The Justices spar over the constitutionality of the death penalty

[*bfine32*]

(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?

They are both the same in that they both take life; however, in only one of the 2 can we guarantee that innocent life is taken in each instance.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2015, 10:23 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Hey Larry...you're the one citing "the word" as a defense for the death penalty.

If a jury (society) convicted someone of having gay sex you'd be fine with a stoning to death then?

Heck God didn't even say to kill Cain and he's the first one to kill someone.  he jsut exiled him and allowed him to marry, raise a family, create a society.

Or is that word not as good as the other word?

#cafeteriachristians

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 02:15 AM)Benton Wrote: 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.

First of all I take offense to the term perverting a passage; as the bible and God's word is open to interpretation.  Of course Jesus advocated peace; where did I say he advocated killing anyone? He merely issued a warning.

Question: Why did he warn man (actually the man in Matthew was Simon Peter) to "abandon violence"?

Answer: Because if they live by violence they will be judged by violence. It is mentioned again in Revolations.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 10:27 AM)GMDino Wrote: Hey Larry...you're the one citing "the word" as a defense for the death penalty.

If a jury (society) convicted someone of having gay sex you'd be fine with a stoning to death then?

Heck God didn't even say to kill Cain and he's the first one to kill someone.  he jsut exiled him and allowed him to marry, raise a family, create a society.

Or is that word not as good as the other word?

#cafeteriachristians

Actually the question was posed to me "Why are so many Christians for the Death Penalty?"

I took the unusual tactic of answering a question so the vultures could feed.

[*michaelsean*]

I don't have a problem with people being against the death penalty, but I don't think it's unconstitutional. My daughter announced she was against the death penalty, and I said that's a valid opinion, and she looked a little pissed that i wasn't arguing with her.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2015, 10:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually the question was posed to me "Why are so many Christians for the Death Penalty?"

I took the unusual tactic of answering a question so the vultures could feed.

So then you DON'T believe that the "word" says we should take a life.

You just made it up to troll.

Got it.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2015, 10:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all I take offense to the term perverting a passage; as the bible and God's word is open to interpretation.  Of course Jesus advocated peace; where did I say he advocated killing anyone? He merely issued a warning.

Question: Why did he warn man (actually the man in Matthew was Simon Peter) to "abandon violence"?

Answer: Because if they live by violence they will be judged by violence. It is mentioned again in Revolations.

Unless it was used against interracial marriage...right?

Or can they be interpreted differently by different people just to support "their" cause?

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 11:08 AM)GMDino Wrote: Unless it was used against interracial marriage...right?

Or can they be interpreted differently by different people just to support "their" cause?

I suppose someone would have to show me a verse in which they claimed was stating the bible is opposed to interracial marriage.

[Benton]

(06-30-2015, 10:40 AM)bfine32 Wrote: First of all I take offense to the term perverting a passage; as the bible and God's word is open to interpretation.  Of course Jesus advocated peace; where did I say he advocated killing anyone? He merely issued a warning.

Question: Why did he warn man (actually the man in Matthew was Simon Peter) to "abandon violence"?

Answer: Because if they live by violence they will be judged by violence. It is mentioned again in Revolations.

First, fair enough. I won't use the term. But you are incorrect on your interpretation. Violence doesn't judge anyone. People do. And sometimes they respond with violence. Jesus wasn't saying people should govern with violence, only that they did. Which, as I said earlier in this thread, was at times very unjust punishment, such as the poena cullei.

What he was telling the disciples — who were being prepared to be spiritual leaders of men — was they should govern without violence.


Edit: And what interpretation? Jesus only gave one all encompassing command.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2015, 11:20 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I suppose someone would have to show me a verse in which they claimed was stating the bible is opposed to interracial marriage.

I posted a link and quoted several.  All interpreted to oppose interracial marriage.

But now we're off the topic of you claiming "the word" says killing is ok if the person has killed...but you didn't mean it?

[Millhouse]

I will always be in favor of the death penalty for the heinous criminals with 100% proof of their guilt.

However due to the state CJS's outside of the Federal system, they generally take many many years wasting tons of money & resources just to reach the point of execution. Plus as mentioned above there have been too many cases of people being executed without 100% proof.

In the end it probably should be scaled back quite a bit if not eliminated all together amongst the states due to their numerous flaws, but the Federal death penalty should remain for terrorists and the like.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 11:23 AM)Benton Wrote: First, fair enough. I won't use the term. But you are incorrect on your interpretation. Violence doesn't judge anyone. People do. And sometimes they respond with violence. Jesus wasn't saying people should govern with violence, only that they did. Which, as I said earlier in this thread, was at times very unjust punishment, such as the poena cullei.

What he was telling the disciples — who were being prepared to be spiritual leaders of men — was they should govern without violence.


Edit: And what interpretation? Jesus only gave one all encompassing command.

What is your interpretation of Revelations 13:10? Or the punishment he confirmed in Matthew 15:4-7? I want to make sure I am not interpreting them wrong.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: I posted a link and quoted several.  All interpreted to oppose interracial marriage.

But now we're off the topic of you claiming "the word" says killing is ok if the person has killed...but you didn't mean it?

The links you posted were of marriage between people of different faiths.

Where did I say I didn't "mean" it. I have said numerous times that I think the death penalty should be reserved for extreme cases and my position is supported by scripture; both in punishment and extreme caution prior to execution. Of course someone who doesn't believe the scripture will most likely disagree with this belief.

I have not come on here and attacked those opposed to the death penalty; as they have a right to their opinion. I have stated that I find it ironic (or whatever Fred considers to be the word I should have used) that a group of folks can be against killing convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters, ect... and not be against murdering innocent life.

[Benton]

(06-30-2015, 12:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: What is your interpretation of Revelations 13:10? Or the punishment he confirmed in Matthew 15:4-7? I want to make sure I am not interpreting them wrong.

When was the last time you saw a dragon calling forth a 10 horned, seven headed beast that looks like a lion? If you go with the literal, I'll sharpen a sword when that thing crawls up. If you go with the figurative, it still doesn't mean you should commit violence — it's saying you'll be tricked into violence by the beast.

But in any event, the beast is given power over man for four years and part of that power is that men will fight for him. I'm not remembering Matthew 15 off the top of my head, I'll google and get back to you.

[Benton]

(06-30-2015, 12:53 PM)Benton Wrote: When was the last time you saw a dragon calling forth a 10 horned, seven headed beast that looks like a lion? If you go with the literal, I'll sharpen a sword when that thing crawls up. If you go with the figurative, it still doesn't mean you should commit violence — it's saying you'll be tricked into violence by the beast.

But in any event, the beast is given power over man for four years and part of that power is that men will fight for him. I'm not remembering Matthew 15 off the top of my head, I'll google and get back to you.

Ok, googled the verses. You might want to read the whole of it.

Jesus wasn't advocating stoning spoiled kids, he was criticizing the Pharisees for manipulating the law to work around God's law.

[Belsnickel]

(06-30-2015, 12:53 PM)Benton Wrote: When was the last time you saw a dragon calling forth a 10 horned, seven headed beast that looks like a lion? If you go with the literal, I'll sharpen a sword when that thing crawls up. If you go with the figurative, it still doesn't mean you should commit violence — it's saying you'll be tricked into violence by the beast.

But in any event, the beast is given power over man for four years and part of that power is that men will fight for him. I'm not remembering Matthew 15 off the top of my head, I'll google and get back to you.

Matthew 15 is Jesus referencing one of the commandments handed down to Moses. He isn't advocating the punishment in any way, but merely quoting it to reference the commandment.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 01:07 PM)Benton Wrote: Ok, googled the verses. You might want to read the whole of it.

Jesus wasn't advocating stoning spoiled kids, he was criticizing the Pharisees for manipulating the law to work around God's law.

I have read the whole of it and he quoted the punishment of death by man as a warning.

I get those that want everythinbg to be flowers; unfortunately it is not. There is the Trinity.

I guess I just don't see the reasoning behind the assertion that Jesus preached compassion; therefore, man cannot be punished by society. I assume you have no issue with punishment; only the penalty of death. As I said at the beginning you cannot have it half way.

[*PhilHos*]

(06-30-2015, 12:47 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have not come on here and attacked those opposed to the death penalty; as they have a right to their opinion. I have stated that I find it ironic (or whatever Fred considers to be the word I should have used) that a group of folks can be against killing convicted murderers, rapists, child molesters, ect... and not be against murdering innocent life.

This is what I can never understand. How can killing ANYONE be wrong when it comes to the death penalty, but killing babies via abortion is just fine and dandy?

I can understand the confusion towards the inverse (how people can be "pro-life" but okay with killing criminals), but that at least, has some rationale that I can understand to it, the former, I just don't get.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 12:53 PM)Benton Wrote: When was the last time you saw a dragon calling forth a 10 horned, seven headed beast that looks like a lion? If you go with the literal, I'll sharpen a sword when that thing crawls up. If you go with the figurative, it still doesn't mean you should commit violence — it's saying you'll be tricked into violence by the beast.

For real?

I'll continue to debate with the non-believers. Later.

[GMDino]

(06-30-2015, 01:18 PM)PhilHos Wrote: This is what I can never understand. How can killing ANYONE be wrong when it comes to the death penalty, but killing babies via abortion is just fine and dandy?

I can understand the confusion towards the inverse (how people can be "pro-life" but okay with killing criminals), but that at least, has some rationale that I can understand to it, the former, I just don't get.

I'll take a stab int he dark and say its because not everyone considers an embryo a "baby" or a "person" until they reach a certain stage of development in the womb.

Same reason a woman who miscarriages doesn't get charged with murder.  Well, unless they live in TN.