Theocrat supports capital punishment do you?

[Uriel999]

Me and theo in chat had a disagreement over capital punishment and we agreed to share this conservation/debate with the rest of rp forums. I personally argued against it, he supports it. Lets argue this further.

[Uriel999]

BTW don't be dickish, me and theo were having a friendly debate. We actually had a miscommunication...he thought I was mentioning this debate for chat, and I was thinking poll. It was a miscommunication on my part. However, nonetheless, this should be an interesting debate.

[Truth Warrior]

I tend to agree with Jesus and Gandhi. ;)

[Fox McCloud]

Only at the State level.

[Defining Obscene]

We will never have an ideal government, therefore I can't support it. Its too open for abuse, the best way is to just rid of it. I don't see nothing wrong with keeping murderers in jail, maybe people will think twice before they commit a crime. Instead of spending a few years with repeat narcotics offender, they'll be bunking with "Terrible Ted".

[Theocrat]

I tend to agree with Jesus and Gandhi. ;)

Jesus Himself believed in the death penalty. That's why He suffered and died on a cross to pay for the sins of His people, even though He was sinless. ;)

[Uriel999]

Hrmmm, interesting so far, 50/50.

[FrankRep]

Jesus Himself believed in the death penalty. That's why He suffered and died on a cross to pay for the sins of His people, even though He was sinless. ;)

Which verse does Jesus say he supported the death penalty?

[Nirvikalpa]

Yes, I actually do support the death penalty - one of the only issues I disagree with Ron Paul on.

However, I only do this because a life in prison is not a hardship. 3 meals a day, TV, Computers, Porn, Sex... sounds like a hard life to me. When murderers and rapists are getting fed more than people on the streets of NYC, most of whom didn't do anything wrong, you know something is seriously wrong. Of course, this is only in cases where it is 100% sure the prisoner is the perpetrator. Substantial amount of evidence would be required.

I would only be against the death penalty is life is prison was a lot worse. Sorry, this is something I am very strict about for personal reasons.

[Truth Warrior]

Jesus Himself believed in the death penalty. That's why He suffered and died on a cross to pay for the sins of His people, even though He was sinless. ;) Can't have it both ways, guy. ;) Nice try.

The death penalty is sinful. "THOU SHALT NOT KILL." Did I just miss the fine print again? :D

BTW, your Roman Empire roots are showing. :)

[Fox McCloud]

Yes, I actually do support the death penalty - one of the only issues I disagree with Ron Paul on.

Actually, do we really know Ron's stance on the death penalty? He once supported the Federal death penalty, but now he does not. That said, I'm not sure if he has made any statements on his support (or lack there-of) of the death penalty at the State level (the only thing I've heard him say is that he's fine with States choosing to have a Death Penalty).

[Theocrat]

We will never have an ideal government, therefore I can't support it. Its too open for abuse, the best way is to just rid of it. I don't see nothing wrong with keeping murderers in jail, maybe people will think twice before they commit a crime. Instead of spending a few years with repeat narcotics offender, they'll be bunking with "Terrible Ted".

Actually, for many people living in urban communities where the poor mourn, the scorned roam, and where torn homes make residential areas look like war zones, they will actually commit a crime just so they can go to jail. At least for them, they know they'll get three meals a day and have a place to lay their head at night. After all, if you live in an old project, a new jail doesn't sound bad...

[Theocrat]

Which verse does Jesus say he supported the death penalty?

Jesus supported the death penalty when He subjected Himself to it. Read Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 for more information about that.

[Theocrat]

Can't have it both ways, guy. ;) Nice try.

The death penalty is sinful. "THOU SHALT NOT KILL." Did I just miss the fine print again? :D

BTW, your Roman Empire roots are showing. :)

The context of that passage you've quoted (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) clearly shows that the word "kill" means "murder." Try to be more hermeneutically sound before you post. Or use your dictionary.

[steph3n]

I was starting to move against the DP, but now that this bailout has happened I think it is needed for traitors that get convicted.

[Monolithic]

not for it

i think a life sentence is much worse than the death penalty, at least with capital punishment you get the sweet release of death, living the rest of your life in a cell seems much worse to me

could be because i'm kinda claustrophobic though

[Truth Warrior]

The context of that passage you've quoted (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) clearly shows that the word "kill" means "murder." Try to be more hermeneutically sound before you post. Or use your dictionary. :eek: The HOLY WORD OF GOD IS INCORRECT? Why has that not been corrected by now, after all of these millenia? :rolleyes:

I know, demonic translators perhaps! ;) :D

[GunnyFreedom]

Can't have it both ways, guy. ;) Nice try.

The death penalty is sinful. "THOU SHALT NOT KILL." Did I just miss the fine print again? :D

BTW, your Roman Empire roots are showing. :)

Actually, that is a mistranslation of the Hebrew: /lo teretzach/ which means "(you shall do) no murder" with murder being specifically defined as unlawful killing. There are plenty of OTHER words for 'killing' that could have been used if the intent was to ban generic 'killing,' but then had that been the case, then every where else where God instructed the Israelites to kill (whatever) would have been a contradiction.

Fortunately, the Hebrew in the source text distinguishes between 'killing' and 'murder' even if the English translations fail to do so. :)

[GunnyFreedom]

:eek: The HOLY WORD OF GOD IS INCORRECT? Why has that not been corrected by now, after all of these millenia? :rolleyes:

I know, demonic translators perhaps! ;) :D

Um. I happen to read Hebrew, and there really is no question as to whether the word at issue states 'murder' rather than 'kill.' I have long had an issue with the translators of the KJV and other versions which fail to make this distinction. I don't really know if, as you say, there was some kind of "demonic agenda" or just outright laziness.

Nevertheless, it is what it is; and it was done half a millenia before you or I stand here today. Therefore we just have to deal with what we got, because we can't very well go back and change it.

[Truth Warrior]

Actually, that is a mistranslation of the Hebrew: /lo teretzach/ which means "(you shall do) no murder" with murder being specifically defined as unlawful killing. There are plenty of OTHER words for 'killing' that could have been used if the intent was to ban generic 'killing,' but then had that been the case, then every where else where God instructed the Israelites to kill (whatever) would have been a contradiction.

Fortunately, the Hebrew in the source text distinguishes between 'killing' and 'murder' even if the English translations fail to do so. :) Aren't the translators divinely inspired to get it right too? ;)

[Theocrat]

:eek: The HOLY WORD OF GOD IS INCORRECT? Why has that not been corrected by now, after all of these millenia? :rolleyes:

I know, demonic translators perhaps! ;) :D

Right. It's not like the word "kill" can ever mean "murder" in the English language (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kill). :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Um. I happen to read Hebrew, and there really is no question as to whether the word at issue states 'murder' rather than 'kill.' I have long had an issue with the translators of the KJV and other versions which fail to make this distinction. I don't really know if, as you say, there was some kind of "demonic agenda" or just outright laziness.

Nevertheless, it is what it is; and it was done half a millenia before you or I stand here today. Therefore we just have to deal with what we got, because we can't very well go back and change it. Maybe the Hebrews got it wrong. ;) Maybe it's just meant to be talen LITERALLY, and at face value.

Ooops! :D

[GunnyFreedom]

Aren't the translators divinely inspired to get it right too? ;)

You won't ever hear such clap-trap coming from me. Heck, I don't even believe the source-texts are perfect. I only believe that the autographs were perfect in their inspiration. There are just way too many documented scribal errors in the Textus Receptus and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgarten.

But scribal errors do not a "demonic agenda" make. :rolleyes:

[FrankRep]

Jesus supported the death penalty when He subjected Himself to it. Read Matthew 27, Mark 15, Luke 23, and John 19 for more information about that.

You're putting words in his mouth.


John 8



4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

[GunnyFreedom]

Maybe the Hebrews got it wrong. ;) Maybe it's just meant to be talen LITERALLY, and at face value.

Ooops! :D

Um. Have you skipped a dose of your meds? if it were meant to be taken "literally and at face value" then it would quite clearly distinguish between 'murder' and 'kill,' which is what we are advocating and you are not. It is the ENGLISH, and not the Hebrew, that has been mistranslated.

So yes, we SHOULD take "You shall not murder" quite literally, AND at face value...

But how exactly does that equal "maybe the Hebrews got it wrong" as if "the Hebrews" as some kind of collective group had anything to do with authoring the text in the first place?

It looks to me like you have abandoned proper syntax and logic altogether, in the hopes of creating fireworks through annoying people, so that you can sit back and enjoy the show you created.

[Truth Warrior]

Right. It's not like the word "kill" can ever mean "murder" in the English language (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/kill). :rolleyes:

Does our Father want us, his children, to be killing/murdering/executing/etc. each other?

[IPSecure]

Theocrat supports capital punishment do you?

I support punishing the capital...

[Theocrat]

You're putting words in his mouth.


John 8

What does that have to do with Jesus succumbing Himself to the death penalty on a cross? You can't refute that fact.

[GunnyFreedom]

Does our Father want us, his children, to be killing/murdering/executing/etc. each other?

If you believe the Old Testament, then yes, capitol crimes were listed in detail. Today, we have a new relationship that does not change the Law, only our relationship TO the law; leaving the State to 'bear the sword' for a very real reason:

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:4, KJV.

[Truth Warrior]

Um. Have you skipped a dose of your meds? if it were meant to be taken "literally and at face value" then it would quite clearly distinguish between 'murder' and 'kill,' which is what we are advocating and you are not. It is the ENGLISH, and not the Hebrew, that has been mistranslated.

So yes, we SHOULD take "You shall not murder" quite literally, AND at face value...

But how exactly does that equal "maybe the Hebrews got it wrong" as if "the Hebrews" as some kind of collective group had anything to do with authoring the text in the first place?

It looks to me like you have abandoned proper syntax and logic altogether, in the hopes of creating fireworks through annoying people, so that you can sit back and enjoy the show you created. Nope, I just despise the blatant hypocrisy and bogus rationalizations of many of the statist Christians ( so called ). BTW, I forgive you. :)

[Truth Warrior]

If you believe the Old Testament, then yes, capitol crimes were listed in detail. Today, we have a new relationship that does not change the Law, only our relationship TO the law; leaving the State to 'bear the sword' for a very real reason:

“For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:4, KJV. I guess that I've just gotta take that as a answer of "YES!", from you, to my very simple question. :rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

Nope, I just despise the blatant hypocrisy and bogus rationalizations of many of the statist Christians ( so called ). BTW, I forgive you. :)

Well, I am by no means a statist; I am a Republican according to the original definition of the word. I think Huckabee is the scum of the earth, and honestly believe that certain atheists and agnostics and pagans have a better chance in the Judgement than his lot do.

[GunnyFreedom]

I guess that I've just gotta take that as a answer of "YES!", from you, to my very simple question. :rolleyes:

Have you heard of a logical fallacy called the "complex question" which can be used in a debate?

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet? YES OR NO!"

The proper answer is "I have never beat my wife" but it does not fit into the fallacies' simple "yes or no" requirement any more than mine fit into yours. :)

[FrankRep]

What does that have to do with Jesus succumbing Himself to the death penalty on a cross? You can't refute that fact.

He took the punishment for everyone's sin. The death penalty was for himself alone.

[Truth Warrior]

You won't ever hear such clap-trap coming from me. Heck, I don't even believe the source-texts are perfect. I only believe that the autographs were perfect in their inspiration. There are just way too many documented scribal errors in the Textus Receptus and the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgarten.

But scribal errors do not a "demonic agenda" make. :rolleyes: So what really are we dealing with here? Best guess, whatever feels good, whatever works, selective perception, cognitive dissonance, etc? :rolleyes:

[GunnyFreedom]

So what really are we dealing with here? Best guess, whatever feels good, whatever works, selective perception, cognitive dissonance, etc? :rolleyes:

I think it's in your head, and in your head alone where a scribal error and a lazy translator equals "cognative dissonance," but, hey, whatever you gotta do to create fireworks so you can lean back and enjoy them, huh? ;)

[Theocrat]

Does our Father want us, his children, to be killing/murdering/executing/etc. each other?

I would like to point out how you're grouping killing, murder, and execution together as if they all mean the same thing. They each have different uses and meanings in a society, depending on context. Obviously, God doesn't want us to be murdering each other in malice, greed, envy, etc. However, He does give provisions for civil governments to execute criminals for capital crimes. In that context, it's not sinful (murder).

A key to understanding this is intent, TW. What is the intent of the person who is taking the life of another, and what is the judicial status of the one being killed? The taking of another person's life can be both honorable or dishonorable, but once again, you must have a moral compass and context to make a determination of that.

Stop making it more difficult than it needs to be, TW.

[Truth Warrior]

Well, I am by no means a statist; I am a Republican according to the original definition of the word. I think Huckabee is the scum of the earth, and honestly believe that certain atheists and agnostics and pagans have a better chance in the Judgement than his lot do. You vote and support statist politicians and have fought in statist wars, and yet are not a statist.

Hmm.

I don't think that I am the one in need of medications. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Have you heard of a logical fallacy called the "complex question" which can be used in a debate?

"Have you stopped beating your wife yet? YES OR NO!"

The proper answer is "I have never beat my wife" but it does not fit into the fallacies' simple "yes or no" requirement any more than mine fit into yours. :) Interesting but bogus.<IMHO> What was "complex" about my question?

[FrankRep]

I would like to point out how you're grouping killing, murder, and execution together as if they all mean the same thing. They each have different uses and meanings in a society, depending on context. Obviously, God doesn't want us to be murdering each other in malice, greed, envy, etc. However, He does give provisions for civil governments to execute criminals for capital crimes. In that context, it's not sinful (murder).

Some bible verses to support your argument would be nice.

[GunnyFreedom]

You vote and support statist politicians and have fought in statist wars, and yet are not a statist.

Hmm.

I don't think that I am the one in need of medications. :D

ROFL! :D :D :D

Name ONE statist politician I have voted for:



Name ONE statist war I have fought in:



Can't do it? :D :D :D

Could it be.... because you are just 'making crap up' ? :)

[Theocrat]

He took the punishment for everyone's sin. The death penalty was for himself alone.

Your first statement is correct. Your second statement is wrong, and contradicts the first. Let's not forget what God told Noah when He got off the Ark in Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man." There's one principle of the death penalty being taught in Scripture as early as the book of Genesis.

[GunnyFreedom]

Some bible verses to support your argument would be nice.


“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:3-4, KJV.

Now, what purpose does a sword serve, exactly?

[FrankRep]

Your first statement is correct. Your second statement is wrong, and contradicts the first. Let's not forget what God told Noah when He got off the Ark in Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man." There's one principle of the death penalty being taught in Scripture as early as the book of Genesis.

The OLD Testament you mean. What about the NEW Testament?

What about "Love your enemies", "Turn the other cheek", and etc?

[GunnyFreedom]

Your first statement is correct. Your second statement is wrong, and contradicts the first. Let's not forget what God told Noah when He got off the Ark in Genesis 9:6: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man." There's one principle of the death penalty being taught in Scripture as early as the book of Genesis.

And Genesis 9 also contains the "Noachide Covenant" from which ALL non-Israeli governments have sprung.

In other words, when God said (paraphrased) in Genesis 9: "Go forth and institute governments amongst yourselves," He also said (paraphrased), "and institute a death penalty for murderers."

[GunnyFreedom]

The OLD Testament you mean. What about the NEW Testament?

What about "Love your enemies", "Turn the other cheek", and etc?

individuals do not equal governments.

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:3, 4, KJV.

[FrankRep]

“For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:3-4, KJV.

Now, what purpose does a sword serve, exactly?

Awesome thank you. I just wanted some context.

[Theocrat]

Some bible verses to support your argument would be nice.

Some verses that teach the death penalty are Leviticus 24:17 and Numbers 35:30. Romans 13:1-4 is another passage that gives permission to civil magistrates to execute (kill) evil men.

[GunnyFreedom]

The OLD Testament you mean. What about the NEW Testament?

And by the way -- why should you automatically assume that the Old Testament says anything different than the New Testament?

Honestly, i believe that "Old" and "New" are misnomers. In Jeremiah, God promised a /brit chadasha/ which is not a "new" covenant any more than the first break of moonlight is a "new" moon. It is a RE-newed covenant, by definition. It renews the ORIGINAL intent behind the Mosaic Law, as opposed to the legalistic moon-battery that the Pharasees (and those like them in Jeremiah's day) had turned it into.

[FrankRep]

Some verses that teach the death penalty are Leviticus 24:17 and Numbers 35:30. Romans 13:1-4 is another passage that gives permission to civil magistrates to execute (kill) evil men.

Thank you for the verses.

[GunnyFreedom]

Awesome thank you. I just wanted some context.

No worries, it is important to remember that these kinds of debates tend to inflame passions tho... ;)

[Truth Warrior]

ROFL! :D :D :D

Name ONE statist politician I have voted for:



Name ONE statist war I have fought in:



Can't do it? :D :D :D

Could it be.... because you are just 'making crap up' ? :) Well, let's see here, depending on how old you may be and a Republican, I'd hafta guess Nixon, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush and Bush. And the associated STATIST Rep congress critters too, of course.

Am I close? :D

[FrankRep]

No worries, it is important to remember that these kinds of debates tend to inflame passions tho... ;)

I just had a problem with Theocrat saying Jesus supported the death penalty. Jesus never addressed the death penalty issue except when he said "He who is without sin cast the first stone." You can only guess what he thought about the issue and guessing can be dangerous.

[GunnyFreedom]

Well, let's see here, depending on how old you may be and a Republican, I'd hafta guess Nixon, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush, Dole, Bush and Bush. And the associated Rep congress critters too, of course.

Am I close? :D

Until this year, I have been a 1-issue voter, namely, the second amendment. I have every 2 years taken a list from the NRA and GOA into the voting booth with me and voted straight-ticket 2nd Amendment...specifically as a hedge AGAINST hyper-statism. ;)

You will recall, of course, that even Ron Paul commented on GWB's Y2K prez campaign was focussed on smaller government, non-intervention, and "no nation building."

So I have only ever voted straight-ticket NRA/GOA; which, by the way, was the most anti-statist thing that heretofore could have been done.

[Theocrat]

And by the way -- why should you automatically assume that the Old Testament says anything different than the New Testament?

Honestly, i believe that "Old" and "New" are misnomers. In Jeremiah, God promised a /brit chadasha/ which is not a "new" covenant any more than the first break of moonlight is a "new" moon. It is a RE-newed covenant, by definition. It renews the ORIGINAL intent behind the Mosaic Law, as opposed to the legalistic moon-battery that the Pharasees (and those like them in Jeremiah's day) had turned it into.

I agree with what you've stated above. Most people see the Old and New Testaments as clashing with each other, especially in their acts of judicial punishments and statutory laws. The New Testament merely restores the original intents of the Old Testament civil laws (as you've stated), and this was demonstrated greatly in Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" in Matthew 5-7.

[GunnyFreedom]

I just had a problem with Theocrat saying Jesus supported the death penalty. Jesus never addressed the death penalty issue except when he said "He who is without sin cast the first stone." You can only guess what he thought about the issue and guessing can be dangerous.

Well, true enough -- but one thing is also true -- the act of submitting to the crucifixion was a tacit recognition that everybody (whom He died for) actually deserved the death that He suffered on our behalf. Otherwise there would not have been a need for such a drastic action.

However, that is a whole other issue than capitol punishment. What Messiah did was to suffer for our spiritual sins; but what the state does is retribution for our physical crimes. Apples and oranges, actually.

[Truth Warrior]

Until this year, I have been a 1-issue voter, namely, the second amendment. I have every 2 years taken a list from the NRA and GOA into the voting booth with me and voted straight-ticket 2nd Amendment...specifically as a hedge AGAINST hyper-statism. ;)

You will recall, of course, that even Ron Paul commented on GWB's Y2K prez campaign was focussed on smaller government, non-intervention, and "no nation building."

So I have only ever voted straight-ticket NRA/GOA; which, by the way, was the most anti-statist thing that heretofore could have been done. I'll take that as a YES answer, I'm close. :D Statist war, Viet Nam, Gulf War #1?

BTW, ALL wars are STATIST wars. ;) I consider NOT voting, anti STATIST.

[Theocrat]

I just had a problem with Theocrat saying Jesus supported the death penalty. Jesus never addressed the death penalty issue except when he said "He who is without sin cast the first stone." You can only guess what he thought about the issue and guessing can be dangerous.

Frank, I think I've already shown you that Jesus supported the death penalty by His own submission to it for the propitiation of sins. Jesus understood greatly the requirements of breaking God's law, being God Himself and establishing those civil laws about capital punishment in the Old Testament.

That passage you quoted is not even addressing the issue of the death penalty. It's showing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees, and Jesus is convicting them by showing they don't even follow the laws of Moses consistently. If God truly had a "don't cast the first stone" mentality, then surely Jesus would have been the perfect object of such a mercy when confronted with dying on the cross in the courts of Pontius Pilate. Yet, God ordained that Christ would die on the cross for the sins of His people (Isaiah 53:10; Acts 2:23), and by committing that act, Jesus saved His people from the eternal death penalty by taking their place on the cross.

[GunnyFreedom]

I agree with what you've stated above. Most people see the Old and New Testaments as clashing with each other, especially in their acts of judicial punishments and statutory laws. The New Testament merely restores the original intents of the Old Testament civil laws (as you've stated), and this was demonstrated greatly in Jesus' "Sermon on the Mount" in Matthew 5-7.

Precisely. A lot of people don't understand that Mat 5-7 actually RAISES the bar, actually making perfect obedience totally impossible..."be ye perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect." Yeah, I want to see the one of us lowly mortals who got THAT one right! ;)

But the perfect goal unto which we strive, RECOGNIZING that it is not our own perfect obedience which grants us salvation, actually restores the original intent behind the original law -- a perfect goal to which imperfect beings ought to strive. :)

But I am used to being in the minority on this one. I attended arguably the most Conservatve Southern Baptist Seminary in America as a "Hebrew Roots Christian" AKA "Messianic Jew" (though I am not of Jewish descent), and had lots of fun joking that the most 'conservative' So. Baptist Seminary in America was "too liberal." :p

[GunnyFreedom]

I'll take that as a YES answer, I'm close. :D Statist war, Viet Nam, Gulf War #1?

BTW, ALL wars are STATIST wars. ;)

You can distort what I say all you want, it won't make you right.

And BTW - the closest thing to a 'war' I ever participated in was the "Joint Task Force - Full Accounting" in Vietnam and Cambodia.

http://www.pacom.mil/JTFFA/about_JTFFA.htm

The mission of Joint Task Force-Full Accounting (JTF-FA) is to achieve the fullest possible accounting of Americans still missing and unaccounted-for as a result of the war in Southeast Asia. JTF-FA operations include case investigations, archival research, an Oral History Program, and remains recovery operations. The task force was created in response to Presidential, Congressional, and public interest, as well as increased opportunities for case resolution. The opportunities included a negotiated, increased willingness by the governments of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to share information they have regarding unaccounted-for Americans, as well as increased access to files, records, and witnesses in their countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMM-165

HMM-165 was the "last squadron in the Philippine Islands" when they supported the special purpose MAGTF from July to November 1992. From September to October 1992 a detachment was sent to Cambodia to participate in Joint Task Force Full Accounting. The squadron aided the task force in the search for remains of MIA's from the war in Vietnam. In March 1993, another detachment from HMM-165 was sent to Cambodia to participate in Joint Task Force Full Accounting; this time the mission was cut short when the task force base camp was attacked by mortar fire in April 1993.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_POW/MIA_Accounting_Command

The Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC) is a joint task force within the United States Department of Defense (DOD) whose mission is to account for all United States prisoners of war (POW) and missing in action (MIA) from all past wars. “The mission of the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command (JPAC) is to achieve the fullest possible accounting of all Americans missing as a result of the nation's past conflicts.”[1] The motto of JPAC is “Until they are home”.

[Roxi]

Jesus Himself believed in the death penalty. That's why He suffered and died on a cross to pay for the sins of His people, even though He was sinless. ;)

another reason why i don't support jesus :)

[Truth Warrior]

The World's Most Dangerous Book
Alan W. Watts

For many centuries the Roman Catholic Church was opposed to translating the Holy Scriptures into the "vulgar tongue." To this day, you can still get rid of a Bible salesman by saying, "But we are Catholics and, of course, don't read the Bible." The Catholic hierarchy included subtle theologians and scholars who knew very well that such a difficult and diverse collection of ancient writings, taken as the literal Word of God, would be wildly and dangerously interpreted if put into the hands of ignorant and uneducated peasants. Likewise, when a missionary boasted to George Bernard Shaw of the numerous converts he had made, Shaw asked, " Can these people use rifles?" "Oh, indeed, yes," said the missionary. "Some of them are very good shots." Whereupon Shaw scolded him for putting us all in peril in the day when those converts waged holy war against us for not following the Bible in the literal sense they gave to it. For the Bible says, "What a good thing it is when the Lord putteth into the hands of the righteous invincible might." But today, especially in the United States, there is a taboo against admitting that there are enormous numbers of stupid and ignorant people, in the bookish and literal sense of these words. They may be highly intelligent in the arts of farming, manufacture, engineering and finance, and even in physics, chemistry or medicine. But this intelligence does not automatically flow over to the fields of history, archaeology, linguistics, theology, philosophy and mythology which are what one needs to know in order to make any sense out such archaic literature as the books of the Bible.

This may sound snobbish, for there is an assumption that, in the Bible, God gave His message in plain words for plain people. Once, when I had given a radio broadcast in Canada, the announcer took me aside and said, "Don't you think that if there is a truly loving God, He would given us a plain and specific guide as to how to live our lives?"

"On the contrary," I replied, "a truly loving God would not stultify our minds. He would encourage us to think for ourselves." I tried, then, to show him that his belief in the divine authority of the Bible rested on nothing more than his own personal opinion, to which, of course, he was entitled. This is basic. The authority of the Bible, the church, the state, or of any spiritual or political leader, is derived from the individual followers and believers, since it is the believers' judgment that such leaders and institutions speak with a greater wisdom than there own. This is, obviously, a paradox, for only the wise can recognize wisdom. Thus, Catholics criticize Protestants for following their own opinions in understanding the Bible, as distinct from the interpretations of the Church, which originally issued and authorized the Bible. But Catholics seldom realize that the authority of the Church rests, likewise, on the opinion of its individual members that the Papacy and the councils of the Church are authoritative. The same is true of the state, for, as a French statesman said, people get the government they deserve.

Why does one come to the opinion that the Bible, literally understood, is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Usually because one's "elders and betters," or an impressively large group of ones peers, have this opinion. But this is to go along with the Bandar-log, or monkey tribe, in Rudyard Kipling's Jungle Books , who periodically get together and shout, "We all say so, so it must be true!" Having been a grandfather for a number of years, I am not particularly impressed with patriarchal authority. I am of an age with my own formerly impressive grandfathers (one of whom was a fervent fundamentalist, or literal believer in the Bible) and I realize that my opinions are as fallible as theirs.


But many people never grow up. They stay all their lives with a passionate need for eternal authority and guidance, pretending not to trust their own judgment. Nevertheless, it is their own judgment, willy-nilly, that there exists some authority greater than their own. The fervent fundamentalist whether Protestant or Catholic, Jew or Moslem is closed to reason and even communication for fear of losing the security of childish dependence. He would suffer extreme emotional heebie jeebies if he didn't have the feeling that there was some external and infallible guide in which he could trust absolutely and without which his very identity would dissolve.

This attitude is not faith. It is pure idolatry. The more deceptive idols are not images of wood and stone but are constructed of words and ideas mental images of God. Faith is an openness and trusting attitude to truth and reality, whatever it may turn out to be. This is a risky and adventurous state of mind. Belief, in the religious sense, is the opposite of faith because it is a fervent wishing or hope, a compulsive clinging to the idea that the universe is arranged and governed in such and such a way. Belief is holding to a rock; faith is learning how to swim and this whole universe swims in boundless space.

Thus, in much of the English-speaking world, the King James Bible is a rigid idol, all the more deceptive for being translated into the most melodious English and for being an anthology of ancient literature that contains sublime wisdom along with barbaric histories and the war songs of tribes on the rampage. All this is taken as the literal Word and counsel of God, as it is by fundamentalist Baptists, Jesus freaks, Jehovah's Witnesses and comparable sects, which by and large know nothing of the history of the Bible, of how it was edited and put together. So we have with us the social menace of a huge population of intellectually and morally irresponsible people. Take a ruler and measure the listings under "Churches" in the Yellow Pages of the phone directory. You will find that the fundamentalists have by far the most space. And under what pressure do most hotels and motels place Gideon Bibles by the bedside Bibles with clearly fundamentalist introductory material, taking their name Gideon from one of the more ferocious military leaders of the ancient Israelites?

As is well known, the enormous political power of fundamentalists is what makes legislators afraid to take laws against victimless "sins" and crimes off the books, and what corrupts the police by forcing them to be armed preachers enforcing ecclesiastical laws in a country where church and state are supposed to be separate ignoring the basic Christian doctrine that no actions, or abstentions from actions, are of moral import unless undertaken voluntarily. Freedom is risky and includes the risk that anyone may go to hell in his own way.

Now, the King James Bible did not, as one might gather from listening to fundamentalists, descend with an Angel from heaven AD 1611, when it was first published. It was an elegant, but often inaccurate, translation of Hebrew and Greek documents composed between 900 BC and AD 120. There is no manuscript of the Old Testament, that is, of the Hebrew Scriptures, written in Hebrew, earlier than the Ninth Century BC But we know that these documents were first put together and recognized as the Holy Scriptures by a convention of rabbis held at Jamnia (Yavne) in Palestine shortly before AD 100. On their say-so. Likewise, the composition of the Christian Bible, which documents to include and which to drop, was decided by a council of the Catholic Church held in Carthage in the latter part of the Fourth Century. Several books that had formerly been read in the churches, such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the marvelous Gospel of Saint Thomas , were then excluded. The point is that the books translated in the King James Bible were declared canonical and divinely inspired by the authority (A) of the Synod of Jamnia and (B) of the Catholic Church, meeting in Carthage more than 300 years after the time of Jesus. It is thus that fundamentalist Protestants get the authority of their Bible from Jews who had rejected Jesus and from Catholics whom they abominate as the Scarlet Woman mentioned in Revelation.

The Bible, to repeat, is an anthology of Hebrew and late Greek literature, edited and put forth by a council of Catholic bishops who believed that they were acting under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Before this time the Bible as we know it did not exist. There were the Hebrew Scriptures and their translated into Greek the Septuagint, which was made in Alexandria between 250 BC and 100 BC There were also various codices, or Greek manuscripts, of various parts of the New Testament, such as the four Gospels. There were numerous other writings circulating among Christians, including the Epistles of Saint Paul and Saint John, the Apocalypse (Revelation) and such documents (later excluded) as the Acts of John , the Didache , the Apostolic Constitutions and the various Epistles of Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp.

In those days, and until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century, the Scriptures were not understood exclusively in a narrow literal sense. From Clement of Alexandria (Second Century) to Saint Thomas Aquinas (13th Century), the great theologians, or Fathers of the Church, recognized four ways of interpreting the Scriptures: the literal or historical, the moral, the allegorical and the spiritual and they were overwhelmingly interested in the last three. Origen (Second Century) regarded much of the Old Testament as "puerile" if taken literally, and Jewish theologians were likewise preoccupied with finding hidden meanings in the Scriptures, for the concern of all these theologians was to interpret the Biblical texts in such a way as to make the Bible intellectually respectable and philosophically interesting. Concern over the historical truth of the Bible is relatively modern, whether in the form of fundamentalism or of scientific research.

But when the Bible was translated and widely distributed as a result of the invention of printing, it fell into the hands of people who, like the Jesus freaks of today, were simply uneducated and who, as the depressed classes of Europe, eventually swarmed over to America. This is, naturally, a heroic generalization. There were, and are fundamentalists learned in languages and sciences (although the standard translation of the Bible into Chinese is said to be in fearful taste), just as there are professors of physics and anthropology who somehow manage to be pious Mormons. Some people have the peculiar ability to divide their minds into watertight compartments, being critical and rational in matters of science but credulous as children when it comes to religion.

Such superstition would have been relatively harmless if the religion had been something tolerant and pacific, such as Taoism or Buddhism. But the religion of the literally understood Bible is chauvinistic and militant. It is on the march to conquer the world and to establish itself as the one and only true belief. Among its most popular hymns are such battle songs as "Mine eyes have seen the glory" and Onward, Christian Soldiers. The God of the Hebrews, the Arabs and the Christians is a mental idol fashioned in the image of the great monarchs of Egypt, Chaldea and Persia. It was possibly Ikhnaton (Amenhotep IV, 14th Century BC), Pharaoh of Egypt, who gave Moses the idea of monotheism (as suggested in Freud's Moses and Monotheism). Certainly the veneration of God as "King of kings and Lord of lords" borrows the official title of the Persian emperors. Thus, the political pattern of tyranny, beneficent or otherwise, of rule by violence, whether physical or moral, stands firmly behind the Biblical idea of Jehovah.

When one considers the architecture and ritual of churches, whether Catholic or Protestant, it is obvious until most recent times that they are based on royal or judicial courts. A monarch who rules by force sits in the central court of his donjon with his back to the wall, flanked by guards, and those who come to petition him for justice or to offer tribute must kneel or prostrate themselves simply because these are difficult positions from which to start a fight. Such monarchs are, of course, frightened of their subjects and constantly on the anxious alert for rebellion. Is this an appropriate image for the inconceivable energy that underlies the universe? True, the altar-throne in Catholic churches is occupied by the image of God in the form of one crucified as a common thief, but he hangs there as our leader in subjection to the Almighty Father, King of the universe, propitiating Him for those who have broken His not always reasonable laws. And what of the curious resemblance between Protestant churches and courts of law? The minister and the judge wear the same black robe and "throw the book" at those assembled in pews and various kinds of boxes, and both ministers and judges have chairs of estate that are still, in effect, thrones.

The crucial question, then, is that if you picture the universe as a monarchy, how can you believe that a republic is the best form of government, and so be a loyal citizen of the United States? It is thus that fundamentalists veer to the extreme right wing in politics, being of the personality type that demands strong external and paternalistic authority. Their "rugged individualism" and their racism are founded on the conviction that they are the elect of God the Father, and their forebears took possession of America as the armies of Joshua took possession of Canaan, treating the Indians as Joshua and Gideon treated the Bedouin of Palestine. In the same spirit the Protestant British, Dutch and Germans took possession of Africa, India and Indonesia, and the rigid Catholics of Spain and Portugal colonized Latin America. Such territorial expansion may or may not be practical politics, but to do it in the name of Jesus of Nazareth is an outrage.

The Bible is a dangerous book, though by no means an evil one. It depends, largely, on how you read it with what prejudices and with what intellectual background. Regarded as sacred and authoritative, such a complex collection of histories, legends, allegories and images becomes a monstrous Rorschach blot in which you can picture almost anything you want to discover just as one can see cities and mountains in the clouds or faces in the fire. Fundamentalists "prove" the truth of the Bible by trying to show how the words of the prophets have foretold events that have come to pass in relatively recent times. But any statistician knows that you can find correlation's, if you want to, between almost any two sets of patterns or rhythms between the occurrence of sunspots and fluctuations of the stock market, between the lines and bumps on your hand and the course of your life or between the architecture of the Great Pyramid and the history of Europe. This is because of eidetic vision, or the brain's ability to project visions and forms of its own into any material whatsoever. But scholars of ancient history find the remarks of the prophets entirely relevant to events of their own time, in the ancient Near East. The Biblical prophets were not so much predictors as social commentators.

I am not in the position of those liberal Christians who reject fundamentalism but must still insist that Jesus was the one and only incarnation of God, or at least the most perfect human being. No one is intellectually free who feels that he cannot and must not disagree with Jesus and is therefore forced into the dishonest practice of wangling the words of the Gospels to fit his own opinions. There is not a scrap of evidence that Jesus was familiar with any other religious tradition than that of the Hebrew Scriptures or that he knew anything of the civilizations of India, China or Peru. Under these circumstances, he was faced with the virtually impossible problem of expressing himself in the peculiar religious language and imagery of his local culture. For it is obvious to any student of the psychology of religion that what he needed to express was the relatively common change of consciousness known as mystical experience the vivid and overwhelming sensation that your own being is one with eternal and ultimate reality. But it was as hard for Jesus to say this as it still is for a native of the American Bible Belt. It implies the blasphemous, subversive and lunatic claim to be identical with the all-knowing and allruling monarch of the world its Pharaoh or Cyrus. Jesus would have had no trouble in India, for this experience is the foundation of Hinduism, and the Hindus recognize many people in both ancient and modern times as embodiments of the divine, or sons of God but not, of course, of the kind of God represented by Jehovah. Buddhists, likewise, teach that anyone can, and finally will, become a Buddha (an Enlightened One), in the same way as the historic Gautama.

If the Gospel of Saint John , in particular, is to be believed, Jesus emphatically identified himself with the Godhead, considering such phrases as "I and the Father are one," or "He who has seen me has seen the Father," or "Before Abraham was, I am," or "I am the way, the truth and the life." But this was not an exclusive claim for himself as the man Jesus, for at John 10:31, just after he has said "I and the Father are one," the crowd picks up rocks to stone him to death. He protests: "Many good works have I shown you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?" The Jews answered him, saying, "We do not stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, and because you, being a man, make yourself God." And here it comes: Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, I said, you are gods [quoting Psalms 82]? If He [i.e., God] called those to whom He gave His word gods and you can't contradict the Scriptures how can you say of Him whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world, 'You blaspheme!' because I said, 'I am a son of God" [The original Greek says "a son," not "the son."]

In other words, the Gospel, or "good news" that Jesus was trying to convey, despite the limitations of his tradition, was that we are all sons of God. When he uses the terms I am (as in "Before Abraham was, I am") or Me (as in "No one comes to the Father but by Me"), he is intending to use them in the same way as Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita : He who sees Me everywhere and sees all in Me; I am not lost to him, nor is he lost to Me. The yogi who, established in oneness, worships Me abiding in all beings, lives in Me, whatever be his outward life. And by this "Me" Krishna means the atman that is at once the basic self in us and in the universe. To know this is to enjoy eternal life, to discover that the fundamental "I am" feeling, which you confuse with your superficial ego, is the ultimate reality forever and ever, amen. In this essential respect, the, the Gospel has been obscured and muffled almost from the beginnings. For Jesus was presumably trying to say that our consciousness is the divine spirit, "the light which enlightens every one who comes into the world," and which George Fox, founder of the Quakers, called the Inward Light. But the Church, still bound to the image of God as the King of kings, couldn't accept this Gospel. It adopted a religion about Jesus instead of the religion of Jesus. It kicked him upstairs and put him in the privileged and unique position of being the Boss's son, so that, having this unique advantage, his life and example became useless to everyone else. The individual Christian must not know that his own "I am" is the one that existed before Abraham. In this way, the Church institutionalized and made a virtue of feeling chronic guilt for not being as good as Jesus. It only widened the alienation, the colossal difference, that monotheism put between man and God.

When I try to explain this to Jesus freaks and other Bible bangers, they invariably reveal theological ignorance by saying, "But doesn't the Bible say that Jesus was the only -begotten son of God?" It doesn't. Not, at least, according to Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Anglican interpretations. The phrase "only-begotten son refers not to Jesus the man but to the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, who is said to have become incarnate in the man Jesus. Nowhere does the Bible, or even the creeds of the Church, say that Jesus was the only incarnation of God the Son in all time and space. Furthermore, it is not generally known that God the Son is symbolized as both male and female, as Logos-Sophia, the Design and the Wisdom of God, based on the passage in Proverbs 7:9, where the Wisdom of God speaks as a woman.

"But then," they go on to argue, "doesn't the Bible say that there is no other name under heaven whereby men may be saved except the name of Jesus? But what is the name of Jesus? J-E-S-U-S? Iesous? Aissa? Jehoshua? Or however else it may be pronounced? It is said that every prayer said in name of Jesus will be granted, and obviously this doesn't mean that "Jesus" is a signature on a blank check. It means that prayers will be granted when made in the spirit of Jesus, and that spirit is, again, the Second Person of the Trinity, the eternal God the Son, who could just as well have been incarnate in Krishna, Buddha, Lao-tzu or Ramana Maharshi as in Jesus of Nazareth.

It is amazing what both the Bible and the Church are presumed to teach but don't teach. Listening to fundamentalists, one would suppose that if there are living beings on other planets in this or other galaxies. They must wait for salvation until missionaries from earth arrive on spaceships, bringing the Bible and baptism. But if "God so loves the world" and means it, He will surely send His son to wherever he is needed, and there is no difference in principle between a planet circling Alpha Centauri and peoples as remote from Palestine AD 30 as the Chinese or the Incas.

It should be understood that the expression "son of" means "of the nature of," as when we call someone a son of a bitch and as when the Bible uses such phrases as "sons of Belial" (an alien god), or an Arab cusses someone out as e-ben-i-el-homa "son of donkey!" or simply "stupid". Used in this way,"son of" has nothing to do with maleness or being younger than. Likewise, the Second Person of the Trinity, God the Son, the Logos-Sopia, refers to the basic pattern or design of the Universe, ever emerging from the inconceivable mystery or the Father as the galaxies shine out of space. This is how the great philosophers of the Church have thought about the imagery of the Bible and as it appears to a modern student of the history and psychology of world religions. Call it intellectual snobbery if you will, but although the books of the Bible might have been "plain words for plain people" in the days of Isaiah and Jesus, an uneducated and uninformed person who reads them today, and takes them as the literal Word of God, will become a blind and confused bigot.

Let us look at this against the background of the fact that all monotheistic religions have been militant. Wherever God has been idolized as the King or Boss-Principle of the world, believers are agog to impose both their religion and their political rulership upon others. Fanatical believers in the Bible, the Koran and the Torah have fought one another for centuries without realizing that they belong to the same pestiferous club, that they have more in common than they have against one another and that there is simply no way of deciding which of their "unique" revelations of God's will is the true one. A committed believer in the Koran trots out the same arguments for his point of view as a Southern Baptist devotee of the Bible, and neither can listen to reason, because their whole sense of personal security and integrity depends absolutely upon pretending to follow an external authority. The very existence of this authority, as well as the sense of identity of its follower and true believer, requires an excluded class of infidels, heathens and sinners people whom you can punish and bully so as to know that you are strong and alive. No argument, no reasoning, no contrary evidence can possibly reach the true believer, who, if he is somewhat sophisticated, justifies and even glorifies his invincible stupidity as a "leap of faith" or "sacrifice of the intellect." He quotes the Roman lawyer and theologian Tertullian Credo, quia absurdum est , "I believe because it is absurd" as if Tertullian had said something profound. Such people are, quite literally, idiots originally a Greek word meaning an individual so isolated that you can't communicate with him.

[ To be continued ]

[Truth Warrior]

[ continued from above ] :)

Oddly enough, there are unbelievers who envy them, who wish that they could have the serenity and peace of mind that come from "knowing" beyond doubt that you have the true Word of God and are in the right. But this overlooks the fact that those who supposedly have this peace within themselves are outwardly obstreperous and violent, standing in dire need of converts and followers to convince themselves of their continuing validity just as much as they need outsiders to punish. Mindless belief in the literal truth of the Bible and furious zeal to spread the message lead to such widespread follies, in the American Bible Belt, as playing with poisonous snakes and drinking strychnine to prove the truth of Mark 16:18, where Jesus is reported to have said: "They [the faithful] shall take up serpents: and if they drink any deadly, thing, it shall not hurt them." As recently as April 1973, two men (one a pastor) in Newport, Tennessee, died in convulsions from taking large amounts of strychnine before a congregation shouting, "Praise God! Praise God!" So they didn't have enough faith; but such barbarous congregations will go on trying these experiments again and again to test and prove their faith, not realizing that by Christian standards this is arrant spiritual pride. Meanwhile, the Government persecutes religious groups that use such relatively harmless herbs as peyote and marijuana for sacraments.

What is to be done about the existence of millions of such dangerous people in the world? Obviously, they must not be censored or suppressed by their own methods. Even though it is impossible to persuade or argue with them in a reasonable way, it is just possible that they can be wooed and enchanted by a more attractive style of religion, which will show them that their unbending "faith" in their Bibles is simply an inverse expression of doubt and terror a frantic whistling in the dark. There have been other images of God than the Father-Monarch: the Cosmic Mother; the inmost Self (disguised as all living beings), as in Hinduism; the indefinable Tao, the flowing energy of the universe, as among the Chinese; or no image at all, as with the Buddhists, who are not strictly atheists but who feel that the ultimate reality cannot be pictured in any way and, what is more, that not picturing it is a positive way of feeling it directly, beyond symbols and images. I have called this "atheism in the name of God" a paradoxical and catchy phrase pointing out something missed by learned Protestant theologians who have been talking about "death of God" theology and "religionless Christianity," and asking what of the Gospel of Christ can be saved if life is nothing more than a trip from the maternity ward to the crematorium. It is weird how such sophisticated Biblical scholars must go on clinging to Jesus even when rejecting the basic principle of his teaching the experience that he was God in the flesh, an experience he unknowingly shared with all the great mystics of the world.

Atheism in the name of God is an abandonment of all religious beliefs, including atheism, which in practice is the stubbornly held idea that the world is a mindless mechanism. Atheism in the name of God is giving up the attempt to make sense of the world in terms of any fixed idea or intellectual system. It is becoming again as a child and laying oneself open to reality as it is actually and directly felt, experiencing it without trying to categorize, identify or name it.

This can be most easily begun by listening to the world with closed eyes, in the same way that one can listen to music without asking what it says or means. This is actually a turn-on a state of consciousness in which the past and future vanish (because they cannot be heard) and in which there is no audible difference yourself and what you are hearing. There is simply universe, an always present happening in which there is no perceptible difference between self and other, or, as in breathing, between what you do and what happens to you. Without losing command of civilized behavior, you have temporarily "regressed" to what Freud called the oceanic feeling of the baby the feeling that we all lost in learning to make distinctions, but that we should have retained as their necessary background, just as there must be empty white paper under this print if you are to read it.

When you listen to the world in this way, you have begun to practice what Hindus and Buddhists call meditation a re-entry to the real world, as distinct from the abstract world of words and ideas. If you find that you can't stop naming the various sounds and thinking in words, just listen to yourself doing that as another form of noise, a meaningless murmur like the sound of traffic. I won't argue for this experiment. Just try it and see what happens, because this is the basic act of faith of being unreservedly open and vulnerable to what is true and real. Certainly this is what Jesus himself must have had in mind in that famous passage in the Sermon on the Mount upon which one will seldom hear anything from a pulpit: "Which of you by thinking can add a measure to his height? And why are you anxious about clothes? Look at the flowers of the field, how they grow. They neither labor nor spin; and yet I tell you that even Solomon in all his splendor was not arrayed like any one of them. So if God so clothes the wild grass which lives for today and tomorrow is burned, shall He not much more clothe you, faithless ones? . . . Don't be anxious for the future, for the future will take care of itself. Sufficient to the day are its troubles." Even the most devout Christians can't take this. They feel that such advice was all very well for Jesus, being the Boss's son, but this is no wisdom for us practical and lesser-born mortals. You can, of course, take these words in their allegorical and spiritual sense, which is that you stop clinging in terror to a rigid system of ideas about what will happen to you after you die, or as to what, exactly, are the procedures of the court of heaven, whereby the world is supposedly governed. Curiously, both science and mysticism (which might be called religion as experienced rather than religion as written) are based on the experimental attitude of looking directly at what is, of attending to life itself instead of trying to glean it from a book. The scholastic theologians would not look through Galileo's telescope, and Billy Graham will not experiment with a psychedelic chemical or practice yoga.

Two eminent historians of science, Joseph Needham and Lynn White, have pointed out the surprising fact that in both Europe and Asia, science arises from mysticism, because both the mystic and the scientist are types of people who want to know directly, for themselves, rather than be told what to believe. And in this sense they follow the advice of Jesus to become again "as little children," to look at the world with open, clear, and unprejudiced eyes, as if they had never seen it before. It is in this spirit that an astronomer must look at the sky and a yogi must attend to the immediately present moment, as when he concentrates on a prolonged sound. Years and years of book study may simply fossilize you into fixed habits of thought so that any perceptive person will know in advance how you will react to any situation or idea. Imagining yourself reliable, you become merely predictable and, alas, boring. Most sermons are tedious. One knows in advance what the preacher is going to say, however dressed up on a fancy language. Going strictly by the book, he will have no original ideas or experiences, for which reason both he and his followers become rigid and easily shocked personalities who cannot swing, wiggle, lilt or dance.

In this connection it should be noted that the blacks of the South swing and wiggle quite admirably, even in church but this is because the preacher, starting from the Bible in deference to his white overlords, very soon reverts to the rhythms and incantations of some old-time African religion, and there is no knowing at all what he is going to say. This is perhaps one of the principle roots of conflict between whites and blacks in the American South that the former go by the Book and the latter by the spirit, which, like the wind, as Jesus put it, blows where it wills, and you can't tell where it comes from or where it's going.

Thus, we reach the seeming paradox that you cannot at once idolize the Bible and embody the spirit of Jesus. He twitted the Pharisees as today he would twit the fundamentalists: "You search the Scriptures daily, for in them you think you have life." The religion of Jesus was to trust life, both as he felt it in himself and as he saw it around him. Most of us would feel that this was a ridiculous gamble to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness but, come to think of it, is there any real alternative? Basically, no human community can exist that is not founded on mutual trust as distinct from law and its enforcement. The alternative to mutual trust, which is indeed a risky gamble, is the security of the police state.

[Theocrat]

Why should we believe what Alan W. Watts has to say about the Bible to be true? Who made him the final authority on such matters?

By the way, this has nothing to do with whether you support the death penalty or not, and it is noted that you, TW, are often weary of people who come into threads you start and post off topic comments. I would expect the same courtesy from you in this thread.

[GunnyFreedom]

The World's Most Dangerous Book
Alan W. Watts

[...]

[B][ To be continued ]



Ahh, so now the true agenda is unmasked -- you were just looking for a reason to post thirty-three thousand nine-hundred and seventy-one (33,971) characters of propaganda wholly irrelevant to the general political topic of "Capital Punishment."

Wouldn't this have been better suited to an "I hate the Bible" thread in "Hot Topics?" :)

[Theocrat]

Ahh, so now the true agenda is unmasked -- you were just looking for a reason to post thirty-three thousand nine-hundred and seventy-one (33,971) characters of propaganda wholly irrelevant to the general political topic of "Capital Punishment."

Wouldn't this have been better suited to an "I hate the Bible" thread in "Hot Topics?" :)

Be careful, Gunny. He might get angry and tell you to "Kiss my ass" as he sometimes does when he can't argue or is wrong about something...

[Truth Warrior]

Why should we believe what Alan W. Watts has to say about the Bible to be true? Who made him the final authority on such matters?

By the way, this has nothing to do with whether you support the death penalty or not, and it is noted that you, TW, are often weary of people who come into threads you start and post off topic comments. I would expect the same courtesy from you in this thread. I guess for the same kind of reason that anyone should believe you. Who made YOU the final authority?

BTW, I made no such claim, now did I? ;)

I disagree, it has almost everything to do with it.<IMHO>

Does Theocrat truly think and believe that the Christian bible is irrelevant and OFF TOPIC in a life and death concerning discussion in an RPF thread? :D

Thanks! :)

[Truth Warrior]

Ahh, so now the true agenda is unmasked -- you were just looking for a reason to post thirty-three thousand nine-hundred and seventy-one (33,971) characters of propaganda wholly irrelevant to the general political topic of "Capital Punishment."

Wouldn't this have been better suited to an "I hate the Bible" thread in "Hot Topics?" :) Nope, good guess though. ;)

Actually it was just a spur of the moment idea. Divinely inspired perhaps. :D

You must have a very strange definition of "Capital Punishment", to go along with your very strange defintion of "statist".

Alan didn't hate the bible.<IMHO> ;)

[GunnyFreedom]

Be careful, Gunny. He might get angry and tell you to "Kiss my ass" as he sometimes does when he can't argue or is wrong about something...

I've dealt with such on usenet. Objective truth is meaningless -- only personal vindication. :rolleyes:

[Theocrat]

I guess for the same kind of reason that anyone should believe you. Who made YOU the final authority?

BTW, I made no such claim, now did I? ;)

I disagree, it has almost everything to do with it.<IMHO>

Does Theocrat truly think and believe that the Christian bible is irrelevant and OFF TOPIC in a life and death concerning discussion in an RPF thread? :D

Thanks! :)

I never claimed to be the final authority. God is the final authority, especially about His own word. Alan W. Watts' word about the Word is irrelevant because he already has a precommitment to its being "a dangerous book," and therefore, he does not do service to an adequate and objective survey of the truth and proofs of God's glorious revelation of Himself, the Bible.

Of course, the Bible is relevant to the subject of the death penalty, as it sets the foundation for whether the death penalty is objectively moral and universally beneficial towards all of mankind in dealing with exacting justice towards those who commit capital offenses and recompensing the rights of the victims of those offenses.

By the way, do you support the death penalty or not?

[GunnyFreedom]

Nope, good guess though. ;)

Actually it was just a spur of the moment idea. Divinely inspired perhaps. :D

You must have a very strange definition of "Capital Punishment", to go along with your very strange defintion of "statist".

Alan didn't hate the bible.<IMHO> ;)

well, my definition certainly isn't "pro-2nd Amendment = Statist" like yours apparently is.

And if you tried reading instead of knee-jerking, you will note that I njver said Alan hated the Bible. :D

[Truth Warrior]

Be careful, Gunny. He might get angry and tell you to "Kiss my ass" as he sometimes does when he can't argue or is wrong about something... Incorrect on oh so many levels. :(

BTW, I've NEVER said it to you, have I? I view it as merely a response in kind, given the appropriate provocation.

You merely ERR in your misinterpretation and lack of understanding...................... yet once AGAIN. ;)

[Theocrat]

Incorrect on oh so many levels. :(

BTW, I've NEVER said it to you, have I? I view it as merely a response in kind, given the appropriate provocation.

You merely ERR in your misinterpretation and lack of understanding...................... yet once AGAIN. ;)

I know you've never said it to me, and I appreciate your graciousness in that. However, what is your view on capital punishment?

[Truth Warrior]

well, my definition certainly isn't "pro-2nd Amendment = Statist" like yours apparently is.

So what is your definition? Here's mine: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statist (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/statist)

And if you tried reading instead of knee-jerking, you will note that I njver said Alan hated the Bible. :D


Wouldn't this have been better suited to an "I hate the Bible" thread in "Hot Topics?"
No. :D

[newyearsrevolution08]

Personal views or my views on capital punishment by the city, state or federal levels?

I think states should be allowed to punish as they choose and that should be based on the people within that state. If people vote for capital punishment THEN so be it, and if you don't like it either get MORE to vote against it or move to a state that has others who think like you do in that state.

States should have different laws due to the different ways the states and the people within the state want it to run.

I am not sure how the constitution and the liberty living goes into city and state laws and rights though. I understand for the need to remove federal holds over states BUT I do agree that statewide laws should be left up to those who live within it even if I don't agree with it. That is what true freedom is, allow others to live how they want to even if you disagree. As long as it isn't affecting you than why worry about it.

Now with capital punishment, it not affecting you and leaving it alone might not seem like the best solution.

I believe in the jury of our peers versus a single judge trying to say if someone should die or not. If I lived in a state that allowed the death penalty and I decided to do something bad enough to get it than odds are I deserve it.

I think our entire prison system needs to get reworked anyways. The tax dollars that pay for people within the prison walls is an insane number. Death Row for 10 + years wasting tax payer dollars makes zero sense to me even though I know there are innocent people on death row still the same.

Remove all possession and drug offenses and leave just the worse of the worse in there to deal with each other.

Why does capital punishment always go to a religious conversation? If we could at least keep the topic in this decade....

[Truth Warrior]

I know you've never said it to me, and I appreciate your graciousness in that. However, what is your view on capital punishment? Thanks for the lack of provocation. :D

The same as Jesus and Gandhi, as I understand it and previously stated. :)

What is your view on the "Golden Rule"? ;)

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.reference.com/browse/statist (http://www.reference.com/browse/statist)

[GunnyFreedom]

High Treason should be the only death penalty offense on the Federal level, and it should be done by hanging.

[Theocrat]

Thanks for the lack of provocation. :D

The same as Jesus and Gandhi, as I understand it and previously stated. :)

What is your view on the Golden Rule? ;)

I see. So you do support the death penalty, as Christ did (Gandhi is irrelevant).

The "Golden Rule" fits in nicely with the death penalty because it summarizes the mutual relationship people ought to have with one another by treating each other equally in righteous acts. The death penalty, in similar fashion, exacts justice upon the criminal who has committed a capital crime (like murder), and thus it repays a life (the murdered victim) with another life (the criminal), and thus, the family of the victim is appeased and God's law against murder is vindicated. The death penalty is a righteous act administered by the civil government to the effect of preserving rights (of the victim and the family of the victim) and protection of life, liberty, and property from would-be capital offenders in any given society.

[Truth Warrior]

I would like to point out how you're grouping killing, murder, and execution together as if they all mean the same thing. They each have different uses and meanings in a society, depending on context. Obviously, God doesn't want us to be murdering each other in malice, greed, envy, etc. However, He does give provisions for civil governments to execute criminals for capital crimes. In that context, it's not sinful (murder).

A key to understanding this is intent, TW. What is the intent of the person who is taking the life of another, and what is the judicial status of the one being killed? The taking of another person's life can be both honorable or dishonorable, but once again, you must have a moral compass and context to make a determination of that.

Stop making it more difficult than it needs to be, TW. I think you are merely equivocating, bogus parsing and rationalizing.

I kinda doubt that God really approves of that. ;)

What is THE LAW, according to Jesus? :) Who did Jesus EVER endorse killing for ANY reason?

[GunnyFreedom]

http://www.reference.com/browse/statist (http://www.reference.com/browse/statist)

And yet, I have stated that until 2008 the only votes I have EVER cast were to preserve the 2nd Amendment, and that I was working to preserve the 2nd Amendment as a hedge AGAINST statism...a-la Thomas Jefferson.

Yet you continue to try to falsely paint me as a statist?

Hmmm.

I actually prefer a modicum of intellectual integrity in those whom I choose to debate. Without it, what's the point of debating at all?

[Truth Warrior]

I see. So you do support the death penalty, as Christ did (Gandhi is irrelevant).

Incorrect on both counts. Very sad. :(

The "Golden Rule" fits in nicely with the death penalty because it summarizes the mutual relationship people ought to have with one another by treating each other equally in righteous acts. The death penalty, in similar fashion, exacts justice upon the criminal who has committed a capital crime (like murder), and thus it repays a life (the murdered victim) with another life (the criminal), and thus, the family of the victim is appeased and God's law against murder is vindicated. The death penalty is a righteous act administered by the civil government to the effect of preserving rights (of the victim and the family of the victim) and protection of life, liberty, and property from would-be capital offenders in any given society.

False!




"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye? Or how can you tell your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself don't see the beam that is in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye."

[Truth Warrior]

And yet, I have stated that until 2008 the only votes I have EVER cast were to preserve the 2nd Amendment, and that I was working to preserve the 2nd Amendment as a hedge AGAINST statism...a-la Thomas Jefferson.

Yet you continue to try to falsely paint me as a statist?

Hmmm.

I actually prefer a modicum of intellectual integrity in those whom I choose to debate. Without it, what's the point of debating at all? Your INTENT is IRRELEVANT. You ARE what you DO.<IMHO> The STATIST road to HELL is paved with GOOD :rolleyes: intentions.

BTW, I'll pit my intellectual integrity against yours 24/7 any day of the week, statist GUNNY, for hire.

[Truth Warrior]

The Military Lies by Roger Young (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/young-r4.html)
Aug 6, 2008 ... Even the most ardent supporter will agree that the military lies during its day- to-day mission of "defending" the country, ...

[Theocrat]

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but don't consider the beam that is in your own eye? Or how can you tell your brother, 'Brother, let me remove the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself don't see the beam that is in your own eye? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck that is in your brother's eye."

If you had read the entire passage in context (Matthew 7), you would've understood that Jesus is discussing the nature of giving hypocritical judgments. It has nothing to do with judicial judgments pronounced over civil offenders, as would be the case in a capital offense. Your posting of that passage is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Ironically, your using the passage to try and refute my previous post only shows that the "beam" in your own eye has blinded you from seeing how the passage itself has nothing against my claims of the death penalty and "Golden Rule." Hermeneutics is something that should immediately become a part of your vocabulary, my friend.

By the way, why are you quoting from a Book in which you don't believe to be true in the first place?

[GunnyFreedom]

Your INTENT is IRRELEVANT. You ARE what you DO.<IMHO> The STATIST road to HELL is paved with GOOD :rolleyes: intentions.

BTW, I'll pit my intellectual integrity against yours 24/7 any day of the week, statist GUNNY, for hire.

Bwahaha! yeah sure right you-betcha!

If you think "I like to lie and just make crap up to make others look bad because it makes me feel better about myself" equals "intellectual integrity" then you migh have a point.

As for me, I detest liars and people who invent fantasy crap in an attempt to smear others with their own feces to try and make them smell bad while the originator of the dung still smells good. Nevermind it's YOUR feces.

Well, you can keep your feces to yourself, troll. :)

During the course of this thread you have dropped from only being a minor annoyance to actually hitting the level of a telemarketer in my book. Thus I will do to you what I do to ALL telemarketers: <click>

[Truth Warrior]

If you had read the entire passage in context (Matthew 7), you would've understood that Jesus is discussing the nature of giving hypocritical judgments. It has nothing to do with judicial judgments pronounced over civil offenders, as would be the case in a capital offense. Your posting of that passage is totally irrelevant to this discussion.

Ironically, your using the passage to try and refute my previous post only shows that the "beam" in your own eye has blinded you from seeing how the passage itself has nothing against my claims of the death penalty and "Golden Rule." Hermeneutics is something that should immediately become a part of your vocabulary, my friend.

By the way, why are you quoting from a Book in which you don't believe to be true in the first place?

I've read it and understand it at least as well or even better than you do.<IMHO>

What does Jesus say about judging?
I think that you are just a modern day "Christian" Pharisee/Sadducee. ;)

Because I like Jesus, as did Gandhi, BTW.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mahatma Gandhi

[Truth Warrior]

Bwahaha! yeah sure right you-betcha!

Laugh your ass off, Goober.

If you think "I like to lie and just make crap up to make others look bad because it makes me feel better about myself" equals "intellectual integrity" then you migh have a point.

Ah, but I don't. The fabricator appears to be you.

As for me, I detest liars and people who invent fantasy crap in an attempt to smear others with their own feces to try and make them smell bad while the originator of the dung still smells good. Nevermind it's YOUR feces.

BARBARIAN STATIST HIRED GUN

Well, you can keep your feces to yourself, troll. :)

NOW, it's called for. Kiss my ass, dip shit idiot.

During the course of this thread you have dropped from only being a minor annoyance to actually hitting the level of a telemarketer in my book. Thus I will do to you what I do to ALL telemarketers: <click>

Steal a quarter and call someone that gives a halfassed fuck what you think about anything, Goober.

Hey, what's your body count, Christian?


"By their fruits, ye shall know them." ;)

[GunnyFreedom]

Be careful, Gunny. He might get angry and tell you to "Kiss my ass" as he sometimes does when he can't argue or is wrong about something...

Looks like you were right - now he's even claiming that I've killed people! :eek:

[Truth Warrior]

Looks like you were right - now he's even claiming that I've killed people! :eek: Are you claiming a "body count" of ZERO, Gunny? If so, you must have just then been another "enabler" and "accessory" before, during and after the STATIST crimes.

God is not smiling at you. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.
http://www.voluntaryist.com/ (http://www.voluntaryist.com/)

[werdd]

The ideology:

"Let's kill them and just let god sort them out."

Is dangerous.

[Truth Warrior]

The ideology:

"Let's kill them and just let god sort them out."

Is dangerous. That's what the Cathars, etc. found out. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars

[slacker921]

Think of it on economic terms - Because of all of legal battles the cost to execute someone is greater than just keeping them alive and in a cell. That makes the religious arguments moot.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I do not support the death penalty. I do not support institutional murder. I do not support the state, therefore, I can not and will not support their crimes against humanity.

[pacelli]

I'm for it provided that the person actually committed the crime.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I'm for it provided that the person actually committed the crime.

What is a "crime"?

[ShowMeLiberty]

If we had a 100% FLAWLESS legal system, I might be able to support the death penalty for murderers. But since our legal system is not perfect and mistakes are made every day, I cannot support death as a punishment. The possibility of a mistake potentially makes murderers of us all.

[mediahasyou]

High Treason should be the only death penalty offense on the Federal level, and it should be done by hanging.

You know anti-statist actions can be considered "high treason":p

[TheEvilDetector]

Jesus Himself believed in the death penalty. That's why He suffered and died on a cross to pay for the sins of His people, even though He was sinless. ;)

How do you know that Jesus believed in the death penalty?

You say it like a fact.

This along with statements about what God wants makes me question everything religious people say.

GOD = Invisible Being
Jesus = Dead Person (assuming he even existed)

You know what they both want?

Based on the Bible?

Written by mortal men no doubt. Mortal men who no doubt had a red telephone with a line direct to God?

Was it a Wireless Telephone? Was it a pigeon courier? How was communication to God established?

Did God insert his wishes into their heads?

How can this be differentiated from ordinary psychosis?

Has this practice of God's stopped?

If it hasn't how do we know whether it is genuine, when someone claims to be speaking to God?

:)

[UnReconstructed]

I support the death penalty in murder but I do not think the state or any government should be deciding what is murder or who did it or what should be done to that person.

Restitution is the priority. For example, if someone killed me then my family would be without my income. My wife may want the person that killed me to have to work and she receive the wages earned by my murderer. Restitution is the priority.

[TheEvilDetector]

If we had a 100% FLAWLESS legal system, I might be able to support the death penalty for murderers. But since our legal system is not perfect and mistakes are made every day, I cannot support death as a punishment. The possibility of a mistake potentially makes murderers of us all.

In my opinion killing someone is an immoral act and to be tolerated only in self defence.

That said, I support state's sovereignty enough to be supportive of them ruling independently on the legality of capital punishment.

With such a system the citizen can move to a state where the practice suits their taste.

PS. I recommend, those that haven't already watch John Adams mini series. It shows the courage, temperament, wisdom and eloquence of men in earlier times,
when the republic was being born and years beyond. Adams, Franklin and Jefferson play pivotal roles amongst others.

[ShowMeLiberty]

In my opinion killing someone is an immoral act and to be tolerated only in self defence.

That said, I support state's sovereignty enough to be supportive of them ruling independently on the legality of capital punishment.

With such a system the citizen can move to a state where the practice suits their taste.

PS. I recommend, those that haven't already watch John Adams mini series. It shows the courage, temperament, wisdom and eloquence of men in earlier times,
when the republic was being born and years beyond. Adams, Franklin and Jefferson play pivotal roles amongst others.

I agree completely.

[pacelli]

What is a "crime"?

If someone breaks into your place of living, shoots you in the face, doesn't kill you, and rapes you, would you consider it a crime?

[salinaspaul]

I do support the death penalty - don't have the time right now to go over everyone's comments and participate - but I did at least vote. Will try to find the thread later...

[Roxi]

we can't even trust government to get the mail right, i don't think we should let them play with human lives...

there is a difference between "an eye for an eye" and the death penalty... look at whos in charge of deciding who is guilty or innocent, who is in charge of how people are "humanely" killed

how many people have spent life sentences or been put to death that were innocent?

and yeah, jail sucks.. i went there for 3 days once, on a 10 year old failure to do community service charge... twice the meal was "bologna soup" which consisted of beans, and green (yes im serious) bologna with water... there was a pregnant girl that had been bit by a spider, a long dark line went all the way across her belly where the poison was spreading... another girl had her wrist broken and separated from her arm... they wouldn't give her any medical treatment because she didn't do it in there...

jail fucking sucks.... just because they make them look good on tv for interviews, doesn't mean its a picnic in there, some of them may be ok... but the ones i have seen are not, especially greene county mo

[Kludge]

No, I support a much more harsh punishment. Labor camps giving the bare necessities to live. Ten hour workdays, no running water, no electricity. They will generate a profit for society until they choose to commit suicide or die. Those who do not toil, shall not eat. :)


Edit: Lol.... No offense to any Amish folk we may have. I'm sure your lives are very much worth living. I didn't intend to appear to imply otherwise.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

If someone breaks into your place of living, shoots you in the face, doesn't kill you, and rapes you, would you consider it a crime?

A crime against myself, yes, but the state is a crime in itself.

[pacelli]

A crime against myself, yes, but the state is a crime in itself.

And what would be your punishment for the person that engaged in this crime against yourself?

[SeanEdwards]

I've got my own alternative to the death penalty. I call it the box and pill punishment. Anyone that would have been sentenced to die, will instead be sentenced to solitary confinement, and in their little box will be a cyanide capsule. The convicted prisoner can at any time, elect to take their own life by ingesting the cyanide capsule. Or, they can choose to wait and hope that new evidence or appeal, or whatever, leads to their release.

[Andrew-Austin]

Jesus Himself believed in the death penalty. That's why He suffered and died on a cross to pay for the sins of His people, even though He was sinless.

So when the son of God decides to sacrifice himself, that is his way of saying that any religious or state authority can issue the death penalty. Riiiiiiiiight.


How do you know that Jesus believed in the death penalty?

You say it like a fact.

His opinion is divinely inspired, of course. :)

[Truth Warrior]

Killing people that kill people to show that it is wrong to kill people, never made a whole lot of sense to me. ;)

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Gandhi

[muh_roads]

No there should not be capital punishment because the legal system makes it more expensive than just letting someone rot in prison.

[nate895]

I believe in the death penalty in very limited cases: Killing children, killing an expectant mother, treason, and espionage.

[SeanEdwards]

I believe in the death penalty in very limited cases: Killing children, killing an expectant mother

Seems to me that violates the equal protection clause. I'm seriously tired of children getting special treatment by the state. Every politician seems to have "save the children" programmed on speed dial. To hell with those ankle-biters. I'll kick their spoiled little asses. :D

Where's the special protection for middle-aged white guys??? How come we're always the evil oppressors?

[nate895]

Seems to me that violates the equal protection clause. I'm seriously tired of children getting special treatment by the state. Every politician seems to have "save the children" programmed on speed dial. To hell with those ankle-biters. I'll kick their spoiled little asses. :D

Where's the special protection for middle-aged white guys??? How come we're always the evil oppressors?

The only reason I say that is because a child hasn't had the chance for life, and has no way to defend him/herself. A middle-aged white guy has the ability to defend himself provided he isn't handicapped, and has had his chance at life. I suppose you could also include handicapped people in there as well.

Edit: as far as defending yourself goes, in Texas, you get more punishment for shooting someone in the back, that might also be factored into a sentence, but I don't think it goes to the extreme of putting someone to death. Maybe life without parole instead life with possibility of parole.

[muzzled dogg]

Yes, I actually do support the death penalty - one of the only issues I disagree with Ron Paul on.

However, I only do this because a life in prison is not a hardship. 3 meals a day, TV, Computers, Porn, Sex... sounds like a hard life to me. When murderers and rapists are getting fed more than people on the streets of NYC, most of whom didn't do anything wrong, you know something is seriously wrong. Of course, this is only in cases where it is 100% sure the prisoner is the perpetrator. Substantial amount of evidence would be required.

I would only be against the death penalty is life is prison was a lot worse. Sorry, this is something I am very strict about for personal reasons.

i am against the death penalty but i think the criminal needs to pay legitimate restitution to the victim's family... not the bullshit that happens now... where, if any restitution at all is paid, it's to the state

pc

[heavenlyboy34]

What about the essentially libertarian principle that the state shall not infringe on an individual by locking them in jail? Lew Rockwell has written some interesting stuff about this. :D

[lucius]

No, I don't participate in polls.

[TastyWheat]

It doesn't matter if you use a gun or a needle, murder is a barbarous act.

[constituent]

jesus didn't die on the cross, he just hit the reset button.