Capital Punishment: Murder?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
How can I believe in an afterlife when i do not profess that any part of a human
transcends death? I believe that there will be a resurrection, not an afterlife, in fact,
the teaching of the resurrection is incompatible with that of an afterlife, because how
can you be resurrected if you have not really died, but have transcended death?

We've already been through this here: Thread 146377. Your claims that you guys do not believe in an afterlife are, at very best, misleading.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
How can I believe in an afterlife when i do not profess that any part of a human
transcends death? I believe that there will be a resurrection, not an afterlife, in fact,
the teaching of the resurrection is incompatible with that of an afterlife, because how
can you be resurrected if you have not really died, but have transcended death?

You are playing word games.

'A resurrection' means that there will be 'MORE LIFE' after death.

This is an AFTERLIFE.

Whether or not there was a period during which you were not alive/existent between
the first life and the afterlife is irrelevant.

You believe that after people die they will (at some point) have some more life.

Even if it's just a brief period of existence before god kills you again (because he's an ass h**e)

It's still a life AFTER death.

We call this an Afterlife.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Why, oh why, robbie, do you ask these questions if you (supposedly) already know the answer? suzzianne

I know what my understanding of the term soul is, but i want RJH to explain what his is,
isn't that obvious? RJHinds belittles himself, he doesn't need me to do it and whether
he is a Christian is for Jesus to decide, now if you are finished being cynical perhaps
you will tell me what a soul is?

There's no doubt that my concept doesn't match yours, so do you actually have a point other than to "ridicule" me for holding a different viewpoint? I'm not playing your game of you ask me a question, I think you really want to know the answer so I answer you, and then you open the floodgates of derision upon me. Nope, I stopped playing that game with the atheists long ago, so I'm not doing it with you, either.

And I don't think I appreciate the way you keep pointing back at the Bible and saying, in effect, "it's all right in there, just read it", when you and your JW pals come up with the most bizarro, off the wall concepts based on the same book I read and I don't get the same meaning as you do.

Oh wait, it's NOT the same book. I keep forgetting you guys wrote your own book. And then you actually have the gall to ridicule me because I don't hold the same bizarro beliefs put forth in YOUR book.

Originally posted by Suzianne
There's no doubt that my concept doesn't match yours, so do you actually have a point other than to "ridicule" me for holding a different viewpoint? I'm not playing your game of you ask me a question, I think you really want to know the answer so I answer you, and then you open the floodgates of derision upon me. Nope, I stopped playing that game with the ...[text shortened]... o ridicule me because I don't hold the same bizarro beliefs put forth in YOUR book.

"open the floodgates of derision upon me. Nope, I stopped playing that game with the atheists long ago"

do you really feel you get derided by the atheists on here?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
"open the floodgates of derision upon me. Nope, I stopped playing that game with the atheists long ago"

do you really feel you get derided by the atheists on here?

In fairness I have to put my hand up and say that I for one do deride religious beliefs
as and when I feel they need deriding.

And I certainly deride the reasons for holding those beliefs.



However I would also contend that any belief worth holding can withstand scrutiny and
ridicule.

Suzianne's problem is that her beliefs don't stand up to scrutiny and ridicule.

And I suspect (hope) that (subconsciously at least) she realises that.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And then you actually have the gall to ridicule me because I don't hold the same bizarro beliefs put forth in YOUR book.

Yes it is totally unfair.
They shouldnt ridicule your bizarro beliefs because
you would never do that to someone would you?

Can you imagine explaining your beliefs to someone
who had never heard of Christianity?

Can you imagine explaining your beliefs to someone
who had never heard of gods or the supernatural?

Remember how bizarro your beliefs are please!

Originally posted by googlefudge
You are playing word games.

'A resurrection' means that there will be 'MORE LIFE' after death.

This is an AFTERLIFE.

Whether or not there was a period during which you were not alive/existent between
the first life and the afterlife is irrelevant.

You believe that after people die they will (at some point) have some more life.

Even if it because he's an ass h**e)

It's still a life AFTER death.

We call this an Afterlife.

the term resurrection means a standing up again, raising up, from the Greek,
anastasis. In order for one to be resurrected, one must be dead. Logically,
reasonably and in full harmony with Biblical teaching, one cannot be said to be dead, if
something transcends death, can one, therefore your assertions of an afterlife based
on the resurrection hope are inaccurate to say the least, for a so called 'after life', as
far as i can discern, relates to a different state occurring immediately after death, as in
the belief that an entity transcends to some other place or state. As far as i know we
are unique in our belief that this does not happen.

Originally posted by Suzianne
There's no doubt that my concept doesn't match yours, so do you actually have a point other than to "ridicule" me for holding a different viewpoint? I'm not playing your game of you ask me a question, I think you really want to know the answer so I answer you, and then you open the floodgates of derision upon me. Nope, I stopped playing that game with the o ridicule me because I don't hold the same bizarro beliefs put forth in YOUR book.

have you been smoking weed or are you paranoid for a reason? while i understand
that as a chess player it generally pays to be paranoid, because in reality, everybody
really is out to get me, i can see no basis for your fear here except unless of course its
the product of insecurity. If you dont want to discuss your beliefs then dont discuss
them, its nada to me. The rest of your post is drivel, I am sorry to be so blunt, its
meaningless within the context of an informed discussion. If you really are insecure in
your beliefs, perhaps because they cannot be substantiated Biblically but are the
product of a tradition which has in fact invalidated the word of God, then no wonder you
are reticent about discussing them, then again, it takes a degree of honesty and
humility to admit the fact.

Originally posted by googlefudge
In fairness I have to put my hand up and say that I for one do deride religious beliefs
as and when I feel they need deriding.

And I certainly deride the reasons for holding those beliefs.



However I would also contend that any belief worth holding can withstand scrutiny and
ridicule.

Suzianne's problem is that her beliefs don't stand up ...[text shortened]... rutiny and ridicule.

And I suspect (hope) that (subconsciously at least) she realises that.

you do, but i always get the feeling its slightly tongue in cheek and usually because the person you are debating with has ducked answering or made no attempt to tackle the usually very logical points you've raised.
my main point for asking her that is i always find it strange when atheists get lumped together, as if we all follow the same beliefs and have the same opinions. its not like we have a atheist form of the bible where we all agree to think the same thing. i think the majority of the atheist on here tend to respond very differently to posts.
i think to a certain extent the most posters on here throw the odd insult around, i always take it as part of the banter and kinda like it as long as it doesnt get too nasty (with the exception of dasa, where the gloves are off) i was surprised to read that it effected suizanne to the point where she felt she couldnt get involved in debates, although equally it could be that she cannot deal with the huge walls of logic hitting her in the face every time she does.

Originally posted by LemonJello
We've already been through this here: Thread 146377. Your claims that you guys do not believe in an afterlife are, at very best, misleading.

No its not misleading at all, 'life after death', as is the common point of view refers to
something within a person which transcends death, which survives death. We simply
do not profess that this is the case, if you want to believe that we do, then continue to
do so, if you want to term it misleading, then be my guest, such assertions are
meaningless to me, for they are the product of mere opinion and are substantiated
because of even more opinion, probably yours.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not misleading at all, 'life after death', as is the common point of view refers to
something within a person which transcends death, which survives death. We simply
do not profess that this is the case, if you want to believe that we do, then continue to
do so, if you want to term it misleading, then be my guest, such assertions are
...[text shortened]... product of mere opinion and are substantiated
because of even more opinion, probably yours.

I'm confused. Suppose we have S, a soul; an entire living, breathing entity. Suppose S dies. Then S is recreated by God, from memory, at the resurrection (or whatever it's called). Let's call this recreated creature S2. You claim that S and S2 bear a relationship of personal identity to each other. They are the same person. But in what does this relationship of personal identity consist? Why isn't S2 simply a duplicate, a doppelganger, of S? It's probably rational for S to care about what happens to S2 if S will in fact be S2. It may not be rational for S to care about what happens to S2 if S2 is simply a different, but very similar person that God created after S's death.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Most 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.

Dont need to teach them nonviolence. Just set an example of nonviolence.
They are non-violent to begin with. (That is my contention and the contention of many others)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not misleading at all, 'life after death', as is the common point of view refers to
something within a person which transcends death, which survives death. We simply
do not profess that this is the case, if you want to believe that we do, then continue to
do so, if you want to term it misleading, then be my guest, such assertions are
...[text shortened]... product of mere opinion and are substantiated
because of even more opinion, probably yours.

As already discussed in the thread to which I linked, I undertand well your position as you yourself clarified it. It certainly does profess life after death, even though it does not profess what you call "immediate" life after death.

I will continue to label your discussion regarding this point "misleading" because that label is clearly appropriate. In fact, I would call your continuous disingenuity on this point "rigorously misleading". You say that you "simply do not profess" that it is the case that there is something within a person that transcends death, that (immediately) survives death. That is true. But what is misleading here is the way you pretend that this settles the question of whether or not you profess life after death. It doesn't settle that question. You still profess life after death because you believe explicitly that God resurrects the SAME PERSON sometime after this person's death.

If anyone wants confirmation on the fact that you mislead in these sorts of discussions, they can simply read the thread to which I already provided a link. When you are confronted with a simple question like "Do you believe in life after death?", you respond with the misleading "No, we do not profess immediate life after death."

As if that actually answers the question....
And as if the answer to the original question is "No"....

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No its not misleading at all, 'life after death', as is the common point of view refers to
something within a person which transcends death, which survives death. We simply
do not profess that this is the case, if you want to believe that we do, then continue to
do so, if you want to term it misleading, then be my guest, such assertions are
...[text shortened]... product of mere opinion and are substantiated
because of even more opinion, probably yours.

I would say, though, the following to your credit. Your view, as you have clarified it, does differ in the sense that, according to your view, God does not resurrect the "wicked". So your God doesn't see fit to torture them for all eternity, which is swell of Him.

At least with your beliefs, I can make some sense of the idea that 'death' actually represents death (although I still make no sense of your notion that one can die and absolutely nothing of him can survive this death; and yet God can resurrect the same person sometime later; because I would think, on the contrary, something must survive his death for there to be continuity sufficient for personal identity in such case; but whatever). With many other religious groups, their notion of 'death' actually just means people go on living but in one of two states (eternal bliss or eternal suffering). Theirs is a form of bizarro-death.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
stastics prove that even though you have the death penalty (which you claim puts people off murder) america still has a murder rate 4x that of western europe (which has no death penalty to put people off).

since 1976 to 2010 the southern states of america have executed 1072 people.
the northeast and midwest and west added together have executed 238 people.

guess which one has the highest homicide rate?

FMF would say you have made a straw man so you can argue against it. My position on capital punishment for the murderer is that it prevents the murderer from ever committing another murder. What effect it has on someone else I did not say. 😏

P.S. I said:

"Eliminating the evil perpetrator from society is the only way that we can deal with the evil that is already there."