another botched execution.

[Smart_Guy]

I wouldn't

 

[methylatedghosts]

I wouldn't

So between the two of us, a man condemned to death would still be alive, huh?

 

[Pegg]

Because justice demands an eye for an eye. No exceptions, E V E R !

Matthew 5:39
. . . but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


And we're justified in killing humans for food because that's what we do to animals. A person is no different really, they have edible meat on them which is just as nutritiousness as the meat of other animals.

ok, well when someone murders someone in your family, let us know what your conscience tells you.

 

[Pegg]

Not sure about Christianity, but in Islam there are exceptions. Maybe turning the other cheek is part of those exceptions.

But that's another subject for another time

there is no death penalty in chrisitanity... it requires neutrality in political affairs and really, government is political, so christianity is not supposed to be involved with the decisions of government.

 

[Father Heathen]

Oh, good I don't much like arguing ^_^

On a side note...

I don't feel that simply calling something asinine and nonsensical neither makes it so, nor is it much of ah argument either...,

Touche'.

 

[Pegg]

Do you include the judge, jury and executioner in that last statement, or do you conveniently ignore them - the fact that we are also animals aside. I may be ignorant on the matter, but to my knowledge no other animal kills it's own kind for some perverted sense of "justice".

In my country, the last person to be executed was 1957. The murder rate increased for a time, but we're now at the lowest levels since 25 years ago.

An eye for an eye is not justice. It does NOTHING to solve the problem, and there is NO excuse for it. It doesn't even make sense, like the mother who strikes her child for striking another... "don't kill people, or we'll kill you". When all is said and done, you are ending the life of another human being, regardless of which side of the law you're on, and that kind of primitive "justice" is simply unjustifiable.

I notice people often bring up "what if it's someone you know who got murdered" while conveniently ignoring the fact that the murderer also has beloved friends and family. So I turn that on you. Can you confidently say you would support killing your husband or child if they killed someone else? Why should you have to suffer through that kind of grief as well as knowing they'd done it, and the only contact you could have with them is one hour per week, under the watchful eye of a man in uniform with a gun...?

I support divine justice... its that simple.

If nobody murdered anyone, there would be no need for such justice to be implemented. But when its not implemented, people feel free to do whatever they like. There must be some way to counterbalance that.

 

[Smart_Guy]

So between the two of us, a man condemned to death would still be alive, huh?

Yes sir, he would.

 

[methylatedghosts]

I support divine justice... its that simple.

If nobody murdered anyone, there would be no need for such justice to be implemented. But when its not implemented, people feel free to do whatever they like. There must be some way to counterbalance that.

Are you saying that what stops you from murdering is this "divine justice" thing?

Cos I don't believe in any sort of divine justice, yet I'd never want to kill someone. And nor do I steal, cheat etc etc...

You don't need to be killing people to prevent others from doing the same

 

[methylatedghosts]

How about you, @Pegg

Would you be the one to kill a man? Would you be the executioner?

 

[Pegg]

Are you saying that what stops you from murdering is this "divine justice" thing?

Cos I don't believe in any sort of divine justice, yet I'd never want to kill someone. And nor do I steal, cheat etc etc...

You don't need to be killing people to prevent others from doing the same

of course not. What i'm saying is that not everyone has the same respect for life and they are willing to bring harm to others.

For those people, there must be something to counteract their violence.

 

[Pegg]

How about you, @Pegg

Would you be the one to kill a man? Would you be the executioner?

No i wouldnt.

But i respect the governments right to do so.

 

[methylatedghosts]

contradictory beliefs in this thread:

1) people should not kill others
2) people who kill others should be killed by other people who don't.
3) executioners are not included in the group "people who kill others"

 

[methylatedghosts]

of course not. What i'm saying is that not everyone has the same respect for life and they are willing to bring harm to others.

For those people, there must be something to counteract their violence.

You would fight fire with fire? You would counteract violence with violence?

 

[methylatedghosts]

No i wouldnt.

But i respect the governments right to do so.

So between yourself, @Smart Guy, and I, if a man in a chair was condemned to death, he would still be alive. Yet you would still believe he should die, no? How would we get out of that pickle? Do we let him go? Surely not, he might murder someone else. Do we keep him in the chair until he dies of dehydration? That's a nasty way to go. Do we put him back in prison and go round the country and find someone who we can shift the responsibility of this mans death to? Or do you take the responsibility of the beliefs you hold that put you in this position and do it yourself?

 

[Pegg]

You would fight fire with fire? You would counteract violence with violence?

No, i wouldnt. I am a christian.

But that doesnt mean i dont respect the governments right to rule as they see fit. My government have no death penalty and that is just as fine as a government who does decide to have a death penalty.

If a government choose to have a death penalty, then they have the right to impose it on murderers. Under the government by God, the death penalty will be imposed and I respect its right to impose it.

 

[Pegg]

So between yourself, @Smart Guy, and I, if a man in a chair was condemned to death, he would still be alive. Yet you would still believe he should die, no? How would we get out of that pickle? Do we let him go? Surely not, he might murder someone else. Do we keep him in the chair until he dies of dehydration? That's a nasty way to go. Do we put him back in prison and go round the country and find someone who we can shift the responsibility of this mans death to? Or do you take the responsibility of the beliefs you hold that put you in this position and do it yourself?

im not an authority, and i wouldnt want to be in a position of authority.

Leave it to the authorities to deal with... thats their job isnt it?

 

[Smart_Guy]

I'm afraid what we want and think are not the decision makers. As I said before, this life is cruel, not perfect. I don't want anyone to die as much as you want @methylatedghosts , but circumstances and demanding justice impose themselves. The argument of "should not take a life" should first be addressed at those murderers who do it in cold blood instead of those seeking justice and prevention.

We still wanna eat meet, but we don't want to slaughter animals for it. At some point we need to survive by doing so if exiled out of our homes to the middle of no where. Life is not always as simple as posting on forums while sitting comfortably and safely at our homes.

Who are we? we are just simple RF members sharing views. Those deciding things in the government are not as simple as we are. They know more and experienced more.

 

[methylatedghosts]

im not an authority, and i wouldnt want to be in a position of authority.

Leave it to the authorities to deal with... thats their job isnt it?

For you to hold the belief that a murderer should be put to death, then you must hold responsibility for that belief. Just like I must hold responsibility for the belief that execution is never okay.

It is your belief, and those of so many others that gives your authorities the power to condemn someone to death. If no one in your country held that belief, your authorities could not have that power. So, therefore, the results of that belief is your responsibility.

So please, I ask you to go back and consider that post in this light, and seriously consider it, without defaulting to authority. The responsibility IS on you, in this game of life and death. What do you do?

My intentions here are not to spring a clever debating trap, but to figure out where your beliefs truly lie, and allow you to confront the very real results of such a belief. The exercise is for you to discover how you feel to condemn a man. Will you play?

 

[methylatedghosts]

I'm afraid what we want and think are not the decision makers. As I said before, this life is cruel, not perfect. I don't want anyone to die as much as you want @methylatedghosts , but circumstances and demanding justice impose themselves. The argument of "should not take a life" should first be addressed at those murderers who do it in cold blood instead of those seeking justice and prevention.

Does an executioner kill in hot blood?

We still wanna eat meet, but we don't want to slaughter animals for it. At some point we need to survive by doing so if exiled out of our homes to the middle of no where. Life is not always as simple as posting on forums while sitting comfortably and safely at our homes.

I have before killed and slaughtered my own meat. It's not something I'm uncomfortable with. I feel it really connects me to the animal t turned into steak, and makes it very real. I'm much more appreciative of the life given up for me

Who are we? we are just simple RF members sharing views. Those deciding things in the government are not as simple as we are. They know more and experienced more.

How many government officials do you know that have experience killing someone tied to a chair?

Our views are the views that are represented in government. Do you really believe execution would be legal if all the citizens thought execution to be wrong?

 

[Pegg]

For you to hold the belief that a murderer should be put to belief, then you must hold responsibility for that belief. Just like I must hold responsibility for the belief that execution is never okay.

It is your belief, and those of so many others that gives your authorities the power to condemn someone to death. If no one in your country held that belief, your authorities could not have that power. So, therefore, the results of that belief is your responsibility.

So please, I ask you to go back and consider that post in this light, and seriously consider it, without defaulting to authority. The responsibility IS on you, in this game of life and death. What do you do?

My intentions here are not to spring a clever debating trap, but to figure out where your beliefs truly lie, and allow you to confront the very real results of such a belief. The exercise is for you to discover how you feel to condemn a man. Will you play?

I do uphold the death penalty... I just dont believe I have the authority to pronounce it or enforce it. But i agree with it. And the reason why i agree with it is because God himself originated it. Of course God has the absolute right to enforce it, but for now, he allow mankind self-rule.

My preference is that no one ever kills or hurts anyone EVER... but that is not realistic because there are some very bad people in the world and for those sorts of people, i support the death penalty whether its brought by God in the future or by the ruling authorities in the meantime.