Spirituality
28 Oct 12
29 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSeems like God could do all that without embodying souls. In fact, it seems like God could prevent souls from needing rehabilitation in the first place. He could sit the souls down in a giant classroom (how many souls can fit in a typical classroom is anyone's guess) and teach them ethics. Why restore physical bodies? Why not just reward the souls that pass the ethics course with brand new physical bodies? No muss, no fuss. Each soul takes the course until it passes. Then you don't need any lakes of fire, and no bad souls will roam free. Seems like God really didn't think this whole thing out. Or, alternatively, it's all a bunch of nonsense some folks made up to keep some other folks in line...Something this crazy could have only come from humans.
You are trying to built a straw man as FMF calls it by stating something I did not say and arguing against it. I did not say "human life isn't really that important." What I did say was that "I do not see human life as near as important to God as the life of the soul." I believe God wants to save and rehabilitate the soul to have right beliefs so that He ...[text shortened]... f fire. I must stop now and go play Junior monopoly with my grandson. Will be back later.
29 Oct 12
Originally posted by bbarrIndeed, it is us humans that have the power (but rarely realize it), not "God".
Seems like Kabuki theater to me. Why all the bother? If, ultimately, it's souls that matter, then God could have had us live entirely as souls. Surely whatever point there is to this embodied life God could have realized without the passion play. In any case, if human life isn't really that important, then I guess Christ didn't give up anything that import ...[text shortened]... e didn't need saving in the first place, but whatever. The whole thing is Baroque nonsense.
Nice to see you chime in on this oft wayward forum 🙂
29 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI can agree with you overall gist, but on your specific points I have to beg to differ.
Indeed, there is a problem in the society when someone murders another member. But prohibiting capital punishment is not going to solve the problem. Eliminating the evil perpetrator from society is the only way that we can deal with the evil that is already there. Peaceful resolutions must be taught to every citizen as a child. This must also include cor ...[text shortened]... of utmost importance, if we ever intend to have a peace loving society with love for each other.
If you are interested in specifics, just ask 😉
29 Oct 12
To RJ,
it is not kids who need to be taught peace - they are born peaceful, it is adults, the ones kids look up to that need to be peaceful.
Killing undesirable elements in society is never going to work because even the most ardent paeceful, family man of say 40 years can one day snap and go buy a gun and murder people, so.... I dont have the answer but I know that in terms of peace we need only to look at how children are naturally (before they've been indoctrinated), to see how peace can work.
29 Oct 12
Originally posted by galveston75Texas has executed 488 people since 1976, but there are no shortage of new murders in Texas. If fact, they're 18th in murder rate out of the 50 states. The ten states with the highest murder rates all have the death penalty. Six of the ten states with the lowest murder rates have no death penalty.
It would be if were actually carried out by the governments that do use this punishment.
Your contention that the death penalty is a deterrent is complete and utter hogwash.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976
Originally posted by sumydidI read your argument carefully. I would point out a few things.
So we see that many if not all of the skeptics here, have a real problem with capital punishment. They label it "murder."
Meanwhile most (but not all) bible-believers think that capital punishment is acceptable under very specific conditions.
What the skeptics can't seem to understand is, by ending the life of someone who has wrongfully ended the life ...[text shortened]... creational drugs or runs a prostitution ring, is to greatly diminish the value of human life.
For one, your argument has a very strange structure. You take as part of your starting point that human life is of the utmost value. But your ending point is the idea that more human life should be lost. So it should be clear here that, at least at first glance, your argument is structurally challenged.
For two, as bbarr has already hinted at, it seems some fates are worse than death. So, if you really think that those who have wrongfully ended the life of another person should be exposed to the worst fate possible; and if you really think human life is of the utmost value; then it seems you should be arguing that these murderers should be subjected to fates worse than death (such as a state of persistent torture and suffering, or some such). This would also get around the problem of your argument's challenged structure, as described above (although it is still somewhat structurally strange to hold that human lives are of utmost importance and then work toward the conclusion that we should subject some human lives to the worst fate possible, since typically you do not want to subject things of value to horrific fates).
For three, even though point two above would make your argument better, yours would still be a confused argument even with those changes implemented. Neither I nor anyone else needs such policies of blind vengeance in order to understand the value of human lives, and the absence of such policies does not somehow diminish the value-giving reasons we have that relate to human life. And such policies do not seem to add any value to the lives of those who go on living. So, it seems that the justifications you propose for such policies are inadequate.
29 Oct 12
Originally posted by bbarrI am sure we can all come up with ways that might seem better to each of us to do if we were God. However, we are in the situation we are in because we men have been running the world for at least 6,000 years.
Seems like God could do all that without embodying souls. In fact, it seems like God could prevent souls from needing rehabilitation in the first place. He could sit the souls down in a giant classroom (how many souls can fit in a typical classroom is anyone's guess) and teach them ethics. Why restore physical bodies? Why not just reward the souls that pass ...[text shortened]... up to keep some other folks in line...Something this crazy could have only come from humans.
We are the most intelligent creatures that we know that physically exists. It does not make sense to me that there would not be some being more intelligent that must have brought this world into existence. It just seems too unbelievable for me that the laws, order, and design in nature just happened by accident without some guiding intelligence much greater than man involved.
The creator God of the Holy Bible is the only thing that I am aware of that gives an explanation that I can accept for the existence of all things. All other explanations seem to me beyond ridiculous and actually stupid to believe.
However, if there is a supernatural being with great intelligence, then I believe such a being may have had the knowledge and ability to create the physical universe. I can not actually prove such a being exists, however the exisitence of all these things that I know of seem to suggest such a being is also possible. So for me nothing else makes any sense.
If this is the case, I know I am not intelligent enough to know this Beings mind or why He has done these things in the manner He has or if it was possible for Him to achieve His goal in a better way. We can only speculate from an apparently much lower intelligence level. So that seems to render our speculations useless in my opinion.
29 Oct 12
Originally posted by galveston75It looks like we will never know for sure because there are just too many people that believe capital punishment is cruel and unusual punishment and not necessary.
It would be if were actually carried out by the governments that do use this punishment.
There is also a growning number of people that believe laws should be made to prohibit private ownership of guns so that only the government and criminals can have them. Do you realy think that kind of attitude is going to cut down on the murder rate? If this takes place and it works, then I must be a total idiot that should be put in an insane asylum.
Originally posted by rwingettBut New Hampshire has capital punishment and has the lowest murder rate in the nation for at least the last 10 years.
Texas has executed 488 people since 1976, but there are no shortage of new murders in Texas. If fact, they're 18th in murder rate out of the 50 states. The ten states with the highest murder rates all have the death penalty. Six of the ten states with the lowest murder rates have no death penalty.
Your contention that the death penalty is a deterrent is ...[text shortened]... ally-and-state#MRord
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/number-executions-state-and-region-1976
P.S. You also forgot to mention that the Texas murder rate has gone down. So you can single out a specific case to support either position you want to take.
29 Oct 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelMost children become adults and should be taught things that keep them peaceful throughout their lives. That does not mean I believe they should be taught complete nonviolence no matter what happens.
To RJ,
it is not kids who need to be taught peace - they are born peaceful, it is adults, the ones kids look up to that need to be peaceful.
Killing undesirable elements in society is never going to work because even the most ardent paeceful, family man of say 40 years can one day snap and go buy a gun and murder people, so.... I dont have the answe ...[text shortened]... k at how children are naturally (before they've been indoctrinated), to see how peace can work.
29 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsSince the evidence indicates overwhelmingly that capital punishment is not a deterrent, it would be reasonable to conclude that those examples are due to other factors. After all, it would be foolish to conclude that capital punishment is only a deterrent in New Hampshire, but not anywhere else. Plus if you look at the number of executions, you'll see that despite having the death penalty, New Hampshire has not actually executed anyone in the last three years.
But New Hampshire has capital punishment and has the lowest murder rate in the nation for at least the last 10 years.
P.S. You also forgot to mention that the Texas murder rate has gone down. So you can single out a specific case to support either position you want to take.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
29 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsits funny that if you look at the list of countries that still have the death penalty its a who's who of americas enemies. it would seem you guys have more in common with china, n korea, cuba, iran, iraq and pakistan than you would like to think.
But New Hampshire has capital punishment and has the lowest murder rate in the nation for at least the last 10 years.
P.S. You also forgot to mention that the Texas murder rate has gone down. So you can single out a specific case to support either position you want to take.
29 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsall you have done is quote a bunch of scriptures, you still haven't told us what a soul is.
The BODY. This is your PHYSICAL component of being. It is flesh made from a collection of unremarkable mineral elements (but is mostly water) and is in harmony with the nature and spirit of this world. It grows, matures, begins to deteriorate, eventually dies, and then decomposes back into its constituent elements and remains a part of the dust of the world. ...[text shortened]...
(2 Corinthians 5:6-8 NKJV)
HalleluYah !!! Paraise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy![/b]