The Justices spar over the constitutionality of the death penalty

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2015, 01:19 PM)bfine32 Wrote: For real?

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

Oh get off your faithful high horse; there are a bunch of gods and religions you disregard, too.  We're all guilty of not-believing in some fashion.

[Benton]

(06-30-2015, 01:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 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.

Of course it isn't flowers. Jesus said those who follow his path (peace) can expect to have a rough life, and violence done unto them. But take the path anyway.

There's two areas with the bolded. The first is, we are society. When you advocate using the death penalty, you aren't arbitrarily removing your role in killing someone. If you advocate a society that uses capital punishment, you advocate for something that conflicts with Jesus's teaching. The other area is banishment (the roots of imprisonment) isn't a punishment that directly harms another person. It allows them a chance at salvation.

I have no problem with incarcerating someone. And, in general, I'm ok with inmate labor. I'm talking only about capital punishment.

[*Nately120*]

(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.

You've pretty much summed up the reason I don't adhere to or identify with a single political party.

[*michaelsean*]

(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?

3

[*michaelsean*]

(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.

2009

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 01:50 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Oh get off your faithful high horse; there are a bunch of gods and religions you disregard, too.  We're all guilty of not-believing in some fashion.

I have no high horse. I was just taken back by someone that states they follow the New Testiment mocking its words.

You are correct in your assertion; however, what comes to mind when someone in the United States says believers and non-believers?

[Benton]

(06-30-2015, 02:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: 2009

Ok, I'll bite.

The only thing I can think of you could be referring to is Obama's inauguration. Which would have worked in terms of the beast from the sea except a- he's serving his seventh year, which is three more years than the verse states; and b- he didn't call on people to fight, that ball was already rolling. He just didn't stop it like people thought he would.

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2015, 09:18 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: 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.

The unborn part is crucial. A fetus isn't a person. It has no rights. It certainly doesn't have the right to occupy a woman's body against her own choosing.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2015, 02:39 PM)Benton Wrote: Ok, I'll bite.

The only thing I can think of you could be referring to is Obama's inauguration. Which would have worked in terms of the beast from the sea except a- he's serving his seventh year, which is three more years than the verse states; and b- he didn't call on people to fight, that ball was already rolling. He just didn't stop it like people thought he would.

No it was just a random number.  I just always think it's funny if people give an answer to a question where none is expected.  Like the one above it.  But now you made me explain it, and it's no longer funny.  

[*Nately120*]

(06-30-2015, 02:28 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have no high horse. I was just taken back by someone that states they follow the New Testiment mocking its words.

You are correct in your assertion; however, what comes to mind when someone in the United States says believers and non-believers?

Good point on part 1.

What comes to mind when someone in the US says believers and non-believers comes down to the amount of scrutiny one wishes to place upon religious membership.  Sure, Christianity holds the majority, but I'm also of the cynical mindset that removing the "we like Jesus" umbrella exposes the vast number of sects and disagreements within the friendly, majority-laden construct.

This isn't specifically directed at you, but I think people are so used to it being "Christianity vs. Nothing" is what leads people who consider themselves faithful to overlook the fact that atheists and strict Christians both share a lot of disbelief in religion in the grand scheme of things. I'll admit to playing devil's advocate in my original post, but I'm only a strict non-believer in the case of accepting the premise that the only religion/system/code where belief is relevant (in this conversation, or any) is Christianity.

Personally, I'm more unconcerned with religion BUT I'll admit I'm the least concerned with Christianity, so there is my USA bias going the other way, eh?

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2015, 02:42 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The unborn part is crucial. A fetus isn't a person. It has no rights. It certainly doesn't have the right to occupy a woman's body against her own choosing.

It has no recognized rights.  So you are against any limitations on abortions?

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 02:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No it was just a random number.  I just always think it's funny if people give an answer to a question where none is expected.  Like the one above it.  But now you made me explain it, and it's no longer funny.  

The truly funny thing he must have accepted your answer of stoneing 3 Homosexuals.

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2015, 02:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: It has no recognized rights.  So you are against any limitations on abortions?

No, once it can feasibly survive outside of the womb is where I'd draw the line philosophically.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2015, 02:56 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: No, once it can feasibly survive outside of the womb is where I'd draw the line philosophically.

But legally?

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-30-2015, 02:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The truly funny thing he must have accepted your answer of stoneing 3 Homosexuals.

I just assumed he mistook stoned with boned and it made perfect sense...

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2015, 03:02 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I just assumed he mistook stoned with boned and it made perfect sense...

I knocked that out by the time I was 17.

[BmorePat87]

(06-30-2015, 03:02 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But legally?

Roe v Wade set the threshold at fetal viability.

[*bfine32*]

(06-30-2015, 03:03 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I knocked that out by the time I was 17.

You understand that sentance can be read two different ways.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-30-2015, 03:12 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Roe v Wade set the threshold at fetal viability.

That's not what I'm asking you.  Do you believe there should be any legal limitations on abortion?  Most people in favor of abortion believe there should be, but that's in conflict with "It's her body and her choice."  It's her body at 40 weeks the same as at 8 weeks.  I'm not trying to set something up here, I'm just curious how that is rectified.  

[Benton]

(06-30-2015, 02:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: No it was just a random number.  I just always think it's funny if people give an answer to a question where none is expected.  Like the one above it.  But now you made me explain it, and it's no longer funny.  

It just reminded me of a week or two ago when I was talking to an older lady at Kroger in the produce department. She sneezed, I said bless you and then she proceeded to tell me about how Obama was the anti-Christ and that we're punished every 8 years. She went back to the Sept. 11 attacks and worked her way up until this year to tell me I was going to die horribly next year.

I told her there was a really good price on sweet corn.