The death penalty in the USA

[Knight]

This poll was suggested by our own "LightSon". Thanks!

[Crow]

Cool poll!

[Crow]

Y'all didn't really have a pat answer for me, though. I think it needs to be used more often, and I think it needs fixing--trials should be swift, there should be only one appeal, and prison should be a temporary holding area, as in until the trial is over--not a place to spend years.

[Gerald]

They need to start executing blasphemers, idolaters and apostates before the death penalty will really have teeth...

[Crow]

Originally posted by Gerald
They need to start executing blasphemers, idolaters and apostates before the death penalty will really have teeth...

See, Gerald, even you come up with something intelligent once in a while.

[philosophizer]

It's moral but needs fixing. For one, no inmates should be able to sit in Death Row for 5, 10, 15 plus years making hundreds of appeals. Justice deserves much more speed.

To say that it is immoral because it cannot be fixed is severly illogical. And to say that killing murderers is itself murder is farcical.

[Tiny Net]

Its moral... the convicted shouldnt be able to do more than one appeal though.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Crow
Y'all didn't really have a pat answer for me, though. I think it needs to be used more often, and I think it needs fixing...Exactly. It's not used often enough, and that's just one of the many things that needs to be fixed.

[Knight]

The death penalty here in the US needs a dramatic overhaul.

It isn't swift enough nor painful enough to be an effective deterrent.

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11

For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Romans 13:3-4

[Turbo]

Two of my favorite passages! :thumb:

Maybe I can get the Sibbie to cross-stitch them to put on our livingroom wall.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Crow
See, Gerald, even you come up with something intelligent once in a while. Hey, somebody once did try to kill me for blaspheming...but a well-placed instep groin kick drove that idea from his mind.

That's been my major beef with the fundies: they don't have the stones to go after the ones I mentioned. I mean, consider these examples: Muslims and Hindus are guilty of the first two, Mormons and atheists are guilty of all three...

Interestingly enough, I've never been able to get a consistent answer as to what constitutes blasphemy (OTOH, idolarty and apostacy are pretty clear-cut); ask twelve people and you'll get twelve different answers...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Tiny Net
Its moral... the convicted shouldnt be able to do more than one appeal though. No. No appeal. The victim didn't get an appeal, right?

[the Sibbie]

Originally posted by Turbo
Two of my favorite passages! :thumb:

Maybe I can get the Sibbie to cross-stitch them to put on our livingroom wall. I don't cross stitch!:doh:

[Crow]

Originally posted by Gerald


Interestingly enough, I've never been able to get a consistent answer as to what constitutes blasphemy (OTOH, idolarty and apostacy are pretty clear-cut); ask twelve people and you'll get twelve different answers...

Yup, that's a valid observation--opinion as to what exactly constitutes blasphemy varies considerably among Christians. Apostacy isn't as clear cut as y'all think, Gerald--there's a lot of room for argument there too.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Knight
The death penalty here in the US needs a dramatic overhaul.

It isn't swift enough nor painful enough to be an effective deterrent.Let's not forget "consistently":
He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:12

And that's just murder. There's still the other crimes that are supposed to be punishable by death: rape, adultery, sodomy, kidnapping, bearing false witness in a capital case... Did I miss any?

Some of those aren't even called crimes by our "justice" system anymore. :rolleyes:

One that I'm not sure about is whether rebellious children should be executed. Was this law specific to Israel for symbolic reasons, or does it have a place in any good criminal justice system? Any thoughts?

[Knight]

Originally posted by Turbo
One that I'm not sure about is whether rebellious children should be executed. Was this law specific to Israel for symbolic reasons, or does it have a place in any good criminal justice system? Any thoughts? That law would have saved several children who attended my wife's former high school.... Columbine.

And we must remember..... that law applies to children who were a criminal threat that would not adhere to disciplinary measures by more than just their parents i.e., little criminals.

[Tiny Net]

Originally posted by Gerald
No. No appeal. The victim didn't get an appeal, right?

No the victim didnt get an appeal, but mistakes happen so the convicted should get one chance.

[Turbo]

Gotcha! Some people ( :freak: ) think it means that any kid who disobeys their parents were to be put to death. But if that were true, why are there all those verses about spanking.

They ( :freak: ) also say that if we had that law, all kids would end up dead. But that didn't happen in Israel. It would probably keep a lot of kids, particularly teens, out of trouble.

I think I remember a passage about this law, that it's for cases like when a son is a drunkard, and is utterly rebellious. I'm going to try to find it. If you know where it is, feel free to save me a little time. :D

[shilohproject]

Originally posted by Tiny Net
No the victim didnt get an appeal, but mistakes happen so the convicted should get one chance. I totallt agree with this sentiment. When we as a society move to execute, we should do so with every commitment to getting it right. There is no, "Oops, sorry, got the wrong guy!"

(Biblically, there was often divine guidance in such matters; I've afraid there is precious little of that in our courts today. Politics as usual creates real problems for a judicial system.):cool:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by shilohproject
I totallt agree with this sentiment. When we as a society move to execute, we should do so with every commitment to getting it right. There is no, "Oops, sorry, got the wrong guy!"
Ever the pragmatist, I consider the "Oops, wrong guy" factor to be the cost of doing business. No human system is error-free, after all...

[taoist]

Tiny Net No the victim didnt get an appeal, but mistakes happen so the convicted should get one chance. Please reconsider your position.

There are a dozen Death Row inmates convicted wrongly in Illinois who failed numerous appeals before their recent exonerations. These were not mere technicalities. In one famous case, the prosecutors, detectives and police officers were found to have manufactered the evidence used to place two men on Death Row.

DuPage county settled the civil suit that resulted at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars while refusing to indict the actual murderer, known to be guilty by both DNA evidence and a taped confession.

It is necessary to distinguish between conviction and guilt if justice is to be served. An arbitrary cap on the number of appeals does not serve us well. Killing the innocent is a crime in itself.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Gerald
Ever the pragmatist, I consider the "Oops, wrong guy" factor to be the cost of doing business. No human system is error-free, after all...


...even after several appeals.

[Tiny Net]

Originally posted by Gerald
Ever the pragmatist, I consider the "Oops, wrong guy" factor to be the cost of doing business. No human system is error-free, after all...

No system is error-free but what if you were the wrong guy?

[Crow]

Originally posted by taoist
Tiny Net Please reconsider your position.

There are a dozen Death Row inmates convicted wrongly in Illinois who failed numerous appeals before their recent exonerations. These were not mere technicalities. In one famous case, the prosecutors, detectives and police officers were found to have manufactered the evidence used to place two men on Death Row.

DuPage county settled the civil suit that resulted at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars while refusing to indict the actual murderer, known to be guilty by both DNA evidence and a taped confession.

It is necessary to distinguish between conviction and guilt if justice is to be served. An arbitrary cap on the number of appeals does not serve us well. Killing the innocent is a crime in itself.

Taoist, without a cap on the number of appeals, the appeal system will be abused horrendously. I am going to address the Christian system for dealing with one who gives false testimony in a death penalty case--the liar gets the death penalty! That is enough to encourage a little more honesty.

Most of us agree that the system needs to be fixed. Endless appeals do nothing but undermine the system. I would forsee that one would be more likely not to convict if there is reasonable doubt that a person is innocent. And I can predict a real boost in the honesty of prosecution witnesses if false testamony in a capatal is punishable by death.

No system is going to be perfect. Taoist, you can go into the hospital for a tonsillectomy, and end up dead from gross medical errors. The job of administering crimimal justice is too vital to society to withold just because there will be some errors--we need to improve the system AND use it as appropriate. The burden on society of trying to "rehab" murderers and career crimimals and molesters is a crime in and of itself.

[Tiny Net]

Originally posted by taoist
Tiny Net Please reconsider your position.

There are a dozen Death Row inmates convicted wrongly in Illinois who failed numerous appeals before their recent exonerations. These were not mere technicalities. In one famous case, the prosecutors, detectives and police officers were found to have manufactered the evidence used to place two men on Death Row.

DuPage county settled the civil suit that resulted at a cost of millions of taxpayer dollars while refusing to indict the actual murderer, known to be guilty by both DNA evidence and a taped confession.

It is necessary to distinguish between conviction and guilt if justice is to be served. An arbitrary cap on the number of appeals does not serve us well. Killing the innocent is a crime in itself.

I agree that perhaps limiting the amount of appeals is the wrong course of action, but I do not think those who are guilty should get to sit on a cell for years bogging down the justice system with a ton of appeals. I dont want to see the innocent people convicted and murdered for a crime they didnt convict, but I also dont want to see the guilty sitting on death row for years at a time.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Gerald
Ever the pragmatist, I consider the "Oops, wrong guy" factor to be the cost of doing business. No human system is error-free, after all... I agree with Gerald. (gasp!)

Appeals make it harder to execute swiftly. Also, it's just as bad to let a guilty man go as it is to execute the wrong man unintentionally. The system should not be biased toward doing one for fear of doing the other.


He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. Proverbs 17:15

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Tiny Net
No system is error-free but what if you were the wrong guy?

Here I come, Jesus.

[Tiny Net]

Originally posted by wholearmor
Here I come, Jesus.

You and I might not fear death, but that seems like a crummy way to go out.

[Tiny Net]

Originally posted by Turbo
I agree with Gerald. (gasp!)

Appeals make it harder to execute swiftly. Also, it's just as bad to let a guilty man go as it is to execute the wrong man unintentionally. The system should not be biased toward doing one for fear of doing the other.


He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just, Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. Proverbs 17:15

So you are suggesting that if we are going to be guilty of doing one of the two its better to kill the innocent than to release the guilty?

[Knight]

Tiny, you do agree (as God states) that a swiftly instituted death penalty is a VERY efficient deterrent correct?

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Tiny Net
So you are suggesting that if we are going to be guilty of doing one of the two its better to kill the innocent than to release the guilty? I'm saying that we should not bias the system so that it is more likely that the guilty go free than for the innocent to be executed.

By biasing the system in favor of freeing the guilty, more innocents will die at the hands of criminals than would be killed by a wrongful conviction, because would-be murderers will realize they have a better chance of getting away with it.

God says that a matter is established on the testimony of two or three witnesses (strong pieces of evidence). I agree that is a reasonable standard to establish guilt.

Don't forget, bearing false witness in a murder trial should be a capital crime.

[Turbo]

Also, by minimizing crime with proper use of the death penalty, there are far fewer opportunities to convict an innocent.

[Tiny Net]

Originally posted by Turbo
I'm saying that we should not bias the system so that it is more likely that the guilty go free than for the innocent to be executed.

By biasing the system in favor of freeing the guilty, more innocents will die at the hands of criminals than would be killed by a wrongful conviction, because would-be murderers will realize they have a better chance of getting away with it.

God says that a matter is established on the testimony of two or three witnesses (strong pieces of evidence). I agree that is a reasonable standard to establish guilt.

Don't forget, bearing false witness in a murder trial should be a capital crime.

What you are saying is making sense but it is hard for me to just write off the people who are executed but were innocent, even if their number is small.

[Turbo]

It's like a war... there may be unintentional collateral damage, but a longterm benefit (saving innocent lives by preventing crime) is greater.

[Turbo]

Ain't I a sweetheart? ;)

[Aimiel]

I remember in grade school, several of us guys on the basketball team got together and talked about JFK being killed. We agreed that anyone who points a loaded gun at someone (outside the law / self-defense) needs to spend life in prison; and that anyone who pulled a trigger on one (same caveats) needs to be put to death, within 30 days of the crime, so people hear about it in the news.

[Turbo]

Ah... I found it.

"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.' Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall put away the evil from among you, and all Israel shall hear and fear. Deuteronomy 21:18-21

[Tiny Net]

Originally posted by Turbo
It's like a war... there may be unintentional collateral damage, but a longterm benefit (saving innocent lives by preventing crime) is greater.

Speaking of collateral damage, that one bothers me as well. Even though I know it is for a greater good... it still bothers me. Cant say that I make sense, can only tell ya how I feel.

[Turbo]

Aimiel, I'm all for the swift public/publicized execution of murderers (successful or attempted), but God's Word does not authorize prison to be used as a form of punishment for any crime.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Tiny Net
Speaking of collateral damage, that one bothers me as well. Even though I know it is for a greater good... it still bothers me. Cant say that I make sense, can only tell ya how I feel. I bothers me too, believe me... Just not as much as the alternative.

[BillyBob]

Philo;
It's moral but needs fixing.

Billy;
Is moral and not used enough.

Philo;
For one, no inmates should be able to sit in Death Row for 5, 10, 15 plus years making hundreds of appeals. Justice deserves much more speed.

Billy;
I agree. Bailiffs are usually armed with a pistol, there could be a room next to the courtroom that when a guilty verdict is rendered, the bailiff escorts the guilty criminal, sits him in a chair next to a floor drain and puts a bullet in his head. Afterward, his family can claim the body at their expense or they can just toss him into a furnace.

Swift, clean, inexpensive, just.

[brother Willi]

He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just , Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. Proverbs 17:15
If you justify letting a few JUST MEN be killed, as some here say.
What are you doing?

We live in a world so different from the past.
Will the testemony of an atheist be OK in court?
HOW CAN IT BE?
an atheist putting his hand on the Bible has no meaning!

[Christine]

I voted that it is moral, but not used enough. However, after thinking about it, I deceided that our laws here in America are not ideal. We have a very high murder rate. Columbus, Ohio places in the top ten of the amount of murders commited in a single city per year. They have several murders a week. Something is not working.:rolleyes:

[BillyBob]

Christine;
They have several murders a week. Something is not working.

Billy;
Yeah, they should just start rounding up and executing murderers wholesale. I know that Columbus has a large 'black' population, I would be interested in knowing the stats of who's murdered. Those guys kill each other all the time.....

[Turbo]

Originally posted by HillbillyWilli
He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the just , Both of them alike are an abomination to the LORD. Proverbs 17:15
If you justify letting a few JUST MEN be killed, as some here say.
What are you doing?

We live in a world so different from the past.
Will the testemony of an atheist be OK in court?
HOW CAN IT BE?
an atheist putting his hand on the Bible has no meaning! I'm not saying that innocent people should be put to death intentionally. That would be abhorrent. I'm saying that we should not skew the system so that some people for which there is strong evidence of guilt end up going free in an attempt to lessen the risk of accidentally executing an innocent.

Both condemning the innocent and justifying the guilty are an abomination when done intentionally or irresponsibly, but humans are also subject to making an error either way. And God knows this. Do you think that when He commanded the death penalty, He didn't realize that sometimes mistakes would be made?

[Crow]

Originally posted by Christine
I voted that it is moral, but not used enough. However, after thinking about it, I deceided that our laws here in America are not ideal. We have a very high murder rate. Columbus, Ohio places in the top ten of the amount of murders commited in a single city per year. They have several murders a week. Something is not working.:rolleyes:

I'm moving to Columbus within a couple of months. I know one house were whether to administer capital punishment or not will be a moot point if someone cares to break and enter.

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Tiny Net
I agree that perhaps limiting the amount of appeals is the wrong course of action, but I do not think those who are guilty should get to sit on a cell for years bogging down the justice system with a ton of appeals. I dont want to see the innocent people convicted and murdered for a crime they didnt convict, but I also dont want to see the guilty sitting on death row for years at a time.

Well, that's because the trail system could use some fixing too. After all, what are appeals? Post-trial claims of stuff that went wrong. Make sure to take care of all that in the trial and make no mistakes. Fix the trial system too and the convicted would only need one appeal, if that.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Tiny Net
So you are suggesting that if we are going to be guilty of doing one of the two its better to kill the innocent than to release the guilty? Not if you operate under the assumption that no one is truly innocent. Everyone is guilty of something...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Tiny Net
What you are saying is making sense but it is hard for me to just write off the people who are executed but were innocent, even if their number is small. Look at it this way: if that innocent person was a believer, he's been sent off to meet Jesus that much sooner. He should welcome death with open arms. He should be happy!

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
I agree. Bailiffs are usually armed with a pistol, there could be a room next to the courtroom that when a guilty verdict is rendered, the bailiff escorts the guilty criminal, sits him in a chair next to a floor drain and puts a bullet in his head. Afterward, his family can claim the body at their expense or they can just toss him into a furnace.

Swift, clean, inexpensive, just. No. Don't let the family claim the body. Put it on display, to rot in full public sight.

"A man gone is soon forgotten; a head on a gate is long remembered."

[Gerald]

Originally posted by HillbillyWilli
We live in a world so different from the past.
Will the testemony of an atheist be OK in court?
HOW CAN IT BE?
an atheist putting his hand on the Bible has no meaning! You do realize, of course, that an atheist is by definition a blasphemer, an idolater and an apostate...

[BillyBob]

OK with me. Seems like it would draw a lot of flies.

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by Gerald
"A man gone is soon forgotten; a head on a gate is long remembered."

Whose quote is that?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by BillyBob
OK with me. Seems like it would draw a lot of flies. We have bug zappers now. Ain't technology grand?
:chuckle:

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Gerald
Look at it this way: if that innocent person was a believer, he's been sent off to meet Jesus that much sooner. He should welcome death with open arms. He should be happy!
And his family, his loved ones?

I tell you this.
If you all are good Christians, Then I am not.
I would move a mountain to make sure an inocent man did not die .

[Gerald]

Originally posted by philosophizer
Whose quote is that? I'm not sure; my mother (yes, I do have one...) taught it to me and attributed it to Tsar Nicholas II.

I've done some searches, but have thus far come up empty.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by HillbillyWilli
And his family, his loved ones?

I tell you this.
If you all are good Christians, Then I am not.
I would move a mountain to make sure an inocent man did not die . Well, I can make no claim on the "good Christian" label...:chuckle:

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Gerald
You do realize, of course, that an atheist is by definition a blasphemer, an idolater and an apostate...

Yes I do.
So I ask, can you put a man to death on an atheists say so?
what good are 3 atheist witnesses?

[BillyBob]

Gerald;
I'm not sure; my mother (yes, I do have one...) taught it to me and attributed it to Tsar Nicholas II.

Billy;
Your MOM taught you that? That explains alot........

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Gerald
Well, I can make no claim on the "good Christian" label...:chuckle:

And neither can I.
We can only do our very best.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by HillbillyWilli
Yes I do.
So I ask, can you put a man to death on an atheists say so?
what good are 3 atheist witnesses? Well, if they're fool enough to publicly admit their atheism ( :doh: ), in a Mosaic legal system they can be put to death there and then; they have incriminated themselves.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Gerald
Well, if they're fool enough to publicly admit their atheism ( :doh: ), in a Mosaic legal system they can be put to death there and then; they have incriminated themselves.

And where is this legal system?

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Gerald
No. Don't let the family claim the body. Put it on display, to rot in full public sight.

"A man gone is soon forgotten; a head on a gate is long remembered."
Gerald,,,, O crushing one,

Why do I get the feeling that most of your posts are laced with irony and cynicism?

Am I right?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by HillbillyWilli
And where is this legal system? Last time I checked, it was hanging around in Leviticus...

[Gerald]

Originally posted by LightSon
Gerald,,,, O crushing one,

Why do I get the feeling that most of your posts are laced with irony and cynicism?

Am I right? Irony and cynicism? Me? :noway:
Perish the thought...;)

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Gerald
Last time I checked, it was hanging around in Leviticus...
You know what I meant.
What country is this legal system in place today?

[LightSon]

27 votes so far and not 1 vote for "it's wrong to kill". Where is the RCC voter base on this board?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by HillbillyWilli
You know what I meant.
What country is this legal system in place today? You mean the full Levitical code, or just laws against blasphemy, etc.?

[BillyBob]

We finally got a 'It's wrong to kill' response......

Anybody fessing up?

[Friday]

Are you people nuts. The death penelty is MORAL??????? It is anything but!:mad: :mad:

[Friday]

It was me. I did it. It is wrong to kill.

[BillyBob]

It's wrong to murder. Killing can be justified.

[brother Willi]

Originally posted by Gerald
You mean the full Levitical code, or just laws against blasphemy, etc.?

YEP
It's not in the U.S.

[Friday]

Taking Life in anyway is wrong.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by HillbillyWilli
YEP
It's not in the U.S. But don't you wish it was...? :chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Friday;
Taking Life in anyway is wrong.

Billy;
Nope. Do not advance to 'Go', do not collect $200. Uday and Qusay are dead! Woo Hoo!!!!!!!!!! Open the Champagne!!!!!!!!!!

[Turbo]

Originally posted by Friday
Taking Life in anyway is wrong. Friday, Welcome to TOL.

Could you expand on your assertion a bit? Does that include killing self defense? Is a nation wrong to defend itself from invading armies?

Is it absolutely wrong, or is it your opinion?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by Friday
Taking Life in anyway is wrong.

All of a sudden I'm guilt-ridden about all those insects that are no longer with us.

[philosophizer]

Originally posted by wholearmor
All of a sudden I'm guilt-ridden about all those insects that are no longer with us. And don't dare mow your lawn! :shocked:

[Crow]

Hey, Philo--I thought y'all was going to evolve your avatar last night.

[philosophizer]

I didn't have time. Maybe this weekend. Or maybe I'll throw together something temporary this afternoon.

[LightSon]

Hey Philo,
What's up with your new avatar. I can't tell if you are picking your nose or flipping me off. Or both.:chuckle:

[Gerald]

A nose-picking snowman with shades and a mohawk...

:noway:

[BillyBob]

I bet his finger gets frostbite!

[wholearmor]

It's stuck in his nose like a tongue to a frozen railing!

[BillyBob]

That was almost poetic! I bet HomoHarry would appreciate it!

[wholearmor]

He should since he and I think alike!

[BillyBob]

Ewwwwwwwwwwwww!

[wholearmor]

:chuckle:

[BillyBob]

Hey WA, Knight is gonna be pissed that you hijacked his thread. It was a serious topic 'till you showed up! :sozo2:

What was the topic, again?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Hey WA, Knight is gonna be pissed that you hijacked his thread. It was a serious topic 'till you showed up! :sozo2:

What was the topic, again?

It was suggested my LightSon so technically it's LightSon's thread, not Knights. Why am I saying all this? I'm not accountable to you!

[BillyBob]

:ahso:

[billwald]

Biblical death penalty required two or more eye witnesses. 90% of our court cases are based upon circumstantial evidence and would never get to court under Biblical rules.

For example, the OJ Simpson case could not be tried. Under Biblical rules the community would offer sacrifice to atone for his wife's death - the two goat sacrifice?

We have no way of knowing how OT judges used the rules because we have no documentation. Post-destruction rabbinical Judaism did everything possible to avoid a death sentence.

For example, two people are seen going into a building. One person is seen leaving. An hour later a dead body is found in the building. Under rabbinical law there are no eye witnesses to the murder and no one could be charged.

[Turbo]

billwald,
A witness does not have to be eye-witnesses.

wit·ness (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=witness) n.

a. One who can give a firsthand account of something seen, heard, or experienced: a witness to the accident.
b. One who furnishes evidence.

Something that serves as evidence; a sign.
Law.
a. One who is called on to testify before a court.
b. One who is called on to be present at a transaction in order to attest to what takes place.
c. One who signs one's name to a document for the purpose of attesting to its authenticity.
An attestation to a fact, statement, or event; testimony.Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

God knows that a typical criminal does not have the courtesy to commit his crimes when there are other people around.

Consider the following passage:
"But if a man finds a betrothed young woman in the countryside, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the young woman; there is in the young woman no sin deserving of death, for just as when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him, even so is this matter. For he found her in the countryside, and the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her. Deuteronomy 22 :25-27According to your reasoning the woman is the only witness in such a case, and therefore the man cannot be charged. But God says that the rapist shall be put to death, because evidence does not have to be eye-witness testimony.

Please reconsider.

[brother Willi]

Please reconsider
Kobie Bryant

What if the woman is lying?

[Turbo]

That should be determined based on the evidence, which is not exclusively eye-witness testimony. That was my point, not that the woman's testimony alone is sufficient.

P.S. God says that if you bear false witness in a capital case (such as rape), that it is a capital crime.

(Adultery should be a capital crime, too. If these crimes were enforced the way God says they should be, Kobe probably wouldn't have gotten himself into this mess.)

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Turbo
(Adultery should be a capital crime, too. If these crimes were enforced the way God says they should be, Kobe probably wouldn't have gotten himself into this mess.)

Turbo, if you truly believe that a strict theocracy is a good idea, I would suggest that you take a look at Iran, or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

And why stop at adultery? Surely drinking or even jaywalking costs society far more each year in terms of needless deaths, wasted lives, etc..

[Turbo]

BMyers, you are sick to suggest that adultery is as trivial as jaywalking.

[BillyBob]

Yeah BM, that was pretty stupid. Jaywalking costs society wasted lives?

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by bmyers
Turbo, if you truly believe that a strict theocracy is a good idea, I would suggest that you take a look at Iran, or Afghanistan under the Taliban.


All theocracies are not created equal.

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Turbo
BMyers, you are sick to suggest that adultery is as trivial as jaywalking.

Actually, I didn't. Surely you have heard of such a thing as "hyperbole"?

The point is not that I "suggested" that adultery is as trivial as jaywalking, but that you suggested that it is as serious as murder from the point of view of our society (which would be the body responsible for handing out the punishment you're talking about). I for one would like to see you justify that position, somewhat beyond "it's in the Bible."

You may also recall at least one somewhat famous example of a convicted adulterer being forgiven rather than killed...

[bmyers]

Originally posted by wholearmor
All theocracies are not created equal.

But all that have ever been implemented wind up the same, and for the same reasons. They get highjacked by this group or that group, which winds up enforcing their narrow view of what their particular religion is supposedly saying, and become oppressive and totalitarian. No, thanks; our country was set up specifically to avoid such an outcome, among others.

But don't just take my word for it - read some history. I don't think you'll be able to find a single example of a theocracy that anyone here would particularly want to live under.

[wholearmor]

Originally posted by bmyers
But all that have ever been implemented wind up the same, and for the same reasons. They get highjacked by this group or that group, which winds up enforcing their narrow view of what their particular religion is supposedly saying, and become oppressive and totalitarian. No, thanks; our country was set up specifically to avoid such an outcome, among others.

But don't just take my word for it - read some history. I don't think you'll be able to find a single example of a theocracy that anyone here would particularly want to live under.

And our Democratic Republic isn't being hijacked?

[bmyers]

Originally posted by BillyBob
Yeah BM, that was pretty stupid. Jaywalking costs society wasted lives?

Why else would we have jaywalking laws, if not in the interests of pedestrian safety?

But please read the other responses before responding to this one, and let's try to get the thread back to a more serious discussion. Honestly, do you really think this example was meant to be taken literally? Or did you simply have no means of responding to the actual point?

[Turbo]

Originally posted by bmyers
Actually, I didn't. Surely you have heard of such a thing as "hyperbole"?You said "jaywalking costs society far more each year in terms of needless deaths, wasted lives, etc.."

The point is not that I "suggested" that adultery is as trivial as jaywalking, but that you suggested that it is as serious as murder from the point of view of our society (which would be the body responsible for handing out the punishment you're talking about). I for one would like to see you justify that position, somewhat beyond "it's in the Bible."Adultery is one of the most hurtful and destructive things one can do to one's spouse, one's self, and one's family. Furthermore, adultery often motivates people to commit other crimes like murder. If you aren't aware of that, then you haven't been paying attention to news reports about murders. People entering marriage enter a covenant in which they voluntarily vow to be faithful to their spouse. I don't see any reason why there should be no accountability for breaking that covenant.

You may also recall at least one somewhat famous example of a convicted adulterer being forgiven rather than killed... So what? God has the authority to forgive men for their crimes. The government does not.

God has also forgiven murderers like Paul and David. Does that mean that murder should not be a crime?

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Turbo
Adultery is one of the most hurtful and destructive things one can do to one's spouse, one's self, and one's family. Furthermore, adultery often motivates people to commit other crimes like murder.


By this logic, we should impose the death penalty on anything that one can do that is "hurtful," or that might motivate one to commit murder. You're going to be covering an awful lot of ground with those...



If you aren't aware of that, then you haven't been paying attention to news reports about murders. People entering marriage enter a covenant in which they voluntarily vow to be faithful to their spouse. I don't see any reason why there should be no accountability for breaking that covenant.


Sorry, but this thread isn't about simple "accountability" - it is about one particular form of accountability, one which (a) cannot be undone if error is found to have happened and (b) which must be judged and implemented by human systems of justice - which are, by definition, imperfect. It is for these reasons that we do NOT impose the death penalty for any but the very most serious of crimes, and even then (hopefully) when there is no doubt regarding certainty of guilt.



So what? God has the authority to forgive men for their crimes. The government does not.


Sorry, but you may recall that in the case in question, the "government" was prevented from carrying out its sentence. If this were just a case of divine forgiveness, that could easily have been granted without interfering with the execution. I continue to be amazed how often the obvious point of this story is missed.



God has also forgiven murderers like Paul and David. Does that mean that murder should not be a crime?

Again, we are not talking about what should and should not be a crime - we are talking about what constitutes suitable punishment FOR a given crime. Please try to stay on that subject.

[bmyers]

Originally posted by wholearmor
And our Democratic Republic isn't being hijacked?

And the relevance of this to the subject at hand is what, exactly? Oh, wait - perhaps I see. You're arguing that since you believe it's already being hijacked in one direction, others would be perfectly justified in hijacking it in another. The ever-popular "we keep piling on as many wrongs as are required to make a right" theory of government...

[Turbo]

bmyers,
Is capital punishment appropriate for convicted murderers?

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Turbo
bmyers,
Is capital punishment appropriate for convicted murderers?

Yes, I favor maintaining the death penalty for the current classes of crimes for which it is an option.

[Turbo]

OK, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't trying to convince someone that adultery is worthy of death who doesn't even think murder is worthy of death.

[Turbo]

I split the discussion of Paul Hill's execution. It's now in the Current Events forum in a thread called Abortionist's murderer executed (http://www.theologyonline.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=9340).

[taoist]

Thanks for the link, Turbo.

[Turbo]

You're welcome. I thought it would be best to start that conversation in its own thread, so it wouldn't be buried 10 pages deep. It a good topic for discussion, and I'm glad bmyers brought it up.

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Turbo
You're welcome. I thought it would be best to start that conversation in its own thread, so it wouldn't be buried 10 pages deep. It a good topic for discussion, and I'm glad bmyers brought it up.

Turbo, I appreciate that, but I REALLY wish you had not started that new thread with my post. I was pretty explicit in my statement that I didn't want this to turn into Yet Another abortion debate, and now it looks like I've started a thread which is exactly that. I seriously doubt that I'll be participating in that one - which is going to look very odd, since the thread is now (wrongfully) credited to me. In the future, I think it might be better if you used excerpts from a post, but started a new thread on your own, OK?

[Poly]

Originally posted by bmyers
Turbo, I appreciate that, but I REALLY wish you had not started that new thread with my post. I was pretty explicit in my statement that I didn't want this to turn into Yet Another abortion debate, and now it looks like I've started a thread which is exactly that. I seriously doubt that I'll be participating in that one - which is going to look very odd, since the thread is now (wrongfully) credited to me. In the future, I think it might be better if you used excerpts from a post, but started a new thread on your own, OK?
You mean you didn't really start that thread? I'd given you credit for coming up with such a great thread and here we see you didn't even start it.

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Turbo
You're welcome. I thought it would be best to start that conversation in its own thread, so it wouldn't be buried 10 pages deep. It a good topic for discussion, and I'm glad bmyers brought it up.

I'm glad you think it's a good topic, but I can't agree that it should be in its own thread. That new thread is rapidly degenerating into the abortion debate that I wished to avoid. So I would very much like to bring that discussion back here, since the intention WAS to discuss the death penalty, NOT abortion.

With that in mind, let me ask again:

I would be very interested in getting the reaction of some of those on both sides of this issue to an item that has been in the news the past few days.

This evening (Wednesday, Sept. 3), convicted murderer Paul Hill will be executed by lethal injection by the State of Florida. Hill was sentenced to death for the 1994 shotgun killing of Dr. John Britton and his bodyguard, James Barrett, outside a Pensacola abortion clinic.

Given that this has resulted in a good deal of commentary from those on both sides of the abortion issue - itself a highly-charged issue with strong ties to various religious perspectives - I have to ask if this particular case has any impact on opinions regarding the death penalty itself, for those on either side of this discussion.

(I would also hope that this could be discussed in a reasonably calm, rational fashion; it is certainly not my intent to stir up a lot of name-calling, or to have this thread degenerate into yet another debate on abortion rather than on capital punishment.)

[LightSon]

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I’m not sure how far this axiom applies to social and moral actions. Here’s another maxim. When the government fails to act justly, it gives impetus for its citizens to become criminals.

How moral is it to allow women to kill their unborn children under the guise of “freedom of choice?” I have no problem with people having control over their own bodies, but in the cases of abortion, there are now 2 peoples lives to consider. I can understand how people like Hill can get their emotions all enflamed and their spiritual center askew over this issue. I cannot understand how a mother could selfishly eviscerate her own offspring.

If someone were poised to murder my daughter, I would feel justified in using deadly force to stop them. What if someone was similarly about to kill my neighbor’s daughter? Same solution. I should be able to bring some force to bear to stop them. The one significant difference in the Hill story, is that the abortionist was not poised to kill anybody. Hill killed preemptively, without any immediate danger to anyone that he might otherwise be protecting.

Yes I can see how Hill got his thinking on this issue muddled. What he did was murder and his execution was appropriate, in my opinion. But Hill’s crime is an expected backlash to a government which has failed to protect the lives of the very weakest of us. I wonder who God will call on to give an account for the 10s of thousands of infanticides in this great US of A.

[bmyers]

Originally posted by LightSon
How moral is it to allow women to kill their unborn children under the guise of “freedom of choice?” I have no problem with people having control over their own bodies, but in the cases of abortion, there are now 2 peoples lives to consider. I can understand how people like Hill can get their emotions all enflamed and their spiritual center askew over this issue. I cannot understand how a mother could selfishly eviscerate her own offspring.


I can understand how Hill can "get their emotions all inflamed," but what he did is still both illegal and immoral, and I believe that his penalty was fully justified.

The question of "how moral is it...?" is actually irrelevant here, since the law is not really about "morality" per se, but rather about protecting the citizens of a given society and their rights. It most often aligns with the majority view of "morality," but that really is not the basis for law. And the fact remains that not all (and possibly not even the majority) of American citizens believe that there ARE in fact "2 peoples' lives to consider" at ALL times in this case. Hence the judgement that the early-stage fetus is not to be considered a citizen under the law, and hence the legality of first-trimester abortion. You can disagree with that opinion on moral grounds, and many do; I might even be sympathetic to the argument, at a certain point, on that basis. But simply being morally objectionable to a given group is truly not sufficient basis on which to establish law, nor has it ever been. Laws are in fact based on the demonstrated potential for harm to a society, sufficient to override the individual right of self-determination, and nothing else.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by bmyers
I can understand how Hill can "get their emotions all inflamed," but what he did is still both illegal and immoral, and I believe that his penalty was fully justified.

I agree. I hope that was evident in my post.

Originally posted by bmyers
The question of "how moral is it...?" is actually irrelevant here, since the law is not really about "morality" per se, but rather about protecting the citizens of a given society and their rights. It most often aligns with the majority view of "morality," but that really is not the basis for law.
I haven't studied law formally, but I have to think that there are some laws which are geared towards society's opinion of morality. If I am not mistaken, obscenty laws are specifically about the collective moral conscience of a community. Consider laws controlling strip clubs, wouldn't a table dance be a victimless crime? Yet communities support laws which say, "not in my neighborhood". I think the courts have generally supported such laws.

Originally posted by bmyers
... the fact remains that not all (and possibly not even the majority) of American citizens believe that there ARE in fact "2 peoples' lives to consider" at ALL times in this case. Hence the judgement that the early-stage fetus is not to be considered a citizen under the law, and hence the legality of first-trimester abortion.

If I am not mistaken, there are cases pending which would set a different precedent, that being that the fetus is a person and entitled to legal protection. This matter is not settled. Roe-v-wade is not set in concrete.

[bmyers]

Originally posted by LightSon
I haven't studied law formally, but I have to think that there are some laws which are geared towards society's opinion of morality. If I am not mistaken, obscenty laws are specifically about the collective moral conscience of a community. Consider laws controlling strip clubs, wouldn't a table dance be a victimless crime? Yet communities support laws which say, "not in my neighborhood". I think the courts have generally supported such laws.

Yes, but even here I believe that the "law as a preventer of harm to society" perspective can be argued. Such activities are legitimately prohibited, not because the community finds them immoral per se, but because they feel that it would be harmful to their children, etc., to be potentially exposed to them. Admittedly, it's a pretty fine distinction in this example. But I think the fundamental distinction between considering laws to be based on "enforcing morality" vs. "protecting society" is that the former would supposedly have as its primary goal restricting an individual from committing an "immoral" act regardless of whether or not it affected anyone else. In simpler terms, it would be the position of legally restricting what an individual may or may not do solely because it is "good" for them, not whether or not it would potentially impact another party.



If I am not mistaken, there are cases pending which would set a different precedent, that being that the fetus is a person and entitled to legal protection. This matter is not settled. Roe-v-wade is not set in concrete.


No law, not even the Constitution, is "set in concrete." And it is again not my intention to argue whether the Roe-v.-Wade decision is correct, etc.. The only relevant point with respect to this discussion is that neither of the persons Hill killed were in any way engaged in an illegal activity (so far as we know) at the time.

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
They need to start executing blasphemers, idolaters and apostates before the death penalty will really have teeth...

You know at one time I was a idolator & blasphemer. . .
. . .But now I have accepted the Lord JESUS CHRIST as my personal Lord & Saviour.
I would have been lost had the death penalty been executing blasphemers, idolaters and apostates back when I was of the world.

[Turbo]

nomik,
You do realize that those particular laws were specifically for Israel, right? And that they really were God's idea, and they were entirely appropriate, right?

By the way, welcome to TOL! I'm glad to hear you're Christian. :thumb:

[nomik]

Originally posted by Turbo
nomik,
You do realize that those particular laws were specifically for Israel, right? And that they really were God's idea, and they were entirely appropriate, right?

By the way, welcome to TOL! I'm glad to hear you're Christian. :thumb:

Yea I do know that those laws "ARE" specifically for Isreal.
And that they came from GOD because all scripture is inspired by GOD.
It's just the way it was stated by Gerald. . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gerald
They need to start executing blasphemers, idolaters and apostates before the death penalty will really have teeth...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


He was stating as to be for gentile law & if it was passed as a gentile law how many brothers & sisters in Christ wouldn't be here today or in the future?
I was just stating that I wouldn't be around had they started executing blasphemers, idolaters and apostates for the death penalty.
And thanks for the warm welcome:chuckle: to TOL & by your response I take your a Christian too:thumb:

[Turbo]

OK, that's cool, nomik. In case you didn't know, Gerald doesn't really want those laws enforced. He's not a Christian. He's just mocking God and the Bible.

[nomik]

Originally posted by Turbo
OK, that's cool, nomik. In case you didn't know, Gerald doesn't really want those laws enforced. He's not a Christian. He's just mocking God and the Bible.

:doh: I didn't know Gerald wasn't a christian :shocked:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by nomik
:doh: I didn't know Gerald wasn't a christian :shocked: You are kidding, right?

[Gerald]

Originally posted by Turbo
You do realize that those particular laws were specifically for Israel, right?Chapter and verse, please.

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
You are kidding, right?

:yawn: HUH ! :freak: :confused: :doh: :bang: :think: :shake:

:o OH well I forgive you :chuckle: not everyone :nono: that hear's the truth recognizes it :p
I didn't at first :shake:

Hey I got an Idea :idea: "WHY DON'T YOU READ :read: THE WORD OF GOD" (which is the BIBLE)<--:readthis: "THEN FAST & PRAY ABOUT IT" ( you know pray about GOD opening your eye's & heart to the truth). Unless your scared Like I was at first. . .
...if you are scared you can choose to stay in the dark.:grave:
You wanted Chapter and verse well you should try reading the book of JOHN in the new Testament before you worry about the old LAWS from the Old Testament.
Oh`Ya I'm praying for you man :thumb:

[FireBall]

I think most Europeans(like myself) would put it is wrong. Mainly because we dont do it ourselves anymore. Playing God is not good. If God wants to wipe someone out he can (Annanias and Saphira). I guess its a little bit like slavery at a time when slavery was taking place most christians would say its ok now that it is not everyone says its wrong.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by FireBall
I think most Europeans(like myself) would put it is wrong. Mainly because we dont do it ourselves anymore. Playing God is not good. If God wants to wipe someone out he can (Annanias and Saphira). I guess its a little bit like slavery at a time when slavery was taking place most christians would say its ok now that it is not everyone says its wrong. Fireball, welcome to TOL! You've really hit the ground running today. :)

I agree with you that people's idea of what is right or wrong is often influences by the law of the land. You admit that you think the death penalty is wrong "Mainly because we [Europeans] dont do it ourselves anymore." That is the same reasoning that led many Christians to accept slavery when the government condoned it.

From your other posts, I gather that you are a Christian that the Bible is inspired by God. So, what is God's opinion of the death penalty, according to the Bible? Shouldn't we look to the Bible to determine what is right and wrong? If God has ordered that governments should execute people for committing certain crimes, then obeying Him is not "playing God," it is submitting to His will.

By the way, here in the US murderers as seldomly executed, and when they do it is carried out years later rather than swiftly. Yet I and many other Christians believe that EVERY convicted murderer should be put to death by the government, and that it is important to carry out the execution swiftly. We do not get this idea from our country's laws, but from the God of the Bible.

Please reconsider this issue, seeking out God's opinion instead of current norms.

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Turbo
From your other posts, I gather that you are a Christian that the Bible is inspired by God. So, what is God's opinion of the death penalty, according to the Bible? Shouldn't we look to the Bible to determine what is right and wrong? If God has ordered that governments should execute people for committing certain crimes, then obeying Him is not "playing God," it is submitting to His will.

By the way, here in the US murderers as seldomly executed, and when they do it is carried out years later rather than swiftly. Yet I and many other Christians believe that EVERY convicted murderer should be put to death by the government, and that it is important to carry out the execution swiftly. We do not get this idea from our country's laws, but from the God of the Bible.

Please reconsider this issue, seeking out God's opinion instead of current norms.

However, even if one were coming from a Christian, Biblical perspective, I would add the caution that you should be very certain that the passages you cite actually authorize the imposition of the death penalty by governments, etc., as opposed to simply being statements that God himself will consider death warranted in such cases. The difference, of course, would be that while God would presumably be incapable of incorrectly assigning guilt, a human justice system is clearly all too capable of such errors.

I'm not opposed to the death penalty per se; however, on these grounds, I am very concerned when I see proposals to extend the death penalty beyond where it currently applies, to lesser offenses, or for doing away with the controls on it that we currently have, which help ensure that it is imposed only in those cases where guilt of a capital crime is certain. It is a very, very serious business to put the state in charge of determining whether an individual lives or dies; it is not something to be done lightly, or to be applied with undue haste.

[FireBall]

Thanks Turbo

I do belive it is ok to kill i.e at war in defence of the nation ect
But not to murder.

Although can we ever be 100% sure that they are the person who did it and how do we decide who has the authority to carry it out?

[Freak]

Originally posted by FireBall
Thanks Turbo

I do belive it is ok to kill i.e at war in defence of the nation ect
But not to murder.

Yep! You are correct my friend.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by nomik
Hey I got an Idea :idea: "WHY DON'T YOU READ :read: THE WORD OF GOD" (which is the BIBLE)<--:readthis:Already done it, more than once, wasn't impressed.
"THEN FAST & PRAY ABOUT IT" ( you know pray about GOD opening your eye's & heart to the truth).All fasting does is make one hallucinate (just curious: what's the longest you've ever fasted? I mean not taking in anything, not even water...). One other thing: my heart can't be opened, because I don't one...
Oh`Ya I'm praying for you man :thumb: Just out of curiosity, what is the exact wording that you are using?

[nomik]

Originally posted by bmyers

I'm not opposed to the death penalty per se; however, on these grounds, I am very concerned when I see proposals to extend the death penalty beyond where it currently applies, to lesser offenses, or for doing away with the controls on it that we currently have, which help ensure that it is imposed only in those cases where guilt of a capital crime is certain. It is a very, very serious business to put the state in charge of determining whether an individual lives or dies; it is not something to be done lightly, or to be applied with undue haste.

I agree with you that it shouldn't be taken lightly & I don't think it should be extend beyond where it currently applies.

"It is full of flaws at it's current state, like all things run by human.":eek:

[Turbo]

Originally posted by bmyers
However, even if one were coming from a Christian, Biblical perspective, I would add the caution that you should be very certain that the passages you cite actually authorize the imposition of the death penalty by governments, etc., as opposed to simply being statements that God himself will consider death warranted in such cases.Can you give an example or two?


The difference, of course, would be that while God would presumably be incapable of incorrectly assigning guilt, a human justice system is clearly all too capable of such errors.
God laid out guidelines for establishing guilt. Do you think the judges in those days were not prone to error?

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
Already done it, more than once, wasn't impressed..
I also said,you should try reading the book of JOHN in the new Testament before you worry about the old LAWS from the Old Testament.

Did you ? It's one thing to read just to read & another thing to read as in to gather intellingence.
Do you like plato's writting?
All fasting does is make one hallucinate (just curious: what's the longest you've ever fasted?
I mean not taking in anything, not even water...)..
not even water "48 hours", but when I fast I usually drink water at night if I fast during the week because I work construction. But I read my bible during meal time because of Matt.4:4
I have never hallucinated while fasting where ever you heard that from was wrong atleast in my case I have never hallucinated,Has any other Christian?I don't know I speak only of my self.
One other thing: my heart can't be opened, because I don't one...You don't what?. . . Want to?
Just out of curiosity, what is the exact wording that you are using?
:darwinsm: NOMIK's wording of course :shut:

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Turbo
God laid out guidelines for establishing guilt. Do you think the judges in those days were not prone to error?

No, of course not. And please note that I specifically said that I am not opposed to the death penalty per se; I just want to caution against taking it lightly.

[Turbo]

OK, but I don't know who does take it lightly. It seems more common that people are overly cautious about it. Do you see how that can also be problematic?

[FireBall]

Nomik - I have never hallucinated while fasting. That is just the worlds view see the thread on David Blaine. Pschologists predicted he would hallucinate. I belive you can have a vision from God while fasting but not hallucinations which have no point.

Turbo - There is a balance to everything. However when it comes to life and removing it we need to be a 100% sure that we are right which is very rarely the case.

[nomik]

Originally posted by FireBall
Nomik - I have never hallucinated while fasting. That is just the worlds view see the thread on David Blaine. Pschologists predicted he would hallucinate. I belive you can have a vision from God while fasting but not hallucinations which have no point.

:thumb: Thank you :chuckle:
Your so cool I feel that you are GOD sent:angel:
stead fast Bro./Sis ? & keep Chasing God

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Turbo
OK, but I don't know who does take it lightly. It seems more common that people are overly cautious about it. Do you see how that can also be problematic?

I can see the possibility - but since it's never possible to reverse a death sentence once it is carried out, I know which side of the question I would prefer to err on.

[bmyers]

Originally posted by FireBall
Nomik - I have never hallucinated while fasting. That is just the worlds view see the thread on David Blaine. Pschologists predicted he would hallucinate. I belive you can have a vision from God while fasting but not hallucinations which have no point.


Seriously - how could you distinguish these? No one can claim to be an objective judge of their own experiences.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by bmyers
I can see the possibility - but since it's never possible to reverse a death sentence once it is carried out, I know which side of the question I would prefer to err on. By failing to execute murderers by being overly cautious, you would give them the opportunity to murder more people, and other would-be murderers would not be deterred as effectively.

[bmyers]

Originally posted by Turbo
By failing to execute murderers by being overly cautious, you would give them the opportunity to murder more people, and other would-be murderers would not be deterred as effectively.

Only if those murderers are returned to the society and given the opportunity to murder again. The alternative to execution is not necessarily "do nothing."

[LightSon]

Originally posted by turbo
By failing to execute murderers by being overly cautious, you would give them the opportunity to murder more people

Originally posted by bmyers
Only if those murderers are returned to the society and given the opportunity to murder again.

Hold up. What if we leave murderers in prison? Given that many a murderer has in fact murdered IN PRISON, I respectfully suggest you are mistaken. Do not other inmates have a right to be protected from being murdered?

[bmyers]

Originally posted by LightSon
Hold up. What if we leave murderers in prison? Given that many a murderer has in fact murdered IN PRISON, I respectfully suggest you are mistaken. Do not other inmates have a right to be protected from being murdered?

1. Obviously, other inmates have a right to protection. Although if the other inmates are also those who would be on "death row," we might be in a rather ironic position of protecting them from being killed by others so that WE get to kill them instead.

2. The need for "protecting" the other inmates from a murderer does not necessarily imply that the only option is to kill the murderer. I have some trouble with the notion of justification of the death penalty SOLELY (if this is the case) on the grounds that the state is apparently incapable of protecting other inmates in any other manner.

3. One presumes that the guilt of a person who murders in prison should be somewhat easier to establish beyond a reasonable doubt than in the case of a murder occuring within the general public "on the outside", given the control and monitoring that the state is presumed to exercise over the inmates. Please keep in mind that I am NOT arguing against the death penalty per se - only that we remain cautious about when (and for what crimes) it is imposed.

By the way, point #1 above reminds me of an alternative - currently impractical, but possibly interesting for discussion nevertheless. Several science fiction writers (notably, as I recall, Larry Niven) have in their work suggested that those convicted of certain crimes - including all current capital offenses - would be found to have given up their right to the protections afforded by society, and as punishment would be exiled to a separate "anarchy zone" where there was literally NO law, no protection from each other. IF it were possible to create such a place, with absolute certainty that those sent to it could not return to "normal" society until their sentence was up (assuming they survive the experience, of course), what would you think of something like that as a means of punishment?

[LightSon]

Originally posted by bmyers
By the way, point #1 above reminds me of an alternative - currently impractical, but possibly interesting for discussion nevertheless. Several science fiction writers (notably, as I recall, Larry Niven) have in their work suggested that those convicted of certain crimes - including all current capital offenses - would be found to have given up their right to the protections afforded by society, and as punishment would be exiled to a separate "anarchy zone" where there was literally NO law, no protection from each other. IF it were possible to create such a place, with absolute certainty that those sent to it could not return to "normal" society until their sentence was up (assuming they survive the experience, of course), what would you think of something like that as a means of punishment?
If it were possible to create such a zone, I might be in favor of it.

I have often thought that it is a poor strategy to incarcerate criminals of differing echelons. In other words, by putting the petty thief in with the grand larcenist, the lessor will get 'trained' to escalate their thinking. By putting the thief in with the murderer, the thief just might learn to play hardball the next time he's let out into society.

Of course, this thinking will break down, if we recognize that a group of petty thieves will no doubt share notes anyway and thereby get more disciplined in their "art".

I am dubious of the state's attempts at rehabilitation. The best they can seem to offer is, "don't get caught again, or its more of the same for you." That is a weak deterrent, and not a very good one. It's very much like public school sex education plan. They offer plenty of good "info" about biology, but without a spiritual moral framework (and yes I am being partisan here), there is no heartfelt reason to avoid procreative pursuits for recreation.

The thief released into society will be tempted to try harder to not get caught. No wonder recitivism is so significant.

Sure. Make an Austrailian type zone for murderers. But throw away the key.

[Turbo]

Originally posted by LightSon
If it were possible to create such a zone, I might be in favor of it.But Lightson, God has created such a zone and has commanded governments to send murderers there. And if the murderer is repentant and turns to God... God will bring them to paradise!

We shouldn't try to fashion our own hell. God's is just fine.

This man-made hell idea reminds me: People want to play God by locking murderers in prison. Some people would rather a murderer be sentenced to life in prison than be executed because they see death as the lighter sentence. They'd rather they suffer or "rot" in prison for decades. One problem is, murderers who are repentant are still forced to endure the "manmade hell."

Also, a person facing a death sentence is more likely to repent than someone who is put in "time out" until they die of old age.

[FireBall]

Visions have a purpose and a meaning. See Acts.

Hallucinations don't

I have experienced both.

Halucinations on Acid before salvation and visions after.

[bmyers]

Originally posted by FireBall
Visions have a purpose and a meaning. See Acts.


Sorry, but again no individual can possibly be an objective judge of their own perceptions. Individuals suffering from hallucinations can also (and often do!) believe that these erroneous perceptions have "purpose and meaning" when in fact they do not. There is simply no way to "get outside your own head" and judge this, so as to distinguish the two.

This does not mean that there are no such things as "visions" - but I don't see any particularly simple way for a given individual to tell them apart from "hallucinations" on their own.

[LightSon]

Originally posted by LightSon
If it were possible to create such a zone, I might be in favor of it.


Originally posted by Turbo
But Lightson, God has created such a zone and has commanded governments to send murderers there. And if the murderer is repentant and turns to God... God will bring them to paradise!


Hi Turbo,
First, notice I said “I might” be in favor of it.

Second. I’m not certain I agree that God has “commanded governments to send murderers there”. Please make your case if you feel led. I do not believe the US government is “under” the Mosaic penal code. I DO believe that Romans 13 applies, which makes the government a “[power] ordained of God”. Further, Rom. 13:4 states that this power (our gov) “beareth not the sword in vain”. This gives my government the authority to use capital punishment, but I do not think it requires them to use it. Which is to say government is not required to “send murderers [to the God created zone]” for unrepentant murderers or paradise for the repentant ones. I hope you see my point.

Since we live in a republic form of government, I get to petition government to enact laws which I think are fitting. I do believe in the death penalty, and I want government to use it fairly and certainly more swiftly than they do. But if we (our government) chose to put the death penalty away, I do not think they are violating scripture for the reason I stated above. I would not prefer they do that, but could support their decision NOT to exercise their God given authority to execute murderers and such.

Originally posted by Turbo
We shouldn't try to fashion our own hell. God's is just fine.

If you make an argument based upon Mosaic penal system, then there is no support for US incarcerating folks anyway. I stated earlier that I do not believe the US government is “under” the Mosaic penal code per se; we are not OT Israel. But just as we are authorized to use the sword, we are likewise authorized to enact our own penal code, and if we choose to enact the Mosaic code or any parts of it, that is our prerogative. And who knows, I might support that too.

Originally posted by Turbo
This man-made hell idea reminds me: People want to play God by locking murderers in prison. Some people would rather a murderer be sentenced to life in prison than be executed because they see death as the lighter sentence. They'd rather they suffer or "rot" in prison for decades. One problem is, murderers who are repentant are still forced to endure the "manmade hell."

Also, a person facing a death sentence is more likely to repent than someone who is put in "time out" until they die of old age.

All your reasoning here is fine with me. I’m generally against life in prison for murderers. Let’s work to get this enacted into law. Our government is ordained of God to do any and all of this, IMO.





Edited to correct "Originally posted by" reference.

[nomik]

Originally posted by FireBall
Visions have a purpose and a meaning. See Acts.

Hallucinations don't

I have experienced both.

Halucinations on Acid before salvation and visions after.

AMEN:angel:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by nomik
not even water "48 hours"...
Wimp. I'll be impressed when you do that for 48 days...

Regarding the "open heart" thing: I appear to have omitted a word. Sorry about that. What I meant to say is that my heart can't be opened because I don't have one.

NOMIK's wording of course :shut: Would you mind posting it, then? Instead of trying to be witty (and failing)?

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
Wimp. I'll be impressed when you do that for 48 days...
1.I don't fast to impress anyone & I'm not here for you to be impressed! OK
2.It would be stupid to go 48 days with out food & water, when I work construction.

Regarding the "open heart" thing: I appear to have omitted a word. Sorry about that. What I meant to say is that my heart can't be opened because I don't have one.
OK whatever just because you think you don't have one does not mean you don't,You do have one but your heart might be harden
or your just in denial!
Would you mind posting it, then? Instead of trying to be witty (and failing)?
Your kidding right? I don't have the time to post it all,it's obvious you you don't know how much time or room that would take.
But it might be a good idea to start a book on it though...:think:

[LightSon]

Originally posted by nomik
OK whatever just because you think you don't have one does not mean you don't,You do have one but your heart might be harden
or your just in denial!

Very insightful nomik.

Of course Gerald has a heart. He likes to exude cynicism and a certain crushing despair.

The heart can be viewed as a plot of ground or dirt. In some, the ground (heart) is easily pliable and ready to accept seed. In these people, the seeds of faith can take root and grow into beautiful flowering plants which produce fruit.

In others, like Gerald, the ground is hardened and seeds just kind of bounce off. Gerald desperately needs to have the ground of his heart broken up, as it were, so the seeds of the good news of Jesus Christ can take root.

There is hope for you Gerald. I believe you can turn to Christ, even if you aren’t ready to yet.

[Gerald]

Originally posted by LightSon
Of course Gerald has a heart. He likes to exude cynicism and a certain crushing despair.No, I don't have one. I crushed it to powder with my own hands.

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
No, I don't have one. I crushed it to powder with my own hands.
OOHH!:noway: AAAAAHHHHHH!:yawn:
:crackup: with your own hands. :darwinsm:
Do you have proof of such said act?
I think your in denial! :chuckle:
It's OK:thumb: I was scared :shocked: of the truth too at one time,so stop beating :eek: your self up over it & give in or like the saying Let go & let GOD :thumb:
:king: JESUS LOVES YA!MAN:o :angel:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by nomik
OOHH!:noway: AAAAAHHHHHH!:yawn:
:crackup: with your own hands. :darwinsm:
Do you have proof of such said act?Well, I keep the powder in a jelly jar on my mantlepiece; would you like me to post a picture?
I think your in denial! :chuckle:No, I'm not.
It's OK:thumb: I was scared :shocked: of the truth too at one time,so stop beating :eek: your self up over it & give in or like the saying Let go & let GOD :thumb:And if I do "let go" how will it profit me in the here and now? Don't bore me with notions of a glorious afterlife.

[Poly]

Originally posted by Gerald
Don't bore me with notions of a glorious afterlife.
Yes, don't bore him. We don't want to hold his hand on his way to hell.

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
Well, I keep the powder in a jelly jar on my mantlepiece; would you like me to post a picture?
:bannana: Yes please,:chuckle: Oh`can I have fries with that order?
No, I'm not.
well:think: hum...:rolleyes: ah...:freak: ?:read:! :geek: :idea: I think your not being honest with your self
And if I do "let go" how will it profit me in the here and now? Don't bore me with notions of a glorious afterlife.
Well neo(by neo I mean you) I can only show you the door(by door I mean the truth(by truth I mean The gospel(by gospel I mean the good news(by the good news I mean the good news about JESUS CHRIST( which is the TRUTH) it's up to you to go thru it(by it I mean the door(by door I mean the truth(by truth I mean The gospel(by gospel I mean the good news(by the good news I mean the good news about JESUS CHRIST( which is the TRUTH),in another words only if you let go will you be able to truly see the full benefits...We ( by we I mean Christians) or I can only tell you about the benefit's.But most likely you won't believe me or no-1 else in that case,You seem to be a hands on learner.You know a see it for yourself kind of guy.So thats the only way for you to truely know the here and nowprofit.

Oh to everyone sorry about all the...
...(by neo I mean you)(by door I mean the truth(by truth I mean The gospel(by gospel I mean the good news(by the good news I mean the good news about JESUS CHRIST( which is the TRUTH)
I know Sir Gerald likes things to be broke down for him a lil bit & I got a lil carried away...OK A LOT Plus Sir Gerald had previously asked on page #9 post #134
Just out of curiosity, what is the exact wording that you are using?

[Gerald]

I shall parse this to make it halfway readable.

Originally posted by nomik
Well Neo (by Neo I mean you), I can only show you the door (by door I mean the truth )}]); it's up to you to go through it (by it I mean the door [by door I mean the truth {by truth I mean The gospel (by gospel I mean the good news [by the good news I mean the good news about JESUS CHRIST { which is the TRUTH}])]), in another words only if you [b]let go will you be able to truly see the full benefits...

We (by we I mean Christians) or I can only tell you about the benefits. But most likely you won't believe me or no one else in that case. You seem to be a hands on learner, a "see it for yourself" kind of guy.

So thats the only way for you to truly know the profit.
Well, that was a waste of time and effort; for someone who talks so much, you manage to say very little.

In short, you are unable to articulate how my becoming a believer will benefit me. You should've just said that, but I suppose then that you wouldn't have been able to post this lacklustre attempt at patronizing me.:rolleyes:

IIRC, becoming a believer lifted you out of the traps of booze, drugs, guns, sex, and rock 'n' roll. Problem is, I've never fallen into any of those traps...

[LightSon]

Originally posted by Gerald
IIRC, becoming a believer lifted you out of the traps of booze, drugs, guns, sex, and rock 'n' roll. Problem is, I've never fallen into any of those traps...

Gerald,
Have you never been in bondage to anything? Never a bad habit? Never an immoral thought or action?
Never felt compelled to hurt someone's feelings out of selfish reasons?

[nomik]

Originally posted by Gerald
Well, that was a waste of time and effort; for someone who talks so much, you manage to say very little.
Well thank you:thumb: That was the reaction I was going for because everything you say is the same thing just in differnt words you keep repeating yourself you keep suggesting people to break it down for you,But when they do you ignore it & try to change the subject...So about your heart being in a jar post it.
Oh` wait you can't because it's not.

In short, you are unable to articulate how my becoming a believer will benefit me. You are right I am unable to articulate how you becoming a believer will benefit you.Because you obviously are not ready to accept the "WORD of GOD"John 1:1 & 1:14 You can only see the benefit's 2 ways
1. first hand experience.
2.When you die which would be to late if you didn't accept it by then.
You should've just said that, but I suppose then that you wouldn't have been able to post this lacklustre attempt at patronizing me.:rolleyes:

IIRC, becoming a believer lifted you out of the traps of booze, drugs, guns, sex, and rock 'n' roll. Problem is, I've never fallen into any of those traps...
Well , I can only show you the door; it's up to you to go through it!
in another words only if you let go will you be able to truly see the full benefits...
Traps are not always just booze, drugs, guns, sex, and rock 'n' roll.
But you said... ..., I've never fallen into any of those traps...
Do I see some acknowledgment?in you falling in to a trap? Let's look at the key words "into those traps...HUMMM
:think:
HEY JESUS still LOVES YOU Sir Gerald
I do 2:chuckle:

[Gerald]

Originally posted by LightSon
Gerald,
[QUOTE]Have you never been in bondage to anything?Well, there was this young woman I used to date, and...but, I think that going into any detail on this board is quite unwarranted...;)
Never a bad habit?Nothing that's been particularly deleterious. I used to be quite the scrapper, but I'm a bit too old, too fat and too slow for that now...
Never an immoral thought or action?Read through my post history and draw your own conclusions...
Never felt compelled to hurt someone's feelings out of selfish reasons?As opposed to hurting someone's feelings for selfless reasons? Again, read my posts and draw your own conclusions.

Look, I make no claim on perfection: I'm the guy who, when he first heard "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", responded "I know that I am not without sin, but I shall cast a stone anyway."

[Gerald]

Originally posted by nomik
You are right I am unable to articulate how you becoming a believer will benefit you.Because you obviously are not ready to accept the "WORD of GOD"John 1:1 & 1:14 You can only see the benefit's 2 ways
1. first hand experience.So, what was your first-hand experience?
Traps are not always just booze, drugs, guns, sex, and rock 'n' roll.Those are the heavy hitters; how about naming off some more?
Do I see some acknowledgment?in you falling in to a trap? Let's look at the key words "into those traps"...HUMMM
:think:I have at no point claimed to be perfect; just good enough for me...
HEY JESUS still LOVES YOU Sir GeraldProve it...without invoking the Bible.
I do 2:chuckle:Again, prove it.:chuckle: