Evidence for God from Science

we've talked about this before and you're still wrong on that. nothing warrants that. God will judge in the end. it's not our decision.

Forge wrote: Which shows and amusement parks, pray tell?
Forge... hmm. I don't really know why I chose this name. I think it's both cool-sounding and profound.?

ever heard of the show called the oc?
there was a cool ride shown on tv called the hot coaster. i think the park's somewhere in the midwest. seat works into that and into the idea of me putting someone in the hot seat.

Forge wrote: But who decides what is punishable by death?

We the people.

Prodigal Son wrote:we've talked about this before and you're still wrong on that. nothing warrants that. God will judge in the end. it's not our decision.

Yes, we've talked about it and you were wrong. Ever heard of "an eye for an eye"? Why are you trying to oppose what the people want?
Sometimes, man must judge others. Shouldn't a judge or jury be able to judge an accused criminal? Shouldn't neighbors be allowed to oppose a former convict, such as a sex offender, moving into their neighborhood? Of course they should. Sometimes, a little vigilantism is necessary when the judicial system fails to protect us from these sick lawbreakers.

ochotseat wrote:We the people.

But we the people aren't absolute.

We are not givers of life, so we are not justified in taking it back, either.

forge:

i NEVER said

some crimes are punishable by death...

ochotseat did.

ochotseat:

dude, you keep perseverating on this "eye for an eye" thing. how many times can you miss Jesus' message?

why am i trying to oppose what people want? because i really don't care what people want. they are wrong nearly all the time. that's why we need God's word to guide us. why, ochotseat, do you continue to oppose his word?

sometimes man must judge others...

hmm, let's see, is that something YOU command? because if i remember correctly, God's command is: "ye shall NOT judge." just because you WANT to judge others, doesn't mean you can rewrite the bible, dude.

shouldn't neighbors be allowed to oppose a former convict...

sure they should. but what i oppose is the death penalty. that's what you and i are arguing about, isn't it?

sometimes, a little vigilantism is necessary...

tell that to God, man: "forget you dude, i make my own rules."

Dan wrote:I'm a moderate, chiefly because I feel it's best to weigh all the points of view before coming to a conclusion, and that this process must be done without partiality.

I've never heard of this "moderate" thing, but that's where I stand too, I guess.

Forge wrote:Abortion: Agree
Homosexuality: Agree
War in Iraq/Afghanistan: Agree
Religion: Agree
Stem Cell Research: Agree
Gun control: Agree
Death penalty: Disagree
Fiscal policies: Undecided (I'm not knowledgeable enough to make a good judgment)

Same here, but I'd like more gun control.

Prodigal Son wrote:forge:

i NEVER said

some crimes are punishable by death...

ochotseat did.

Yeesh! Calm down. It was a mistake. And anyway, I think it's quite apparent that you wouldn't say that, anyway.

Forge wrote: We are not givers of life, so we are not justified in taking it back, either.

It's called representative democracy. Learn to live with it.

kateliz wrote: Same here, but I'd like more gun control.

We have background checks and assault weapons are illegal. What more do you want?

Prodigal Son wrote:ochotseat:

dude, you keep perseverating on this "eye for an eye" thing. how many times can you miss Jesus' message?

why am i trying to oppose what people want? because i really don't care what people want. they are wrong nearly all the time. that's why we need God's word to guide us. why, ochotseat, do you continue to oppose his word?

hmm, let's see, is that something YOU command? because if i remember correctly, God's command is: "ye shall NOT judge." just because you WANT to judge others, doesn't mean you can rewrite the bible, dude.

sure they should. but what i oppose is the death penalty. that's what you and i are arguing about, isn't it?

tell that to God, man: "forget you dude, i make my own rules."

Jesus never said forgiving meant not punishing a criminal with the death penalty. Are you saying all the ministers who back the "eye for an eye" rule are wrong?

If you don't care about what the people want, then you might as well live in Iran. We are a republic.

According to you, the neighborhood watch is equivalent to vigilantism and we should eliminate judges since it's their job to judge.

ochotseat,

you know what i'm going to say? all ministers who back an "eye for an eye" are wrong...on THAT point.

Jesus never said forgiving meant not punishing a criminal with the death penalty.

yep, he never did say that, did he? but he did say, "he among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone." what do you think that means?

i might as well live in Iran? well, i don't my friend. my home is the good ol' usa.

according to you the neighborhood watch is vigilantism and we should eliminate judges since it's their job to judge.

whoa there, little horsey! you're the one who promotes vigilantism! and i definately never said anything against no neighborhood watch it's okay to judge people and have punishments for crimes. what i oppose is the death penalty. it's wrong. it robs people of the chance to repent and find their way to Jesus. that's all..plain and simple...it's all about Jesus. think about it.

Prodigal Son wrote:ochotseat,

you know what i'm going to say? all ministers who back an "eye for an eye" are wrong...on THAT point.

Only according to you.

Prodigal Son wrote:
yep, he never did say that, did he? but he did say, "he among you who is without sin, let him cast the first stone."
.

The woman who was about to be stoned to death was not a convicted killer. You cannot compare stoning someone to lethal injection, gas chamber, or electric chair.

Prodigal Son wrote: my home is the good ol' usa..

Then, you should respect our representative democracy, which permits the death penalty to exist in most states.

Prodigal Son wrote: what i oppose is the death penalty. it's wrong. it robs people of the chance to repent and find their way to Jesus. that's all..plain and simple.

And it's plain and simple that they can "find Jesus" before their scheduled executions, just like that criminal on the cross did.

The death penalty reduces the number of threats to society, eliminates costs of keeping deviants alive, and is approved by a majority of Americans. Texas is leading a good example, and it has the Bible on its side.

ochotseat:

only according to you.

you think the world is that small? you think i can actually have an opinion that no one else in the world has? thanks for thinking so highly of me, ocho. but, you're wrong again...according to alot of people.

you cannot compare stoning someone to lethal injection, gas chamber, or electric chair.

sure you can. killing is wrong...plain and simple.

...you should respect our representative democracy...

i don't respect issues, decisions, people when they are wrong. you seem to worship the majority and government just because it is. it would do you well to learn a little discernment.

the death penalty...

blah, blah, blah. those are excuses for sin.

Texas...has the bible on its side.

no it doesn't. Texas thinks is has the bible on its side. Texas would like everyone else to think so as well.

ochotseat wrote:The woman who was about to be stoned to death was not a convicted killer. You cannot compare stoning someone to lethal injection, gas chamber, or electric chair.

But she was a convicted adulterer, who, in Jewish Law, was under pain of death.

We should consider here what the differences are, if there are any, between what's acceptable for the individual Christian and the government. If the government, (being comprised of some Christians,) is right in executing certain criminals, then that would mean there is a huge difference between individual Christian actions and Christian actions through the government.

Can a Christian, being commanded to not kill, pull the switch for an electric chair or gas chamber, and can they inject poison into the veins of the convicted? It's hard to see the two of these being reconciled. I don't believe Jesus said anything like, "Though shalt not kill, except if you're working for the government." In the OT it was allowed, but Jesus said and/or implied different.

And if you don't believe in the death penalty than you couldn't believe in war if you were to be consistant. This is where I confuse myself. I'm actually, I'll finally admit to myself, wavering. How can I say "yes" to war and "no" to the death penalty? If the government can kill in war, it can kill in it's policing activities. But if Jesus said not to kill, and that implies governments too, then we can't do either. But if He didn't imply governments too, and Christians can be in the government, then Christians can kill in war and kill in policing. Who would doubt a Christian cop mortally wounding a criminal if the circumstances warranted it in order to protect others? That's instant death penalty. And war is the death penalty on a massive scale. You really have to choose all or nothing!

So to stop my babbling, killing in war, the death penalty and policing depends all on whether the government is included in the command to not kill.