why not death penalty?

[vidcc]

For the right cause if that cause is self preservation or looking after your family but certainly not for any political reasons.

I don't believe his crimes had anything to do with self preservation. these were not self defense crimes.

[manker]

I don't believe his crimes had anything to do with self preservation. these were not self defense crimes.

Well, yeah. From what I wrote I assumed the reader would extrapolate that I believed it was not okay to kill for anything other than preserving one's own life or that of a loved one.

[JPaul]

Well, yeah. From what I wrote I assumed the reader would extrapolate that I believed it was not okay to kill for anything other than preserving one's own life or that of a loved one.

That's what I thought you meant. However as it's what I also think it's hardly surprising that I took it to be your meaning.

To me there are no double standards possible, Death Penalty = No. There is no other tenable position, unless one accepts that it is done as revenge. Which is really a rather unsavoury way for a "civilized" society to behave.

For any Christians here, it's "Thou shalt not kill", there's no unless at the end.

[bigboab]

Most of my life I have been an advocate for capital punishment. Now I have changed my mind. It is not a deterrent; otherwise they would not be carrying it out. It is a preventative measure, only in the sense that it prevents the guilty person from recommitting the offence. I recently saw a paedophile being executed in Iran, richly deserved. At the same time I said this type of punishment is not working or this person would not have committed the horrible crimes he was guilty of.

As the capital punishment act stood in the UK before it was abolished, and as it stands in most countries that still have capital punishment, the following were a rough guide to Capital offences.

Killing a Police Officer, Prison Officer in pursuit of their duties. Killing in the furtherance of theft. Premeditated killing and a few other ones I cannot remember.

Absent from the above list, were child killers and persons who were mentally unstable at the time of the crime (or later). In my opinion these are exactly the people who should have received capital punishment. How many instances have you read of people getting released or escaping from mental institutes and killing again? Far too many in my opinion.

I think, in this specific case, that he should be sentenced to life, strapped over a barrel, so that any of his colleagues so inclined might give him a nice "poke" as they pass.

J2! Is there something that you would like to talk about? We are here to help.

[manker]

That's what I thought you meant. However as it's what I also think it's hardly surprising that I took it to be your meaning.

To me there are no double standards possible, Death Penalty = No. There is no other tenable position, unless one accepts that it is done as revenge. Which is really a rather unsavoury way for a "civilized" society to behave.

For any Christians here, it's "Thou shalt not kill", there's no unless at the end.

Well, I am not a Christian, I just happen to think that the killing of people, organised by the state or otherwise, is wrong.

I'm not aware of the statistics but I think that the cost of keeping an incarcerated man alive until the end of his days while making him work for the benefit of the society he wronged, as you outlined, wouldn't greatly outweigh the huge legal costs involved in the many appeals that the condemned man would have orchestrated.

But that's just logistics. It's the human aspect I'm more concerned with.

[hobbes]

That's what I thought you meant. However as it's what I also think it's hardly surprising that I took it to be your meaning.

To me there are no double standards possible, Death Penalty = No. There is no other tenable position, unless one accepts that it is done as revenge. Which is really a rather unsavoury way for a "civilized" society to behave.

For any Christians here, it's "Thou shalt not kill", there's no unless at the end.

From a Christian standpoint does the Church make a distinction between killing and self defense?

Certainly we humans believe that we have the right to defend ourselves, even if it means the death of another, but does the Church make such a distinction.

If someone were about to kill my child, I can't see myself turning the other cheek as Christ says.

When God said, "Thou shall not kill", I did not see an asterik at the end which allowed for certain exceptions. God let his Son be killed without interference.

So when God puts us in a situation in which we must stand by and let a love one die, is that not a test of faith. God told you not to kill, God knew this situation would arise. Certainly God has a reason for this event.

If killing is your only option, to save the life of a loved one, or even yourself, is there something in the scripture which allows for this exception?

[vidcc]

NM

[manker]

NM

Spam :glare:

[hobbes]

For Vidcc:

The death penalty does not serve as deterrent and can be used politically to silence people, permanently. It is exploitable.

Lock 'em up, throw away the key and make them earn their daily bread.



For Me:

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him...." (Ex. 22:2-3)

This passage is interpreted to mean that if someone enters your house and you cannot assess his relative danger to you and your family, you are able to kill that person without punishmnet.

If, however, it can be clearly seen that this person has no weapon and is after material belongings, then to kill him is murder.



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items below are lounge level material
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
That Bible is proof that God is a lawyer. It clearly states something, but in the fine print elsewhere in a large document there is a single line which modifies that assertion. Should have been an asterisk on the Ten Commandments.

Wouldn't that have freaked Moses out.

"Lord, WTF is an asterisk?"
"Just put it, Moses."
"But Lord, I don't understand"
" Look, to be quite frank, I work in mysterious ways. Some other person, far removed from you in time and space will be making a comment relevant to this line and I want people to refer to that passage in the Bible."
"Lord, you are freaking me out, what is a Bible"

[manker]

For Me:

"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him. If the sun be risen upon him, there shall be blood shed for him...." (Ex. 22:2-3)

This passage is interpreted to mean that if someone enters your house and you cannot assess his relative danger to you and your family, you are able to kill that person without punishmnet.

If, however, it can be clearly seen that this person has no weapon and is after material belongings, then to kill him is murder.

That seems reasonable. Thanks, hobbes.

I see no cause to kill a man for the sake of a plasma TV and a game cube.