetary aspect, would a non-religious person's view of support change if the system became foolproof and cheap?

[Phred]

so you're saying your decision isn't clouded? How do you defend that? what evidence do you put forth to show your decision isn't any more clouded than a religious person's? Do you or don't you support capital punishment? First you said you didn't.... so why not? then you said you'd be fine w/ killing someone who deserves to die.

I'll say it again, I do not support capital punishment. Wanting to see someone ripped limb from limb for a crime is an emotional reaction. Doing it is something else altogether. Do you see the distinction? I admit to the emotion but decide rationally.

 

i said:

You are willing to abort developing humans because of your own arbitrary belief of their worth, while religious nuts like myself want to protect their right to life. Another instance of religion supporting life, not death.

 

you replied:

Your words, your spin, not mine.

 

except THESE are your words previously about the worth of developing humans:

http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showpost.php?p=269066&postcount=215

 

If I stood on a crowded pier hurling petri dishes into the sea, no one would stop me... no one would even question me. Yet, dish after dish would send five or ten blastocysts to the bottom where they would cease to exist. Were I to take an infant there and start to throw him into the water I'll bet I'd be stopped and quickly taken into custody. The real world doesn't play semantic games. Blastocysts are not human beings. They never will be unless implanted into a woman. The women than created them have had their children and these are leftovers, destined for either the random few (thanks to desperate folks making a point) that become "snowflake children" or are quietly discarded. A few of these would create new stem cell lines which would feed research for years. Yes, reality says these are not human beings. We should be using them instead of losing them. Your stand that these are human life... oh so wonderful. Can't crack the door to approving of abortion, can we? So in your world everything possible must be done to secure those hatches. Even if it means others must die. Your argument is ... obscene. There is no suffering, there is no abortion, there is no human being having his or her life cut short. There is no moral issue here. There is only a religious one. Be honest... it's not research you're against, or using these unwanted blastocysts. It's abortion. This just get's caught up in your righteous fury.

 

so....where am i spinning your words that you --and you alone-- get to determine the worth of another developing human??

That's not me... that's reality. Those "developing humans" as you rename them from blastocysts (they'll never develop another step without being implanted, so they aren't developing) will be discarded. And yes, I apologize for the sarcasm. But other than that I'm not determining the value of anything. Others are. Society is.

 

You yourself railed against Christians who are spending "more time" fighting for abortion instead of caring for the here and now... so you readily admit that a big part of the fight in abortion is driven by religious folk. more spin on my part?

 

==================

I said:

 

You are willing to consider euthanasia --killing another person because of an arbitrary belief of someone's value as a human. Most of us religious nuts aren't willing to do that. Again: religion=life, Phred's values = death.

 

yuo accuse me of spin, but refuse to defend what you said and show --w/ evidence-- how the spin is WRONG. The euthanasia thread was deleted, but you were clear on pointing out that there is a subjective worth to a human's life. Feel free to clarify that I really am spinning your words.

 

I can't defend what I didn't say. Sorry Peek, but I'm not going to play this game. Why should I show how your spin of something I didn't say is wrong? It's nonsense.

 

 

===========

I said:

when you consider the statements made thus far, religion is the last thing that a man has to worry about when it comes to his death.

 

you claim:

But since I haven't made any of them it's really not a problem.

 

yet... you are pointing to religion as playing a major role in the death of another. Maybe you should clarify what it is you don't see as a "problem."

 

Nah.

 

===========

I said:

There are plenty of religious folk that have supported --like you-- the same certain cases for capital punishment: as a consequence.

you claim:

Not like me.

 

really?? you said you'd support seeing someone die as a consequence-- did I misread that? Did you misunderstand some Christians saying they would support the death penalty as a consequence? clarification, please.

Of what? Your mistatement of what you thought I said?

 

=============

 

Gods are left out of the decision making process: we are talking about whether PEOPLE support capital punishment. Some do, some don't, and some of those bolster their view w/ scripture. o we are back to:

 

do you --or don't you-- support capital punishment? and why?

you said you didn't support it, but then said you did in certain cases ....... THAT's my biggest sincere question right now.

I've answered you... again, and again, and again.

[Murphy101]

Many theologeans far smarter in many areas than me came to be christians based on its reasonable directives.

 

I don't think a person should get to avoid death row just because they might become christian. I'll repeat once again being christian does not absolve one of dealing with consequences. They might get to die with a cleaner soul, but if they were a serial killer (just an example) then they still deserve the death penalty. Saying they are christian won't change that. Like us all, how they spend eternity will depend on God's mercy. His mercy is not limited by human minds or emotions.

 

One might say they believe something because it's in the bible, but I don't know that's really true most of the time. Truth does NOT change. If it's a true thing, it's true whether it's in the bible, tradition or common sense. They may have first encountered that truth in the bible, but where it was learned does not change the truth.

 

ALL life has tremendous value, from conception to death. That's a truth. I didn't need to read a bible to learn it, but if another finds support there or comes to that conclusion first there - good for them. I'm just glad they learned that truth!

[Peek a Boo]

I'll say it again, I do not support capital punishment. Wanting to see someone ripped limb from limb for a crime is an emotional reaction. Doing it is something else altogether. Do you see the distinction? I admit to the emotion but decide rationally.

 

ok. thanks for that clarification :)

I do think it warrants pointing out that capital punishment rarely involves ripping people limb to limb [at least not here in the US ;) ], and I know that for many people, deciding whether someone lives or dies tends to be based on a perception of pain and suffering --how much they will suffer in the process of killing them or how much they ARE suffering in the present.

 

anyway-- so where is the rationality in wanting to see someone who committed a heinous act kept alive, but supporting the death of humans?

 

That's not me... that's reality. Those "developing humans" as you rename them from blastocysts (they'll never develop another step without being implanted, so they aren't developing) will be discarded. And yes, I apologize for the sarcasm. But other than that I'm not determining the value of anything. Others are. Society is.

 

...the sarcasm doesn't bother me ;)

 

Those developing humans are "still developing" because they are not DEAD. If they were DEAD there would be no question as to their ability to continue developing to a mature state. We can substitute "alive humans in a specific stage of development" if that's easier to work with. So if "society" determines that these humans in a specific stage of development have the right to due process under the law and a right to live -to exist-, you will then be completely on board because "society" has made that determination?

 

This becomes problematic: you want to support the destruction of humans in petri dishes because society says it's ok, but DON't support the current practice of capital punishment, whether society says it's ok or not? This is where the discussion of a "moral compass" comes into play: a clear, well thought out definition of exactly what you deem relevant when deciding which lives to harm or protect.

 

I can't defend what I didn't say. Sorry Peek, but I'm not going to play this game. Why should I show how your spin of something I didn't say is wrong? It's nonsense.

 

so you are NOT in favor of euthanasia? ok. Your thread sure sounded like you supported euthanasia. I'll accept that as another clarification.

 

Nah.

 

excellent. Now that we have decided religion doesn't play any part in this discussion, we can move on and ignore other's religious reactions :)

 

Of what? Your mistatement of what you thought I said?

 

you clarified this above: you do NOT support capital punishment, so you do NOT believe one should die as a natural consequence for heinous crimes like a lot of Christians do. So this was obviously a misunderstanding on my part. The analogy has now been taken off the table.

 

And thank you for clarifying AGAIN your stance on capital punishment.

 

===========================================

But my next question [to everyone] is WHY do you want to keep someone alive [or conversely, kill them] when they have committed such violent acts?

 

The religious folk have already given a statement of why they made their decision to support/ not support capital punishment. I am now looking for non-religious reasoning to a decision process. It's one thing to make the decision, another to defend it. And it is seeing another defend their position that really intrigues me.

 

Some have stated that the cost involved is higher.

Some have mentioned the fallibility of the system.

 

Some have mentioned that prisons are too posh --if the prison system becomes um, appropriately un-posh-like, would you then withdraw your support of capital punishment?

 

[have i missed any other reasons/statements?]

 

i asked in an earlier post: if the reasons you give to support/not support capital punishment were to change, would your stance then change? why or why not?

[Phred]

ok. thanks for that clarification :)

I do think it warrants pointing out that capital punishment rarely involves ripping people limb to limb [at least not here in the US ;) ], and I know that for many people, deciding whether someone lives or dies tends to be based on a perception of pain and suffering --how much they will suffer in the process of killing them or how much they ARE suffering in the present.

True... people are willing to levy capital punishment when it's the electric chair or lethal injection but not hanging. Although hanging is more likely a quicker way to die than electrocution.

 

When a man is about to receive a lethal injection they still wipe down the person's arm with alcohol... we're such a weird bunch us humans.

 

anyway-- so where is the rationality in wanting to see someone who committed a heinous act kept alive, but supporting the death of humans?

Start an abortion thread, we can play this game for hours if you want.

 

...the sarcasm doesn't bother me ;)

Good, many others seem to think "I'm just so rude!!!"

 

Those developing humans are "still developing" because they are not DEAD. If they were DEAD there would be no question as to their ability to continue developing to a mature state. We can substitute "alive humans in a specific stage of development" if that's easier to work with. So if "society" determines that these humans in a specific stage of development have the right to due process under the law and a right to live -to exist-, you will then be completely on board because "society" has made that determination?

And this is very interesting... the questions raised here. Dead, alive, developing... but it distracts from this thread.

 

This becomes problematic: you want to support the destruction of humans in petri dishes because society says it's ok, but DON't support the current practice of capital punishment, whether society says it's ok or not? This is where the discussion of a "moral compass" comes into play: a clear, well thought out definition of exactly what you deem relevant when deciding which lives to harm or protect.

I can't respond to this because it's so heavily weighted with your pro-life rhetoric.

 

so you are NOT in favor of euthanasia? ok. Your thread sure sounded like you supported euthanasia. I'll accept that as another clarification.

Not exactly... but again, not relevant here.

 

excellent. Now that we have decided religion doesn't play any part in this discussion, we can move on and ignore other's religious reactions :)

Ummmm, again, not exactly... but when you say it that's not what I said or meant. Religion does play a part here. That's could have an influence upon why evangelical-heavy Texas kills more criminals than any other state.

 

===========================================

But my next question [to everyone] is WHY do you want to keep someone alive [or conversely, kill them] when they have committed such violent acts?

Primarily because human beings are lousy judges. I'd rather keep thousands of guilty criminals alive than kill one innocent man. But also, as a society, what makes us better than a murderer if we in turn kill too?

 

And don't think I'm blind to the road you're leading me down... ;-)

[starlashine]

I believe in general that our current system of justice is completely wrong because it leaves out the Justice part. Punishing a thief by making him/her sit in jail for a while is not justice. Making him work off his crime to make restitution to the person/people who were stolen from is justice. Obviously, that's not something that we're willing to take on in our society. Too much work :glare:. On the other hand, you cannot make restitution for intentionally taking a life with malice or for rape. For those things I support capital punishment.

 

:iagree:

And also, very well put. I go off to give you rep now.:001_smile:

[SFP]

In fact, Christ DEPENDED on capital punishment. If the romans had done away with it, the whole of Christianity could have been in peril.

 

That's just dumb.

 

When the elderly minister at our old church told everyone on Easter morn what a risk God had taken by letting Jesus be born to Mary because what if-- what if-- what if HE'D BEEN BORN A GIRL he was retired in no time flat.

[Peek a Boo]

That's just dumb.

 

When the elderly minister at our old church told everyone on Easter morn what a risk God had taken by letting Jesus be born to Mary because what if-- what if-- what if HE'D BEEN BORN A GIRL he was retired in no time flat.

 

I happen to agree. I listed it as reasons that are usually cited within the Christian community. There's a lot of things are just plain dumb --religious and otherwise :)

[Peek a Boo]

And this is very interesting... the questions raised here. Dead, alive, developing... but it distracts from this thread.

----

I can't respond to this because it's so heavily weighted with your pro-life rhetoric.

----

Not exactly... but again, not relevant here.

----

Ummmm, again, not exactly... but when you say it that's not what I said or meant. Religion does play a part here. That's could have an influence upon why evangelical-heavy Texas kills more criminals than any other state.

----

Primarily because human beings are lousy judges. I'd rather keep thousands of guilty criminals alive than kill one innocent man. But also, as a society, what makes us better than a murderer if we in turn kill too?

 

Religion "plays a part" but considering capital punishment is supported by non-religious groups also the part is really miniscule in the bigger picture.

 

Your last sentence is what interests me the most, especially when compared w/ your first sentence :) It is precisely because of your stance in the last sentence that dead, alive, developing carries such a huge relevance TO this thread.

 

How can we support or not support the killing of a human if we can't even explore the definition OF a human? If we can't decide the importance or worth or rights to life OF those humans?

 

My pro-life rhetoric is well known and I keep it very clarified. I have also tried to keep it scientific --the one article that was linked previously to add "scientific evidence" to the questioning of when life begins even conceded that the questions posed in it were philosophical, not scientific. What *I'm* interested in is learning about OTHER's stance: The questions I ask are designed to elicit exact answers. i concede that there are rarely "easy" answers. If you really get into the questioning there are even some points that i still question w/in my own stance ;)

 

But i would like to see some very frank answers and opposing viewpoints. You were doing pretty good in the last few threads.... Input from others would be great too.

 

Back to your answers: what do you define as an "innocent man?" Who is innocent? i would counter that all human life is innocent till proven guilty, but you obviously differ in who gets to be called human. Your stance on euthanasia also interests me: it's ok to kill an innocent person..... if you decide they are suffering? There's a big difference between a living will and euthanasia. "Suffering" has a lot of implications in the capital punishment thread too: could a jail sentence be considered "suffering?" Is it better to let someone suffer than to just kill them?

 

The road I'm leading down is really NOT just about abortion, but about the entire concept of human life --from conception to death-- and our reactions as individuals to other individuals. capital punishment is just one issue in that theme.

 

Another aspect to your last sentence is the definition of "murder" --obviously not all killing is murder, and not all murder is penalized the same [which is a big issue for whether the state has the authority to take someone's life or not]. More room for discussion there too......

 

But discussing innocent life seems pretty easy to keep on topic here ;)