Terminally Ill Man To Be Executed - Page 3 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-26-2007, 10:46 PM   #31
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by A_Wanderer
Many Christians seem to have an issue with abortion as well as euthanasia on the basis that it somehow violates the sanctity of life. A proportion of these Christians also support the use of capital punishment.

How is a human being who has probably commited a terrible crime have a life that is less sacred than a foetus or brain dead body?
i never will make the connection how anti death penalty ppl try and equate a innocent baby's life that made no choices, with a convicted murderer who made choices.
i do not think a muderer is a sacred human being, a new born baby is much more sacred of a being to most people, even you were at one time wanderer.

i'm also against all forms of suicide.

dbs
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 06-26-2007, 10:48 PM   #32
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


I know A_Wanderer did ask
Does your religion.....


but laws of countries or states should not be set up by religious dictates

no Shia law, or
Vatican law
or
SeaGull laws
for the general populace.

Please,




so you would honor and obey shia law.

Stone me now.

no, i would move from that country.

dbs
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 06-26-2007, 10:53 PM   #33
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Murder =taking innocent life, what part of that don't you understand?
Murder = killing someone else, with premeditated intent

what part of that don't you understand?
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 06-26-2007, 10:59 PM   #34
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,489
Local Time: 06:25 PM
i guess some people are a little more sacred than others.

and man gets to decide that.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 06-26-2007, 11:00 PM   #35
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,682
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


i never will make the connection how anti death penalty ppl try and equate a innocent baby's life that made no choices, with a convicted murderer who made choices.
i do not think a muderer is a sacred human being, a new born baby is much more sacred of a being to most people, even you were at one time wanderer.
But this has no Biblical backing, just your own personal emotions...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-26-2007, 11:02 PM   #36
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,682
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Murder =taking innocent life, what part of that don't you understand?

dbs
Who's really innocent?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-26-2007, 11:10 PM   #37
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i guess some people are a little more sacred than others.

and man gets to decide that.
AND INNOCENT, LET'S NOT FORGET THAT.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 06-26-2007, 11:14 PM   #38
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,682
Local Time: 05:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


AND INNOCENT, LET'S NOT FORGET THAT.
But I always hear you say, "we're all sinners", so which is it?
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-26-2007, 11:34 PM   #39
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 12:25 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2isthebest
You're probably also familiar with the New Testament story of the woman caught in adultery. The Pharisees dragged her before Jesus to try and catch him in a compromising situation. Would he follow the Mosaic law that he was supposed to follow as a "good Jew" or would he follow the Roman law that forbade the death penalty?
Roman law certainly didn't forbid the death penalty. I'm guessing you meant 'in cases of adultery', though that's not fully correct either--Roman law from 18 BC on recognized the right of the aggrieved huband to kill his 'cuckolder'...just not his adulterous wife (of course under Mosaic law both could be executed, provided the limitations imposed on capital crimes trials by Jewish law were observed). Since only Roman authorities, not the Sanhedrin, held capital case jurisdiction in Roman Judaea, the likely "compromising situation" involved here is that Jesus would have violated those terms by rendering any "verdict" whatsoever on his own. Of course Jewish law wouldn't have permitted him to summarily declare a verdict on the spot, either, but presumably that wasn't per se what they were asking for--the conceit appears to be that they simply wanted him to 'rule' whether she could be executed if found guilty by trial or not, and technically either a direct "yes" or "no" could be considered a 'subversive' usurpation of capital-case jurisdiction on his part. Typically, he threw the responsibility for the decision back on them instead--in a way which insinuates without actually saying so that he recognizes an attempt to legally entrap him is afoot (potentially a capital crime in itself, under Jewish law).

Whether or not a "good Jew" at the time would have said (or thought) "yes" probably depended on who you were talking to. In the histories of the Sanhedrin presented in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, it's stated that in 30 AD the Sanhedrin, under the influence of its Hillelite Pharisee members (i.e., disciples of former Sanhedrin head Hillel, who was dead by that time), ruled that in view of all the limitations imposed by Jewish law on capital crimes proceedings--and the presumed intent behind those limitations--capital punishment was best seen as a "hypothetical" maximum penalty, ultimately unfit for flawed human judicial systems to mete out. This was precisely the argument used long before to abrogate the Deuteronomic injunction to kill a rebellious son, and in view of this, subsequent Jewish tradition has tended to interpret the Sanhedrin decision as effectively nullifying religious justification of the death penalty, despite not condemning it in abstract principle. Of course in all likelihood A) this was not a unanimous decision--probably some Shammaite Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed; B) its immediate impact was limited by the fact that they were ruling on a power they didn't then have anyway, making it politically inconsequential; and C) Judaism had no central theological authority, then or now, so in principle a Jew could--and can--support the death penalty in good conscience provided that s/he trusts the court rendering the verdict to be "perfectly" just.

I attended a Catholic high school for a couple years, and as I recall one of my teachers there suggested that the 'writing on the ground' was probably a way of underlining the idea that everyone has wrongs they might be held to account for (and in those days, likely a few which could've landed them in far more trouble than today if caught!). Who knows, but it seemed a plausible enough idea to me.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline  
Old 06-26-2007, 11:52 PM   #40
ONE
love, blood, life
 
U2isthebest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Vision over visibility....
Posts: 12,332
Local Time: 07:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by yolland

Roman law certainly didn't forbid the death penalty. I'm guessing you meant 'in cases of adultery', though that's not fully correct either--Roman law from 18 BC on recognized the right of the aggrieved huband to kill his 'cuckolder'...just not his adulterous wife (of course under Mosaic law both could be executed, provided the limitations imposed on capital crimes trials by Jewish law were observed). Since only Roman authorities, not the Sanhedrin, held capital case jurisdiction in Roman Judaea, the likely "compromising situation" involved here is that Jesus would have violated those terms by rendering any "verdict" whatsoever on his own. Of course Jewish law wouldn't have permitted him to summarily declare a verdict on the spot, either, but presumably that wasn't per se what they were asking for--the conceit appears to be that they simply wanted him to 'rule' whether she could be executed if found guilty by trial or not, and technically either a direct "yes" or "no" could be considered a 'subversive' usurpation of capital-case jurisdiction on his part. Typically, he threw the responsibility for the decision back on them instead--in a way which insinuates without actually saying so that he recognizes an attempt to legally entrap him is afoot (potentially a capital crime in itself, under Jewish law).

Whether or not a "good Jew" at the time would have said (or thought) "yes" probably depended on who you were talking to. In the histories of the Sanhedrin presented in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds, it's stated that in 30 AD the Sanhedrin, under the influence of its Hillelite Pharisee members (i.e., disciples of former Sanhedrin head Hillel, who was dead by that time), ruled that in view of all the limitations imposed by Jewish law on capital crimes proceedings--and the presumed intent behind those limitations--capital punishment was best seen as a "hypothetical" maximum penalty, ultimately unfit for flawed human judicial systems to mete out. This was precisely the argument used long before to abrogate the Deuteronomic injunction to kill a rebellious son, and in view of this, subsequent Jewish tradition has tended to interpret the Sanhedrin decision as effectively nullifying religious justification of the death penalty, despite not condemning it in abstract principle. Of course in all likelihood A) this was not a unanimous decision--probably some Shammaite Pharisees and Sadducees disagreed; B) its immediate impact was limited by the fact that they were ruling on a power they didn't then have anyway, making it politically inconsequential; and C) Judaism had no central theological authority, then or now, so in principle a Jew could--and can--support the death penalty in good conscience provided that s/he trusts the court rendering the verdict to be "perfectly" just.

I attended a Catholic high school for a couple years, and as I recall one of my teachers there suggested that the 'writing on the ground' was probably a way of underlining the idea that everyone has wrongs they might be held to account for (and in those days, likely a few which could've landed them in far more trouble than today if caught!). Who knows, but it seemed a plausible enough idea to me.
Thanks!! I knew the Roman law didn't completely forbid the death penalty, but I wasn't sure what exactly the policy was. I knew they didn't feel the same way about it as most Jewish people did, so I erred on the side of being a little too general with my answer.
__________________
U2isthebest is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 12:18 AM   #41
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:25 PM
I think some ppl take sayings "judge not at all" literally and pervert the meaning.
I think what Jesus meant by this saying was have your own house clean before even considering casting judgement at all.

Some ppl pick and choose verses in the Bible and construct them for a meaning that suits their interests, or claim it's poetry or fables etc, for whatever reason they may have.



Clearly Christ judged ppl but very rarely condemn them.

I don't remember if he ever refused to condemn a murderer.

I do know what he said about children, "that they were such as heaven, to let them come unto him, and to *never* harm them".

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 12:27 AM   #42
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:25 PM
Didn't Jesus say something along the lines of "Let he who is without sin be the first to cast a stone." Was that how the line went? I think it was.

That's not picking and choosing. That's a pretty solid statement right there.

And I don't think you would have considered the woman he defended in that innocent. Would you do the same thing that Jesus did, by the standards you are setting out now?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 01:00 AM   #43
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 04:25 PM

Jesus asked the woman where her accusers were, he told the woman caught in the act that he didn't condemn her, and to "go and sin no more".

He also exposed the ppl judging her as not being worthy to judge as I alluded to in my previous post.

He never said her adultrey was a good thing, actually it was sin and that she was to sin no more.

He wanted to also point out her accusers were far from sinless.

So your point is what?

dbs
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 01:09 AM   #44
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 06:25 PM
My point is that because you are far from sinless, just like all of us, should you be allowed to judge innocence in these matters? Forget government judging. Can anyone on this earth judge or condemn?
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 06-27-2007, 01:50 AM   #45
Refugee
 
LikeNoOneBefore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Scranton, PA
Posts: 1,941
Local Time: 06:25 PM
(I apologize for being late into the discussion.)

Truly, I believe a life sentence in prison is a much better alternative to the death penalty. A woman a few years back named Karla Faye Tucker was executed by lethal injection. Though I was much younger, I can remember an uproar from the community stemming because the woman had accepted Christ while in prison, showed visible signs of complete reform, and died after making a statement about how she would join the Lord in Heaven. So this just adds to another argument. Should one who is showing complete signs of change be released from their death sentence?


Now for what is presently happening. diamond, I don't understand what side of the argument you are on. I cannot tell if you are for or against the death penalty, but the support you used in your last post seems to contribute to phillyfan's thesis. If we, just like the accusers (the Pharaises, in that example), are all sinful, then how can we place judgement on someone like the woman who committed adultry? Really, in reference to my story from above, this woman, just as the adultress would later, completely reformed herself, and yet still was executed. Is this fair? Adultry, like murder, is not a good thing and should be "sinned no more."



I truly hope I understood everyone's argument. I have a bit of a headache, so I apologize if anything I said was weird.
__________________

__________________
LikeNoOneBefore is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com