The Justices spar over the constitutionality of the death penalty

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2015, 01:48 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  As the scripture states we have to trust society to get it right after they do their best.

Where does the scripture say that?

Exactly how good is "good enough".  How many innocent people are allowed to die so that your type can "cast the first stone"?

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 01:46 AM)Benton Wrote: Go down a post or two. Or up. I'm getting confused in all the responses.

Either way, no. He said so. That's where the "cast the first stone" saying comes from.

So do you think society should not judge man?

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the judgement; merely to forgive it. There are plenty passages where Jesus stated we stand judgement and even states it you take up the sword (kill) you will die by the sword (kill)

You really can't have it half way. 

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 01:51 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Where does the scripture say that?

Exactly how good is "good enough".  How many innocent people are allowed to die so that your type can "cast the first stone"?

Deuteronomy 19:18

The rest just smacks of ignorance. It has been explained.

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2015, 01:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So do you think society should not judge man?

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the judgement; merely to forgive it. There are plenty passages where Jesus stated we stand judgement and even states it you take up the sword (kill) you will die by the sword (kill)

You really can't have it half way. 

Jesus was preaching AGAINST violence when he told Peter to put away his sword.

And you use that to justify the death penalty?

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 02:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Jesus was preaching AGAINST violence when he told Peter to put away his sword.

And you use that to justify the death penalty?

He warned Peter of the Judgement for violence. 

Yes. 

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2015, 02:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Deuteronomy 19:18

The rest just smacks of ignorance. It has been explained.

So no one can ever be sentenced to death without at least 2 or 3 witnesses?

That is going to exclude a lot of murder cases.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 02:08 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So no one can ever be sentenced to death without at least 2 or 3 witnesses?

That is going to exclude a lot of murder cases.

As I said. The death Penalty should be reserved for extreme circumstances.

You've just been too busy trying to bash the Christians to notice what was said. 

[Benton]

(06-30-2015, 01:58 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So do you think society should not judge man?

Jesus said he did not come to abolish the judgement; merely to forgive it. There are plenty passages where Jesus stated we stand judgement and even states it you take up the sword (kill) you will die by the sword (kill)

You really can't have it half way. 

Eh, he wasn't saying if you commit violence the state should kill you. Good attempt at perverting the passage. What Jesus said was that if you live by violence, you will have violence done unto you. If you're referring to Matthew specifically, he was warning Matthew to abandon violence.

Jesus did not advocate killing anyone. Ever.

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2015, 02:10 AM)bfine32 Wrote: You've just been too busy trying to bash the Christians to notice what was said. 

My first comments in this thread had nothing to do with morality.  It was about how the system was flawed.

Your first post was squealing about how people who are pro-choice and anti-death penalty are hypocrites.  So don't blame me for making this a religious discussion.  

[Benton]

(06-30-2015, 02:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Deuteronomy 19:18

The rest just smacks of ignorance. It has been explained.

That's so OT.

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2015, 02:03 AM)bfine32 Wrote: The rest just smacks of ignorance. It has been explained.

You willing to cast the first stone at an execution Bfine?

[StLucieBengal]

(06-30-2015, 01:45 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Thought that I'd put this out there. It doesn't necessarily support either side of the argument.  

Christians have a slightly higher approval rate of capital punishment than non-Christians.  I actually expected a bigger gap there.  I imagine that the difference has a lot to do with the fact that religious folk have a higher likelihood of conservative opinions than the non-religious.  Or is the religion influencing the politics?  Meh.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/14050/who-supports-death-penalty.aspx

Interesting for sure... To add to this... Yours was 2004. I found a 2014 ... Here : http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/national-polls-and-studies

Quote: Barna Group (1/2014): Support for Death Penalty Low Among Christians, Particularly Younger Members

A new poll by the Barna Group found that only 40% of practicing Christians supported the death penalty, and support was even lower among younger Christians. According to the poll released on January 17, only 23% of practicing Christian "millennials" (i.e., those born between 1980 and 2000) agreed with the statement: "The government should have the option to execute the worst criminals." Without regard to their regular practice of their faith, only 42% of Christian baby boomers (born between 1946 and 1964) and only 32% of millennials agreed with the use of the death penalty. Roxanne Stone, the vice president of publishing at Barna, said, "This parallels a growing trend in the pro-life conversation among Christians to include torture and the death penalty as well as abortion. For many younger Christians, the death penalty is not a political dividing point but a human rights issue."

[StLucieBengal]

(06-30-2015, 01:44 AM)Benton Wrote: To the bolded, no. It isn't, and that's the problem. Courts were set up and have been molded over time by people who specialize in the law.

When was the last time you knew anyone who specialized who regularly admitted they were wrong? College professors? Doctors? Barbers?


Let any ones of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone. 

He didn't make light of the issue. He told her to leave her life of sin. At the same time, he made it clear killing her was not acceptable, even though society viewed it an acceptable punishment.

I don't think life in prison is unreasonable, even in Jesus's eyes. It may be unjust, but we are men. We make mistakes. But that mistake preserves the life, it allows for a correction. It also allows the person to atone for their sins, because even if they are innocent of the murder, there's still a good chance they have some sin in their life.

Interesting... Thanks for answering my post.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2015, 01:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: God's first guidance in Human Governance was If you shed man's blood then your blood should be shed by man.

I'm sorry you don't agree with the word.

The word also gives numerous accounts of making sure you are right before you pass judgement. 

Turn the other cheek is how the individual should behave. Not how society should judge.

How many homosexuals have you stoned so far?

You DO follow the word to the letter...don't you?

[Belsnickel]

(06-29-2015, 11:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have always found it ironic that most that are anti-Capital Punishment are Pro-Choice.

I know there has been a lot of back and forth spurred by this since I went to bed, but I'd like to go back and respond here.

To me, it's all about the government not getting involved in something it shouldn't. In the case of the death penalty, I don't think the state should decide when to end someone's life. In the case of abortion, it's very similar in my logic. The decision to have an abortion is a difficult one that I can see plenty of merit in both the arguments for, and against. Whatever the decision is there is not a win-win scenario. In that situation I feel the government should not be making that decision and it should be left up to those directly involved, not some suit hundreds if not thousands of miles away.

Both scenarios, anti-death penalty and pro-choice, it's about the government not doing something I feel it has no place in.

[BmorePat87]

(06-29-2015, 11:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have always found it ironic that most that are anti-Capital Punishment are Pro-Choice.

How are the two related? One involves preventing the government from killing people while the other involves preventing the government from having control over a woman's body.

edit: I guess both involve preventing overstep on the part of the government, so they are related. In which case, shouldn't you expect to see supporters of one support the other?

[BmorePat87]

You can't reverse your mistake when you kill an innocent person. You can, however, reverse your mistake if you sentence them to life in prison.

That's what gets it for me. That and how expensive it is.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(06-30-2015, 07:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: How are the two related? One involves preventing the government from killing people while the other involves preventing the government from having control over a woman's body.

edit: I guess both involve preventing overstep on the part of the government, so they are related. In which case, shouldn't you expect to see supporters of one support the other?

If you word it like that; the pro-choice wording, then it doesn't seem related.  If you look at it from a "One is killing a human and one is killing a human" standpoint, then they're totally related.   It doesn't make sense to me that someone is ok with a woman choosing to murder an unborn child, yet is appalled by the idea of the courts murdering a man for a crime that he committed.  I can't really get on board with either.

I only recently took a firm stance on which side of the fence I stood with abortion.  I struggled with saying that I was pro-life due to the denial of the rights of the woman.  In the end, I consider it murder, and I don't think that it should be tolerated in a civilized society.  I can totally understand the other side's points though....which is something that I can't do on most topics.

I also only recently took a firm stance with capital punishment.  It was the life-ending aspect of both of them that got me.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 02:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: My first comments in this thread had nothing to do with morality.  It was about how the system was flawed.

Your first post was squealing about how people who are pro-choice and anti-death penalty are hypocrites.  So don't blame me for making this a religious discussion.  

There was no "squealing, pointing to morality, or envolking religion. Just simply pointing out an ironic flaw in logic.

It seems the first person to reply to that comment introduced the "bad Christian' route before anyone else brought up morlaity or religion.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 07:00 AM)GMDino Wrote: How many homosexuals have you stoned so far?

You DO follow the word to the letter...don't you?

I have stoned zero homosexuals, as it is not my place to judge; Jesus makes that very clear. That does not excuse man from being judged by society. There are those charged with carrying out man's law and as the word states we must take special precaution to get it right and if you bare false witness there will be consequences.
  
I'm sorry the bad Christian slant cannot get more traction in this thread; but both God and man (well most anyway) agree on this principle.