Anybody Here?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.


Got to disagree that capital punishment is basically the same as abortion. Sure, both destroy human life. But the human life destroyed by capital punishment is usually that of a murderer, who deserves civil execution by most legal and religious standards. The baby in the womb has no such guilt. The two are not basically the same!
 
Well, if we were 100% certain the convicted was really guilty, that all justice was always applied equally, and that person was not sorry for the crime and would gladly do it again...Then we might have a right to stoop to their level and murder them. But this is not the case in most death penalty cases. Blacks are more likely to get the death penalty than whites convicted of the same crime. We are constantly finding people who were wrongly convicted. If justice cannot be applied equally and blindly, and if there is even the smallest chance the convicted might be innocent, we are no better than the murderers.
If a child does not yet have brain waves it is still only "potential" life, but not yet a true life form. We can't save every sperm and egg because of the potential of life, and its better to have an early term pre-brainwave abortion than an unwanted child who has a high chance to become one of those criminals you want to kill.
 
We are never 100% certain; that's human nature. Our US courts do (or are supposed to) apply the principle "innocent until proven guilty". Thus, we don't just require that the prosecutor show a 51% guilt probability. We require that they show there is no other likely alternative but that the accused was the murderer.
You seem to base your arguments on an assumption that only after-the-fact events matter (regrets for the action, etc.). But we cannot ignore that there must be a set rule for determining punishment. We do not know the future or the heart, whether they are truly sorry and might do it again, or not. But we do know (or are reasonably sure of) what did happen. That is what we punish people based on, as it is the only objective standard. Otherwise, you must discard punishment for crimes completely, one of the main functions of government!
As for blacks getting the death penalty more than whites, please don't bring race into this! Nearly everybody feels sorry for slavery and plays the race card to evoke emotions and assume an aura of self-righteousness. It is simply a statistic that can be attributed to the fact that crime rates (including murder) are generally higher among blacks than whites. I do not attempt to speculate why; it is simply a fact.
In any debate, it is important to understand the starting point of your opponent. So, I state here that I am unapologetically a biblical Christian. It is through that lens that I view the world. Everyone has basic religious assumptions that will dominate their views, perhaps subconsciously. What's your worldview?

P.S. Can we start a new thread for this? It's drifted a long way from "Anybody Here?"!
 
Well, I am not a Christian, or any other religion. I am very anti religion and we can trace most conflicts in the world throughout history to people trying to force their religion on others. And I have a hard time believing in an invisible man in the sky who controls everything. The bible reads like a children's fairy tale with outrageous stories that in any other context would make someone who believed them a candidate for the funny farm.
The only reason I bring race into the death penalty discussion is because FOR THE SAME CRIME, blacks are more likely than whites to be given the death penalty. This has nothing to do with who commits the most times per capita. It has to do with equal justice. And you admit we can never be 100% sure. How would you feel if your son or daughter were one of the "mistakes" in the death penalty and they were killed while being innocent. Every study shown on the subject comes to the same conclusion. The death penalty is not applied equally, and mistakes ARE made. We are the only modernized country with a death penalty, which should tell you something.
 
I am not trying to force my religion on you; I'm just telling you my worldview so that you know where I'm coming from. It was meant to be a courtesy, not an attack. Don't fly off the handle! An excess of anger often indicates a deficiency of reason and facts, two areas in which atheists and agnostics claim near monopolies. Back to our original discussions, I've started threads concerning both abortion and capital punishment. Hope to see you and anyone else who would like to join us there!
 
LOL...not angry at all. I was answering your question about my worldview and explaining in more detail my previous post why race does play a part in the death penalty discussion. Almost all of my friends and associates are christian, so I'm used to debating my minority point of view forcefully with them. I don't accept answers like "well, you just have to have faith" when it comes to a point they can't explain. Sorry if you took the previous post the wrong way...I was just defending my point of view and didn't know I was sounding angry or irrational. I'll try to check out the other threads when I get a chance and stir the hornets nest over there.
 


Nobody who follows the spiritual phillosophy of Jesus Christ can support capital punishment, what with "casting the first stone" and so forth. Anyone who advocates both should spend their time arguing with themselves rather than bothering us.
 
Genesis 9:6a, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." Later we see that this is qualified to mean only after a fair trial has been given and the sentence pronounced by the proper authorities. From a Chrisitan standpoint, capital punishment is quite viable. But this is turning more religious than political. Love to go into it more; can someone talk to the Admin about opening up a Religion subsection of the News & Leisure section? It's only as controversial as politics can get!

@belial2k, glad to hear I was mistaken on that! Just thought that, "The bible reads like a children's fairy tale with outrageous stories that in any other context would make someone who believed them a candidate for the funny farm." sounded rather "intolerant", which attitude you say you oppose. The list of brilliant politicians, scientists, and those from any other field throughout history who have also been Christians would take volumes just to list. But enough of that; still hoping for a new Religion subsection.
 


It's so convenient when so-called Christians refer to old Jewish law rather than Christian rules of behavior (read: things that were expoused by Jesus Christ) whenever it suite their predisposition. The old testiment said that an Adulteress should be stoned, too.
 


Really, I would like to discuss this more. Is it okay to do that in the Politics subsection? If not, where can I request that a Religion subsection be added?
 
Please don't lump me in with everybody else who might call themselves "conservative" or "Christian". Perhaps many of us are frightened of socialism because we see what it has to done to other countries. (Think British and Canadian healthcare; do we need another thread on that topic?) And if you think that I like Medicare and Social Security, you're dead wrong. Actually, I'd be pretty happy with a libertarian government; I'm not trying to revive Israel's theocracy.
Finally, don't say that I'm just arguing the death penalty based on the Old Testament. Have you even looked at the new thread I started? I simply brought in the OT in response to Crashman saying that no Christian could support capital punishment. I realize that biblical arguments carry no weight with atheists.
 


Read the rest of what I said. It's impossible to follow the phillosophy of Jesus Christ ayet still stick to the harsher punishments of the Old Testiment. You can do one, or the other.
 
Good to see old school like Crashman is still around. I never bothered to log into Tom's now for like 3 years or more I have been very busy with other things.

Nothing Political I can assure you all.

P.S I guess the old chat forum is gone and it's more direct to issues and solutions. Oh and are we truly divided by country now? Meaning only U.S posters see U.S content and England or other countrys only see Tom's Content from thier own country?
 

That was in reply to belial2k. You're the moderator, so it seems you're okaying posting about religion in the politics section. Here goes!
Your claim that you cannot follow Jesus's philosophy and Old Testament law is not true. Jesus himself said, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Now I do not refer to the ceremonial law from the OT, just the moral laws, such as the 10 Commandments. If you give a specific example of where you think it is impossible to both follow Jesus and the OT moral laws, I will do my best to untangle the knot.
 
"Think British and Canadian healthcare"
I have studied it quite a bit, and while you can point to individual cases where the system screws up, overall I much prefer it to what happens in this country, where we screw up just as many cases per capita and insure a much smaller % of the population. And the people who do have insurance are lucky if 1)the insurance actually pays 2)they are not dropped if the insurance does pay and 3)go broke paying the premiums and deductibles and everything the insurance won't pay.
All the horror stories and lies the conservatives are using about health care are greatly exaggerated. In those countries polls have shown about a 95% satisfaction rate with their health care...we will never see those kind of numbers under a profit driven insurance system, because it is in the best interest of the insurance companies to find more and more excuses not to pay. The only people in this country who are completely satisfied with their health care are the lucky who have never had to use it, the wealthy who can afford the top insurance, and the medicare and medicaid people who are already on socialized programs. The giant mass in between get screwed with overall poor employer plans, or no affordable insurance at all.
I'll take the British, French, Dutch, Canadian, ect. systems over this any day.
 


I already did.
 

Could you point me to those polls? I'd like to see the proof that people actually prefer a system where treatment is rationed and often delayed by years. 95%? The highest satisfaction rates I've seen are around 61%, and that's from those employer plans you put down. If you really champion socialized medicine, then please wait until Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co. pass socialized medicine here in the US, subscribe to their plan, and purposely give yourself some sort of cancer. Wait for 5 years to see what sort of treatment you receive, then report back here. (Do not try this at home: I'm not serious. I would never recommend putting yourself in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who have no motivation to actually help you. At least the insurance companies have the motivations of profit and reputation. Case in point: my mother had to wrangle to get a treatment covered by our insurance company. We are not wealthy, and have the same plan ordinary people have. Their customer service reps were so bad that she reported them to the commissioner of insurance. Within a few months, all of their customers, including, us, had noticed a complete turnaround in their customer service.) So yes, the private model can work and respond to their customers, even if it does take the threat of a big stick. For me, I see no reason to trust the government with our healthcare when they have screwed up nearly everything else we've given to them. Their job is to administer civil justice and defend the country from internal and external enemies. Once you go very far beyond that, it's dangerous territory.
So, I'll be waiting for those poll references, as well as a list of several recent projects that used to be in private hands, were handed over to the government, and worked better.
 


Then by all means go there and enjoy their health care.
 
@Crashman, "I already have."
I suppose you're referring to your assertion that it is impossible to follow Jesus and believe in capital punishment due to the story we find recorded in John 8:1-11. I have already responded in part by quoting Jesus as saying that he came to fulfill the law, not abolish it. Thus, the moral law of God is not to be abandoned completely. However, the laws that were given specifically to the Israelites are no longer applicable in every detail. We can still determine from them which sort of things are morally acceptable and which are not, but we are not required to legislate those things in our own government, much less to proscribe the same punishments. Israel was its own country with its own form of government and its own laws, just as modern countries each have their own. With this is mind, what do we see? The law requiring that an adulteress be stoned was a specific law given to the Israelites. (I'm sleepy at 10:30pm and can't find the exact reference; I believe it was in Leviticus or Numbers.) But the command to execute murderers, as I already referenced, was a general precept found in Genesis 9:6a, given to the remnant of the human race after the great flood. Thus, it applies to all who are descended from them, i.e., everyone. So it is certainly not easy to dismiss capital punishment as a dispensable command. And of course if Jesus is the same God who gave that command in Genesis, we cannot suppose that he would contradict himself.
In John, we do see Jesus removing the death penalty for adultery. To explain why he had that authority requires more of an exposition of Jewish/Christian theology.
Israel was the initial kingdom of God, his special people on earth who were supposed to obey and love him. The Jews looked forward to the coming of a Messiah (Jesus), as a political ruler who would free them from the various nations that oppressed them throughout history. Instead, he came as a spiritual ruler who would free them from the effects of sin. As a spiritual ruler of the Jews, then, he had the authority to abolish (or at least suspend) a part of the moral law. He did that for this case of adultery, but I do not find where he did that for murder.
 

:hello: Thanks for putting it bluntly, baddad, though for most people moving to another country isn't so simple. I was getting a little lonesome without someone else to back me up!
 
From an ABC/USA today poll
"44 percent were satisfied with the overall quality of the American medical system."

From CBS
"92 per cent of Canadians grade the overall quality of health-care services available to them and their families as an A (21 per cent) B (41 per cent) or C (30 per cent)" based on number from the CMA
....I think we can call C as satisfied.....

From Gallup Poll in Great Britian
"38% Very happy, 55% Fairly Happy"

Of course, those polls concern quality of health care, not price. Any poll asking are you happy with the cost of health care would be met with blank stares in other countries, while I'm sure most Americans are VERY unhappy with the cost of health care in our Country. No socialized programs have politicians between patients and doctors...that is just right wing scare tactics. Right now we have insurance companies between patients and doctors. Do you really think that is better? Letting an insurance company tell you what they think should be done to you instead of the doctors? And with socialized medicine you still can pay for anything you want done if you so choose, and it will cost less than it does here. So I really don't see what you are losing. I could pay for a lot of elective surgery in Canada with what I save on insurance premiums here.
Medication cost a fraction of what it cost here in other countries with government run health care...so where is your evidence our government is incapable of running our health care system. I guess you think all those other governments around the world are just better than we are since they can handle it and we can't. ...so since we can't handle social programs, lets get rid of social security, medicare, medicaid, Fema, welfare of any type (including corporate welfare), ect. ect.....
But I don't think you've done much research on this other than spouting the Fox news scare tactics. 14 Months ago Glenn Beck was doing a series about the horrible state of healthcare in America. He said the system was broke and that "it is a shame in the greatest country on earth we have the worst health care system"...now, just a few months later, with a Obama pushing for health care reform he has done a 180 and says things like "why would we want to change the greatest health care system on earth?" LOL...yeah....as usual the Fox talking points change depending on who is in office. Anything Obama proposes is evil and trying to destroy America according to them, yet they sat idly by while Bush and Cheny trashed the Constitution for 8 years. So I'm pretty much done with thread and anyone who can't think for themselves and wants to repeat the right wing talking points like you did by stating
"If you really champion socialized medicine, then please wait until Obama, Pelosi, Reid & Co. pass socialized medicine here in the US, subscribe to their plan, and purposely give yourself some sort of cancer. Wait for 5 years to see what sort of treatment you receive, then report back here."

The right wing knows they'll lose the debate if its honest, so they resort to lies like "Obama's Death Panels" and "your children will die while waiting for surgery'...maybe I should move to another country like baddad suggest. But I'd much rather stay here and make this country better.
 


And the command to kill Adulterers? And the command to kill homosexuals? Jesus said he was there to fullfill the law, which according to the new testement he did by paying the sacrifice for everyone's sins.

That's everyone.

So that excludes murderers from suffering any punishment on behalf of CHRISTIANS.

Now, non-christians can do what they will. They aren't under the moral obligations of the new testiment, therefor they can enjoy the sweet revenge of watching a man fry on old sparky.

After all, your argument is to fullfill the law, not to execute the law. This is already expoused in the original statement for the separation of church and state "Render unto Caesar".
 
the people saying obama wants to kill your grandma, comeon, death pannels and socialism are highly exaggerated, there are people besides obama in his administration, and these people are all americans, helping him, if his plans were really detrimental as fox makes it sound, i think people in his administraton would stand up and say something, or they would resign.

ive been going to church since i was little, never seen the point of it, but if you think about it, there must be a god, this perfect convergence of accidents resulting in life just dosent fly with me, from what i learned, when jesus died, the harsh punishment thing ended, giving people the ablilty to ask god for forgiveness for their sins, without sacrificing an animal. but i never really try to convince people that jesus was gods son because i cant prove it, but anyone with enough intelligence to calculate 2x2 should posess enough teraflops too deduce that there is a god.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom