The death penalty

[Mr_Wilford]

Do you think that this man would have said this if it meant that his wife's murderer would then be set free to go unpunished?

Given he's a Christian, I'd hope he'd forgive the murderer regardless. Forgiveness is what Jesus died for, circumstances of the sin be damned.

No, this man has no authority to forgive his wifes murderer. In the same way I cannot forgive a person who stole $100 from you.

It was the guys own wife and child who were killed. His family, it affects him. He DOES have the authority to forgive the man who took the woman he loves from him.

 

[Visaki]

Do you think that this man would have said this if it meant that his wife's murderer would then be set free to go unpunished? And if so, how would this fit with any rational justice system? No, this man has no authority to forgive his wifes murderer. In the same way I cannot forgive a person who stole $100 from you.

So you seem to think that the offended party, and only the offended party, can forgive actions done. That's interesting, since it seems to imply that you don't think Jesus has the right to forgive things either. Or do you make a special exeption for him?

 

[Laurens]

We can forgive murderers, be they ours or others. Just this past month here in the US, a pastor's wife, pregnant with his daughter, was shot and killed. You can read the rest of the story here.

Wanna know what he had to say?
He chose to forgive the man who killed his wife and unborn child, despite how much he wanted to be hateful, because that's what God did for us.

Do you think that this man would have said this if it meant that his wife's murderer would then be set free to go unpunished? And if so, how would this fit with any rational justice system? No, this man has no authority to forgive his wifes murderer. In the same way I cannot forgive a person who stole $100 from you.

If you understand why I can't forgive someone for you. How do you suppose Jesus can forgive that person?

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

 

[thenexttodie]

It was the guys own wife and child who were killed. His family, it affects him. He DOES have the authority to forgive the man who took the woman he loves from him.

No, the news media creates an illusion of authority with the headline "LOOK WHAT THE POWER OF FORGIVENESS CAN DO!" and they'll quote some man whose daughter had just been raped and killed. But it's just a feel good story. It doesn't matter if he is a Christian or not.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

It seems to be the case that you're an authoritarian who just happens to be a Christian, thus you're unable to forgive a transgression of whatever law you believe holds precedent.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Thenexttodie, what does this mean to you?

For if you forgive people their failures your heavenly Father will forgive you; but if you do not forgive people their failures neither will your heavenly Father forgive yours.

 

[thenexttodie]

Thenexttodie, what does this mean to you?

For if you forgive people their failures your heavenly Father will forgive you; but if you do not forgive people their failures neither will your heavenly Father forgive yours.

It means you have realized the logical failure of your argument and will now try turn this thread into a debate on what you think the bible teaches.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Thenexttodie, what does this mean to you?

For if you forgive people their failures your heavenly Father will forgive you; but if you do not forgive people their failures neither will your heavenly Father forgive yours.

It means you have realized the logical failure of your argument and will now try turn this thread into a debate on what you think the bible teaches.

He's asking you do you agree with this or not, and if so, why don't/won't you do as the verse exhorts?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[SpecialFrog]

Thenexttodie, what does this mean to you?

For if you forgive people their failures your heavenly Father will forgive you; but if you do not forgive people their failures neither will your heavenly Father forgive yours.

It means you have realized the logical failure of your argument and will now try turn this thread into a debate on what you think the bible teaches.

And yet I predict you will once again fail to either point out my alleged logical failure or explain how my interpretation of the Bible is wrong.

As a Christian, do you think the above passage should inform your views on forgiveness in any way? If not, why not?

 

[thenexttodie]

how would a death penalty fit in a judicial system, where people after they paid for their crime, will return to society?
Then obviously, the only good reason for a death penalty is when it is proven impossible to return that said person to society.
But...

what would "impossible to return to society" mean?
would it be that said person would commit crimes the moment he or she steps out of prison?

How does a murderer pay for his crime? With money?

how severe would that crime(s) have to be?

I guess we are talking about murder.

how could you even demonstrate it?

When someone murders some one, they have commited murder

how is it better then life imprisonment?

One reason is that they will never have a chance to murder someone again.

and there probably more questions we need to answer before we can truly justify the death penalty.
But then you have to ask questions like

How will you execute that said person?

In a scary and painful manner so that other people won't commit the same crime

Where will it be performed?

In front of the courthouse?

who will perform the execution?

Whoever wants? Perhaps those who were closest to the victim should be given first choice.

What it said method cannot be used?

?


Thus, the best of course of action is not to use the death penalty...[/quote] ?

 

[thenexttodie]

Greetings,

As I've said elsewhere, Paul was what would today be referred to as a "wannabe" in America - someone who's desperate to be part of the group (Jewish Christians) but whose ideas, claims, teachings, etc, were in contradiction to what "Jesus" and his disciples taught.

Paul never met "Jesus" - except for in his alleged visions of which he is the sole arbiter.

In other books besides the gospels - such as James - Jewish traditions are upheld by "Jesus" and his teachings. This is clearly contradicted by Paul's teachings, which he claims to have had from "Jesus" in his revelatory visions. Paul dismisses Peter (Cephas) and James, along with their teachings, despite these having been from a "Jesus", whom they knew, according to Paul (Gal 2, and 1 and 2 Cor).

For Paul, according to him, he was following the true "Jesus (Christ)", whereas "the twelve" were following a false one.

It is clear that there was a preacher of whom Peter, James, John, et al were followers with whose teachings (the apostles') Paul disagreed. As a Pharisee, he followed the oral Talmud, rather than the Torah, which is what the apostles (and their "Jesus") taught.

Dragan Glas, it seems that every time you talk about the Bible, almost every thing you say is entirely wrong.

No Jesus did not hold to Jewish traditions, in fact that's one reason why the Jewish Pharisees wanted him dead.

No Paul did not believe the other apostles were the apostles of a false Christ. But he criticized Peter for being a Jew who lives like a Gentile and tells Gentiles they should live like Jews.
So when Peter, for example, would refuse to eat with Gentiles, Paul could say "Hey! You and Jesus ate together with the Gentiles. Why do you refuse to eat with them now? Was that a different Jesus who you ate together with the uncircumcised?"

No it wasn't because Paul followed the Talmud and the Jesus followed the Torah. The Talmud condemns eating with Gentiles. Jesus and Paul both did this.

Dragan Glas, You seem to spread a lot of misinformation about the Bible. If you wish to debate me on any on any of these claims I say you are wrong about, I suggest it to be done in a formal debate. I think that would be the best way of showing everybody how retarded you are.

 

[Laurens]

Greetings,

As I've said elsewhere, Paul was what would today be referred to as a "wannabe" in America - someone who's desperate to be part of the group (Jewish Christians) but whose ideas, claims, teachings, etc, were in contradiction to what "Jesus" and his disciples taught.

Paul never met "Jesus" - except for in his alleged visions of which he is the sole arbiter.

In other books besides the gospels - such as James - Jewish traditions are upheld by "Jesus" and his teachings. This is clearly contradicted by Paul's teachings, which he claims to have had from "Jesus" in his revelatory visions. Paul dismisses Peter (Cephas) and James, along with their teachings, despite these having been from a "Jesus", whom they knew, according to Paul (Gal 2, and 1 and 2 Cor).

For Paul, according to him, he was following the true "Jesus (Christ)", whereas "the twelve" were following a false one.

It is clear that there was a preacher of whom Peter, James, John, et al were followers with whose teachings (the apostles') Paul disagreed. As a Pharisee, he followed the oral Talmud, rather than the Torah, which is what the apostles (and their "Jesus") taught.

Dragan Glas, it seems that every time you talk about the Bible, almost every thing you say is entirely wrong.

No Jesus did not hold to Jewish traditions, in fact that's one reason why the Jewish Pharisees wanted him dead.

No Paul did not believe the other apostles were the apostles of a false Christ. But he criticized Peter for being a Jew who lives like a Gentile and tells Gentiles they should live like Jews.
So when Peter, for example, would refuse to eat with Gentiles, Paul could say "Hey! You and Jesus ate together with the Gentiles. Why do you refuse to eat with them now? Was that a different Jesus who you ate together with the uncircumcised?"

No it wasn't because Paul followed the Talmud and the Jesus followed the Torah. The Talmud condemns eating with Gentiles. Jesus and Paul both did this.

Dragan Glas, You seem to spread a lot of misinformation about the Bible. If you wish to debate me on any on any of these claims I say you are wrong about, I suggest it to be done in a formal debate. I think that would be the best way of showing everybody how retarded you are.

Wrong topic I think...

 

[nemesiss]

how would a death penalty fit in a judicial system, where people after they paid for their crime, will return to society?
Then obviously, the only good reason for a death penalty is when it is proven impossible to return that said person to society.
But...

what would "impossible to return to society" mean?
would it be that said person would commit crimes the moment he or she steps out of prison?

How does a murderer pay for his crime? With money?

There is a reason why i said "crime", not "murder".
You can commit other crimes, and plenty of it, that can be far worse then murder.
but paying for a crime is, by punishment (taking away their freedom) and by paying back to society.
But what if it is impossible to pay back to what society is due, because it is impossible to pay back (where money is not the issue)?
Then what?

As for...

how severe would that crime(s) have to be?

I guess we are talking about murder.

how could you even demonstrate it?

When someone murders some one, they have commited murder

how is it better then life imprisonment?

One reason is that they will never have a chance to murder someone again.

In the case of murder, it's not always as easy to demonstrate someone has or has not commited a murder.
Plenty of examples are available of that, where people who were send to deathrow who didn't commit a crime.
as for not being able to murder in prison, that is a very naive position you hold.


As for your ideas on performing execution....

How will you execute that said person?

In a scary and painful manner so that other people won't commit the same crime

Where will it be performed?

In front of the courthouse?

who will perform the execution?

Whoever wants? Perhaps those who were closest to the victim should be given first choice.

you have a very inhuman-like idea about execution to which i have to disagree.

As for your position, i would advise you to look into more different crimes.
Here are a couple examples: Human-trafficing (such a prostitution and slavery), Drug-trafficing (producing and selling drugs), pedophelia...

 

[thenexttodie]

]you have a very inhuman-like idea about execution to which i have to disagree.

As for your position, i would advise you to look into more different crimes.
Here are a couple examples: Human-trafficing (such a prostitution and slavery), Drug-trafficing (producing and selling drugs), pedophelia...

Sorry I don't have time to respond now to your entire post. I gather you are against the idea of putting people to death, who have committed heinous crimes, speedily in a scary and painful manner. One reason I am for this is that it would drastically cut down the occurance of these crimes being committed. Human and drug trafficers should be put to death. Pedophiles should be put to death.

There should be no "help" for these people. If a man turns himself in to the police saying "I want to have sex with children, please help not to think or do this" that person should be put to death. Their should be no ransom paid out to any person who threatens to commit a crime.

Those who incite people to commit such crimes should also be put to death.

 

[WarK]

Sorry I don't have time to respond now to your entire post. I gather you are against the idea of putting people to death, who have committed heinous crimes, speedily in a scary and painful manner. One reason I am for this is that it would drastically cut down the occurance of these crimes being committed. Human and drug trafficers should be put to death. Pedophiles should be put to death.

How do you explain this then?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Sorry I don't have time to respond now to your entire post. I gather you are against the idea of putting people to death, who have committed heinous crimes, speedily in a scary and painful manner. One reason I am for this is that it would drastically cut down the occurance of these crimes being committed. Human and drug trafficers should be put to death. Pedophiles should be put to death.

How do you explain this then?

Oh WarK. Inconvenient facts have not once stopped thenexttodie from stating something ridiculous. Thenexttodie feels that the death penalty actually deters crime, and that feeling is all thenexttodie needs. [sarcasm]Facts are for bleeding heart liberals and have no place in a discussion like this.[/sarcasm]

 

[nemesiss]

]ou have a very inhuman-like idea about execution to which i have to disagree.

As for your position, i would advise you to look into more different crimes.
Here are a couple examples: Human-trafficing (such a prostitution and slavery), Drug-trafficing (producing and selling drugs), pedophelia...

Sorry I don't have time to respond now to your entire post. I gather you are against the idea of putting people to death, who have committed heinous crimes, speedily in a scary and painful manner. One reason I am for this is that it would drastically cut down the occurance of these crimes being committed. Human and drug trafficers should be put to death. Pedophiles should be put to death.

There should be no "help" for these people. If a man turns himself in to the police saying "I want to have sex with children, please help not to think or do this" that person should be put to death. Their should be no ransom paid out to any person who threatens to commit a crime.

Those who incite people to commit such crimes should also be put to death.

My position on the death penalty, is that it is to be considered a final remedy. Since it's one that it non-reversible, it's one that has to be one that one doesn't deal out hastily.
I'm sure there are cases where I agree that the death penalty is just, and other cases where it is not.
As a detergent, I already know the death penalty is a failure, I appreciate Wark for providing statistics so I would not need to.

The example provided by yourself, this is WHY you should help, not automatically put someone to death.
This man, had not committed a crime yet (as far as we know) and choose to ask for help.
This man wants to be helped.
This man wants to be a productive member of society.
This man knows he has urges that will harm others and therefor society, and wants to prevent it.
This man deserves all the help society can offer, be it psychiatric help, be it a working place far from children or something else...

does that make me a paedophile sympathizer? perhaps it does, but only because I see a human with a problem, not a problem in a human.

 

[Visaki]

thenexttodie want's death penalty for thought crimes. How Christian of him.

 

[thenexttodie]

How do you explain this then?

When a person is given the death penalty in the U.S., there is a very good chance that this person will never actually be executed. And most people know this. And a person who actually commits a crime like murder, even in a death penalty state, will not nessecerily receive a death sentence anyway. I personally know 2 people have committed murder and 1 person who was in prison for kidnapping and rape, all in the same death penalty state. One of them is now back in prison now but the other 2 are free as birds, have been for some time. I can call them on the phone right now.

Knowing these things, I would expect that what are called "death penalty states" would on average have murder rates similiar to what are called "non-death penalty states", which is what the data in the link you have provided shows. But the data provided in your link is of not much use for anything, actually.

I think Nemesis or somebody brought up a point worth addressing which was, how would the death penalty be an effective deterrent of people who are so drunk or high on drugs that they don't know what they are doing? A person who is high on drugs or totally blitzed might not be able to think clearly enough about the consequences of their actions and become a danger to themselves and others.

But there is a clear way to demonstrate that a real death penalty would deter crime. Jay-walking is a probably something most of do or have done before. It's against the law to cross against the signal at an intetersection. Maybe it's a stupid law but it's the law and the penalties may vary but are minimal.

If the punishment for Jay-walking was being burned until you are dead, would you still do it? Of course not. You still could do it if you wanted to. But after assessing not only the immediate value of what you feel your life is worth but also the pain you would experience being burned to death, you would not want to do it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

But there is a clear way to demonstrate that a real death penalty would deter crime. Jay-walking is a probably something most of do or have done before. It's against the law to cross against the signal at an intetersection. Maybe it's a stupid law but it's the law and the penalties may vary but are minimal.

If the punishment for Jay-walking was being burned until you are dead, would you still do it? Of course not. You still could do it if you wanted to. But after assessing not only the immediate value of what you feel your life is worth but also the pain you would experience being burned to death, you would not want to do it.