Originally posted by ArchAngelGabrielFirst, the claim that the Bible began the whole idea of morality is false, even for Christians. The Ten Commandments existed prior to the Bible existing, on the Christian view, and the Ten Commandments are clearly meant to be moral commandments. So, you don't know what you are talking about.
Because the Bible, like it or not my friend, began the whole idea of morals in the first place. Why do you think God flooded the entire world? Because the humans that lived here were without morals...among other things...
Second, moral codes developed within non-Christian nations prior to the Bible being written, so the Bible could not form the basis for the moral codes of these nations.
Third, modern ethical codes are not beholden to Christian mythology. They do not derive from the Bible nor do they take consistency with the Bible as a criterion for acceptability. This is a good thing, too. We wouldn't want the best modern ethical theories to allow genocide (e.g., Joshua's genocidal campaing in Canaan) would we?
Fourth, I don't believe that God flooded the entire world. In fact, I don't believe that there is any such entity as God. So don't preach your nonsense to me. If you want to prosyletize, get a sandwich board and stand on the street-corner like all the other nutjobs.
Fifth, you should buy a star, you freeloader!
Originally posted by bbarrno no no. I wasn't trying to establish my claim as
Why is this relevant to my claim? I don't take the Bible to be authoritative on moral matters.
directly related to your claim, but related to the
various claims about capital punishment (from which
self-defense arose).
I am just observing that it seems inconsistent to me
for a Christian to accept capital punishment as a moral
form of retribution.
I just took your post as a point of departure; it wasn't
a criticism of your point of view at all.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJay
You will find if you continue to read the OT that there were crimes
that were punishable by death. Do a word search on the words,
"put him to death." You will see punishment for some crimes was
death.
Of course! I don't dispute this, but it would seem that, in fulfilling
of the Law, Jesus was commanding His believers to discard the
'eye for eye' form of earthly retribution.
If you are going to talk about murder and St Matthew 5th chapter
may I suggest you stick to the parts of that chapter that talk about
murder directly.
Indeed, St Matthew 5:21-26 indicates that not only is retribution
'in kind' wrong, but even being mad at someone who has wronged
you! 'Raqa' means 'Blockhead,' evidently, a pretty minor form of
insult, and yet Christians are commanded not to even express even
this level of judgment.
As for Jesus' talking about the fires of hell (or in my translation
'liable to fiery Gehenna,' certainly he is talking about the burning
of one's immortal soul, not the punishment of the flesh.
My other Scriptural quotation, though, is quite relevant (St Matthew
38-42), since it talks about retribution in general.
Nemesio
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is murder. To take another life in cold blood is murder. I dont see the difference. There are other ways of dealing with the people prision for example.....oh but wait it would cost so much money to keep them alive?
Murder is a legal term, and if this person is to die because they
were convicted of a capital crime it is not murder to have the
sentence carried out.
Kelly
It is even worse in an execution, the person "flicking the switch" knows he or she is taking a life.
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowBy not giveing to charaty you are takeing lives.
It is murder. To take another life in cold blood is murder. I dont see the difference. There are other ways of dealing with the people prision for example.....oh but wait it would cost so much money to keep them alive?
It is even worse in an execution, the person "flicking the switch" knows he or she is taking a life.
Originally posted by Brother EdwinNot quite right, you dont take a life when you fail to give to charities, you just dont save any. If I could force everyone to give money to the people who need it, I just might consider it doing that :-) But my basic 'I shouldnt really force people to do what they dont want to do' would probably over ride that.
By not giveing to charaty you are takeing lives.
On the other hand flicking the switch is certainly and directly killing someone. The judge who ruled the sentence is directly involved too, the people who built the "device of death" are involved indirectly. They all make it possible. If I was to go to extreams id say that the people who agree they should be murdered are responsible too. If everyone was against it, in the long run executions just wouldnt happen.
Originally posted by Brother EdwinI don't that I could it most situations, but if I came across someone trying to rape or kill someone I love, I sure as Hell could pull the trigger or slit the throat.
For all those who support capital punishment. Could YOU kick the stool away/turn on the power?
The Bible is very confusing about the word 'death'. I thought it often meant 'death of the soul' or something. For example, John 11:25-26:
"I am the resurrection and the life. Whoever has faith in me shall live, even though he dies; and no one who lives and has faith in me shall ever die"
So such a faithful person shall never die, and shall have life even though he dies? How can you die if you shall never die?
This ambiguity makes the Bible's stance on killing people and death unclear.
i don't believe in capital punishment i believe that there is an inalienable right of every human to life and a protection of that life by the state/government.
however if i was attacked i would use lethal force to defend myself in order to protect my life and the lives of those i love, therefore if a person would commit further crimes they should be committed and society protected from them. capital punishment i feel is the same as saying we can't deal with this problem and it would be better and more cost effective if it just went away.
Originally posted by GrayeyesofsorrowBy flicking the switch you are choseing not to save them.
Not quite right, you dont take a life when you fail to give to charities, you just dont save any. If I could force everyone to give money to the people who need it, I just might consider it doing that :-) But my basic 'I shouldnt really force people to do what they dont want to do' would probably over ride that.
On the other hand flicking the ...[text shortened]... esponsible too. If everyone was against it, in the long run executions just wouldnt happen.