Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

[Woody]

SL

all powerful being would command you to do something so 'animalistic' - even when the would be victim most likely deserves it.

Actually this command only comes from a being with a sense of morality. Animals don't see right and wrong. If one wolf kills another then he is rewarded by becoming the king of the pack. The same is true for lions, boars, horses, etc. The killer becomes the king. Only humans reflect on the loss, evaluate the morality of the action, and assign punishment equivalent to the crime commited. So you are very wrong in your assessment. IT is not animalistic, rather it is moral. Early humans probably did not think in moral terms either.

It would seem you and I need to define some ground rules. From various other discussions of ours, you have told me that the OT is meaningless when it comes to laws

No it is entirely relevant for the unbeliever. All unbelievers are still under the curse of the law. Believers are no longer under the curse, but under grace. The law will be executed to its fullest extent when an unbeliever goes to hell.

"Christ hath redeemed us (believers) from the curse of the law."

Its just simple, basic, fundamental bible doctrine. It doesn't give believers a "license to sin" -- an argument you might want to take to the arminian forum because they will agree. I'm tired of debating it myself.

That of course isn't to mention the equally pertinent command that you should stone your son to death if he's naughty, stone prostitutes to death, stone your wife to death if she has an affair and also stone children to death if they show disrespect to their parents.

Whole lotta stonin goin on eh.

But we would not be so all alone. Everybody must get stoned. -- Bob Dylan

It's a wonder, given god's commands, that there's anyone still alive.

Yeah, he could have raptured Noah and his family, and nobody could bad mouth God.

1) If a man has killed another man, would you kill him? only if I was the executioner, but I approve of his action, as sanctioned by our judicial system.

2) If your wife slept with another man, would you kill her? No, it is not legal in our country, and I wouldn't do it anyway. It probably indicates a failure on my part.

3) When driving through the red light district, would you stop off and slaughter a few prositutes? No, we don't have a whore district, but we do have several pubs down the street -- I'm in a college town. I wouldn't do it anyway, even if our law said it was ok

4) Because you wouldn't let your son go to a sleepover, he turns around and says he hates you. Would you kill him? That's not cursing me. Cursing me is when he says he wishes I was dead, and behaves accordingly. No, I wouldn't kill him -- it would land me in prison.

5) If you answer 'no' to any of the above, do you agree that you're now ignoring god's laws, while sitting here trying to justify one of those laws to me? No, you do not understand how the OT laws apply. They apply in the final judgement of humanity. They still apply in principle today. The law is based on equity. A human life is worth a human life, no more no less. When you take a human life you forfeit your own -- that is fairness.

6) What exactly makes that law any more valid than the other laws I have highlighted? Common Sense.

7) Do you not see something inherently wrong with an all loving being commanding you to kill your own children? yes, but he only did that with Abraham. In the 40 year pilgrimage, these laws all applied to set the jewish people apart from everyone else. It isn't needed anymore, but served to bring us to our schoolmaster

Gal 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

Galatians 3:25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.


8) What role does jesus play in the undertaking of these laws, considering he seemingly has an opinion on the matter that differs to the OT god's laws? He fulfilled the laws, and hence justifies all believers becasue his life is worth infinately more than all of ours combined.

9) Are the OT laws still valid? Did jesus not do away with the old laws? (as you have told me several times). Yes for the beleiver, no for the unbeliever.

10) If jesus has not done away with the old laws, why are you not circumcised, why do you eat pork, why do you work on the weekend, why don't you kill your children? already explained -- I'm not a jew on a 40 year dessert pilgrimage with Moses.

11) If jesus has done away with the old laws, why are you trying to justify the murder of humans, (whether they're nasty humans or not)? Murder is punishable by execution, if you think someone should not pay with their life, then you justify murder, not me. You say its ok for them to live. Sticking them in prison does not punish them for the crime.

Now that I've answered your questions, how about answering mine:

1) You believe humans evolved from animals? (Yes or no)
2) Humans are really animals as well. (yes or no)
3) It is rational to destroy a predatory dog that has killed a child and tasted the blood of a human, when it is no fault of the victim or the owner? (Yes or no)
4) If humans are evolved animals, isn't it rational to destroy a human predator?

And what standard do you use exactly? Several times you've 'doomed' me to hell and judged me and yet you've never even met me.

The bible is the standard.

Does jesus?

He didn't say "no" when he was executed, now did he?

Second time, hundredth time or gazillionth time is irrelevant to the discussion.

You did not give your daughter life the first time anymore than you can give it to her a second time after she is dead.

My questions were to show me serial killers that had been released to kill again. From the report, when he was arrested for his murders he got several life sentences without ever being allowed free.

This was a case in England. Did you read about the girl he strangled unconscious and masturbated over? He did not go to prison for that one, because she didn't die.

Nonsense. jesus even showed you how to do it. When it came to his life, he did forfeit it. You christians keep on telling me how you want to be like christ. You'll never get there if you don't do things how he did things.

Use a little common sense here. When some guy hits me on the face, it isn't the same thing as when he points a gun at my head. I wouldn't turn the other cheek anyway -- sorry I guess I don't measure up to the standarrd, but then I never will. Put it on my list of failures 'K.

Again, give me a good reason to intervene with god's will? What if the children that die would have grown up to be serial killers, Woody?

I suppose you kill all of humanity to make sure all the "would be" and "could be" victims are covered. Or you could deal with each human on a case by case basis. OK the serial killer was molested as a child -- let's understand that -- but that doesn't give him the right to do it to someone else. The key here is reform. I don't have the right to go out as a vigilante and kill the guy, but the government is perfectly within its domain to assign and execute a death penalty, and it is acting responsibly, by saying the guy made a real bad choice and now comes the consequence.

No. He gets to be with satan. You just said he goes to hell a little bit earlier.

He gets to see his maker, and he goes to hell.

Nothing wrong with them having their own little opinions. Now all they need to do is provide the evidence.

There is plenty of historical evidence, but you'll never accept it. The bible, in itself is historical evidence, which you do not accept merely because of the "supernatural claims" made in it. We have already beat the subject to death anyway. There are several atheists that concur that Jesus was only a man, no more. Even the jews agree with that. Their authorities were there and are accused of conspiracy. Why don't they deny it? Why don't they deny a prophet named Jesus never existed? It certainly would help them remove the "christ-killer" stigma, now wouldn't it?

 

[SnakeLord]

I agree with God

Sorry Dave, let me clarify.. You agree with god when he says to stone to death children that disrespect their parents?

but not being a Levite priest and not living in the year 2000bc or so I realise that this doesn't apply to me.

Right, fair enough. The OT is redundant. You're not an ancient jew so god's old laws are meaningless. Now, with relevance to the discussion, please justify the death penalty.

Actually this command only comes from a being with a sense of morality. Animals don't see right and wrong.

But we have morality now since we went against god and learnt right and wrong, (the fruit). god wanted us to remain animals so we would not be able to morally accept or reject his actions, but now we can. From a moral standpoint, (although this clearly doesn't ring true in your brain), killing is bad.

What I meant by "animalistic" is to kill someone and not even give it a moments thought afterwards.

No it is entirely relevant for the unbeliever. All unbelievers are still under the curse of the law

So what are you saying? Unbelievers still have to stone their children and prostitutes to death? I doubt it would work Woody because.. well.. they're unbelievers. The unbelievers don't.. uhh.. believe - and thus wouldn't pay any attention to it.

Whole lotta stonin goin on eh.

Certainly, that's what happens when you listen to all loving sky beings.

only if I was the executioner, but I approve of his action, as sanctioned by our judicial system.

But why would you kill the man? You told me you would kill the man because god says to in the OT - but then go on to tell me that the OT is irrelevant to you, that you're no longer under it's law. Instead, you're under the law of the NT - jesus law. jesus says: "let he who is without sin cast the first stone". Are you without sin Woody? I don't think so, and thus you would be going against jesus words while trying to satisfy an ancient law that you say only applies to unbelievers. Are you an unbeliever Woody?

That's not cursing me. Cursing me is when he says he wishes I was dead, and behaves accordingly. No, I wouldn't kill him -- it would land me in prison.

You seem to be implying that the only thing that would stop you from doing it, is human law, (prison). Are you saying you would stone your son to death if it was legal?

yes, but he only did that with Abraham.

So you do see something wrong with it. Good, we're getting somewhere.

And no, he didn't just do it with Abraham - Not only was the command given to everyone, but he made some woman the other year stone her children to death.

Did jesus not do away with the old laws? (as you have told me several times). Yes for the beleiver, no for the unbeliever.

So, as you state here - for the believer, (you), the old laws have been done away with. As such, why are you trying to justify the killing of people, (and bizarrely by using the old laws that jesus has done away with)?

Murder is punishable by execution, if you think someone should not pay with their life, then you justify murder, not me. You say its ok for them to live.

Then it would seem I'm with jesus. I don't in any way justify the murders they committed, but it is not my place to want or ask that the murderer be killed. That is the job god will do when the time comes. No? Do we not all get judged eventually? So why think you're in a position to do that judging now? Your only excuse was that it's OT law, but then turn around and tell me that jesus did away with OT law. Make up your mind Woody, you're all over the place.

Sticking them in prison does not punish them for the crime.

I disagree.

1) You believe humans evolved from animals? (Yes or no)

The evidence would suggest that man has evolved - and has evolved from simpler organisms - as is the case with every animal, of which we are one.

2) Humans are really animals as well. (yes or no)

Certainly.

3) It is rational to destroy a predatory dog that has killed a child and tasted the blood of a human, when it is no fault of the victim or the owner? (Yes or no)

I am a eager proponent of survival. If anything becomes a threat to my survival or the survival of my children/family, then I'd kill it without blinking. Need I kill that dog once it has been captured and put in a cell? No.

Tigers would undoubtedly rip you a new asshole given the chance, but zoos seem to work perfectly well. You undoubtedly go around zoos demanding that all the predatory animals be slaughtered.

4) If humans are evolved animals, isn't it rational to destroy a human predator?

If he threatens my life personally or the lives of my children/family - certainly. Need they be killed once they have been captured and put in a cell? No. Of course some would argue that they deserve it - but where is the punishment? They get killed quickly and in lines with certainly moral obligations, (painless poisons etc), and that's it. Personally I would rather see them stripped of everything but the bear essentials and then made to suffer a life behind bars without privilege.

It's different for you because you think there's a life part II.

You did not give your daughter life the first time

Yes I did.

This was a case in England. Did you read about the girl he strangled unconscious and masturbated over? He did not go to prison for that one, because she didn't die.

I have already agreed that the justice system isn't always a working system, but we were talking about killers. The moment he was arrested for murder, he was never let out again.

OK the serial killer was molested as a child -- let's understand that -- but that doesn't give him the right to do it to someone else.

The Killer murders someone so you then murder him. Anyway, sorry, what were you saying about not having the right to do it to someone else?

but the government is perfectly within its domain to assign and execute a death penalty, and it is acting responsibly

What about wrongful killings? You have condemned an innocent man to die - and it's doubtful your god would look favourably on that.

Still, it's interesting to see one of the most religious areas in the US, (Texas), conduct more executions than any other US state. I guess they're all living by OT law aswell, (even though you say jesus did away with it).

There is plenty of historical evidence, but you'll never accept it

No there isn't.

The bible, in itself is historical evidence, which you do not accept merely because of the "supernatural claims" made in it.

So you're telling me gilgamesh, brahma, tiamat, and allah are real, are "historical evidence"?

Why don't they deny it? Why don't they deny a prophet named Jesus never existed? It certainly would help them remove the "christ-killer" stigma, now wouldn't it?

They don't have to. I've spent quite some time around jewish people - and I have noticed that unlike christians, they tend to just get on with it, with no concern to other people's beliefs. How many jews you get knocking on your door trying to sell you a bible and get you to go to the synagogue with them?

The "christ killer stigma" is your problem, not theirs. You can view jews in whatever way you like, (and people have for millennia), but they just get on with it. They go about their business, making money and believing what they want to and that's that. You lot are the complete opposite.

 

[davewhite04]

Sorry Dave, let me clarify.. You agree with god when he says to stone to death children that disrespect their parents?

Let me put it another way. God is the creator of everything including morallity, what He says goes. But being a Christian I follow Christ, and not being a Jew nevermind a Levite priest the passage you are referring only tells a story, and is meaningless to the way I live my life. I suppose using the word agree is wrong, as I don't agree with it in this day and age.

Right, fair enough. The OT is redundant. You're not an ancient jew so god's old laws are meaningless. Now, with relevance to the discussion, please justify the death penalty.

The many rules that were governed by the priests in that day and age are redundant, however the wisdom contained in the Old Testament is not.

If you mean the death penalty as it stands today, then I simply do not agree with it.

 

[answers]

"When will you people realize you are living a big fat lie?"

The tuesday after eternity.

 

[answers]

"He says to kill children that are disrespectful to their parents. Do you agree with god,"

By the way this isn't Christian teaching,this is Old Testament teaching. God drew a hard line back then. And He was justified to do so. But out of mercy He has brought in a New Convernant which abolishes much of the Old Law such as this. Saw it on Chaser T.V where they confronted some wierdo Theology Teacher with this issue. And said look the bible says that homosexuality is wrong, but in the same old testament book, it says to kill children who disrespect their parents. But this anti homosexual teaching was taught by Paul in the New Testament as well, making it a teaching still relevant to our society. The old teachings were for an ancient society totally unlike ours. You can't expect us to think everything they did was logical, just like looking forward they'd be wondering what the heck we are doing.

 

[Ophiolite]

That's nice. We shouldn't kill children, but it's OK to condemn homosexuals.

[A small tip on the side. It isn't worth much, but it's free. Learn to spell Covenant.]

 

[(Q)]

Let me put it another way. God is the creator of everything including morallity, what He says goes.

"We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation, of mental honesty. They destroy the manliness of man. They promise eternal rewards for belief, for credulity, for what they call faith.

These religions teach the slave virtues. They make inanimate things holy, and falsehoods sacred. They create artificial crimes. To eat meat on Friday, to enjoy yourself on Sunday, to eat on fast-days, to be happy in Lent, to dispute a priest, to ask for evidence, to deny a creed, to express your sincere thought, all these acts are sins, crimes against some god, To give your honest opinion about Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ, is far worse than to maliciously slander your neighbor. To question or doubt miracles. is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the obedient, the credulous, the cringers, the kneelers, the meek, the unquestioning, the true believers, are regarded as moral, as virtuous. It is not enough to be honest, generous and useful; not enough to be governed by evidence, by facts. In addition to this, you must believe. These things are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural conceptions of virtue."

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/bible_substitute.html

 

[SnakeLord]

God is the creator of everything including morallity, what He says goes.

Sorry, my sense of morality disagrees with the majority of things he's ever said. Kind of strange considering you say he created that morality.

Further to which, what "he says clearly doesn't go". What's the statistics concerning adultery? 1 in 3? etc.

I suppose using the word agree is wrong, as I don't agree with it in this day and age.

So somehow the killing of children as commanded by god was once moral? (I'm not talking how the people saw it but how god saw it). So what has changed with his version of morals since then?

The many rules that were governed by the priests in that day and age are redundant

k. The OT is redundant. god's laws are redundant. Was just clarifying.

however the wisdom contained in the Old Testament is not.

What wisdom would that be?

If you mean the death penalty as it stands today, then I simply do not agree with it

Good to know, but then I wonder why you bothered responding to a question I posed to Woody concerning his attempted justification of the death penalty. Hmm.

By the way this isn't Christian teaching,this is Old Testament teaching. God drew a hard line back then. And He was justified to do so.

How was the commanding of slaughtering children justified? Ok, he "drew a hard line". That doesn't make the command justified, just the commander a malicious immoral bastard.

But out of mercy He has brought in a New Convernant which abolishes much of the Old Law such as this.

Too late for all those dead ancient kids I guess. Still, while we're on the subject lets' listen to what jesus has to say on the matter:

"I have not come to abolish the law..."

"I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law"

"It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the least stroke of a pen to drop out of the Law."

Oopsie, jesus disagrees with you.

The old teachings were for an ancient society totally unlike ours.

So at what time does a society become known as "ancient" and "unlike ours"? Would you not consider society at the time of jesus as "ancient" and "unlike ours"? When does that day come, and when it does come do more of god's laws hit the shitpile? Who decides exactly what laws hit the shitpile? Does god turn around and tell you to ignore them? I would consider that the most probable scenario and yet jesus said not to ignore them - indeed saying it was more likely that heaven and earth would disappear than for one of the old laws to become redundant. So, we're obviously not listening to jesus' say on the matter, so who are we listening to?

1) If they are redundant why is Woody trying to justify the death penalty? Is he a fraud christian?

2) If they are not redundant, as jesus stated, why aren't you listening to them?

You can't expect us to think everything they did was logical

? If there was anything illogical about what they did, it was because a god made them do those illogical things, which means that god was being illogical. No?

 

[Woody]

SL said:

But why would you kill the man? You told me you would kill the man because god says to in the OT - but then go on to tell me that the OT is irrelevant to you, that you're no longer under it's law. Instead, you're under the law of the NT - jesus law.

I just told you that the OT law still applies to the unbelievers, therefore the murderer should be terminated.

What I meant by "animalistic" is to kill someone and not even give it a moments thought afterwards.

What about plenty of deliberate forthought before the execution, ie a judicial trial?

So what are you saying? Unbelievers still have to stone their children and prostitutes to death? I doubt it would work Woody because.. well.. they're unbelievers. The unbelievers don't.. uhh.. believe - and thus wouldn't pay any attention to it.

They are under the curse after they die -- these things you mention are the sins they will pay for in the afterlife. They didn't take someone's life therefore they don't merit the death penalty from our judicial system.

"let he who is without sin cast the first stone".

Yeah, she was an adulteress, not a murderer.

You seem to be implying that the only thing that would stop you from doing it, is human law, (prison). Are you saying you would stone your son to death if it was legal?

I wouldn't, but a son that bad off won't live long anyway -- God promises his time is coming soon. Ever wonder what happens to runaway children?

So you do see something wrong with it.

Nope, Abraham was willing to go through with it, as was Isaac. You forget that God has the power to resurrect, and Abraham believed God would do this with his son. God was very pleased with Abraham's faith.

So, as you state here - for the believer, (you), the old laws have been done away with. As such, why are you trying to justify the killing of people, (and bizarrely by using the old laws that jesus has done away with)?

Because they are still under the law, Christ is of no effect for them.

Tigers would undoubtedly rip you a new asshole given the chance, but zoos seem to work perfectly well. You undoubtedly go around zoos demanding that all the predatory animals be slaughtered.

Nope, this is not what we're talking about. We are talking about an animal (someone's dog) that was trusted to be around humans and now he decides to kill them. How long do you think he'll last at the dog pound? Not long.

I have already agreed that the justice system isn't always a working system, but we were talking about killers. The moment he was arrested for murder, he was never let out again.

In other words, someone has to die first before he can be called a murderer, and even then he still gets to live. So tell me Snakelord:

1)how bad does the bastard have to be before he deserves the death penalty? There is always a chance he can escape you know.
2)What about the danger he presents to other cellmates? Prison isn't risk-free you know. Do his cellmates deserve to die?
3) What if he kills then surrenders, then prisons get too crowded (like here in the US) then he gets out and kills again, then surrenders again, etc.
4) What do you do if you can't practically house all these murderers in a prison? As I recall, your beloved Brittain started a prison colony called "Australia." So should the murderer be turned loose or executed when there is no place to put him?

The Killer murders someone so you then murder him. Anyway, sorry, what were you saying about not having the right to do it to someone else?

I disagree, You are the one that justifies murder. The killer takes an innocent life, and doesn't forfeit his own. A lifetime in a jail cell isn't enough for what that person did. Execution isn't enough either, but that's the worst penalty we have to offer. The innocent victim deserved to live, but the murderer did not deserve to live. Your way -- the victim is dead, and the murderer lives on. My way -- the victim is dead, but their life was worth enough to make the bastard pay for what he did.

What about wrongful killings? You have condemned an innocent man to die - and it's doubtful your god would look favourably on that.

That is indeed a terrible thing, and the guilty party is the bastard that didn't own up to his murderous deeds -- instead he let someone else take the fall. The murderer is guilty of yet another murder. Do you think it actually bothers him? It just shows you what kind of scum they really are.

The Killer murders someone so you then murder him. Anyway, sorry, what were you saying about not having the right to do it to someone else?

And what about when he gets out of our overcrowded prison system to kill yet again? OK then, the prisoners have all the rights to live, but we civlians just have to live (die) with it. How about if all prisoners were released in your neighborhood, where you personally have to live with it. Would that change your view?

“ There is plenty of historical evidence, but you'll never accept it ”
No there isn't.

See what I mean?

The "christ killer stigma" is your problem, not theirs. You can view jews in whatever way you like, (and people have for millennia), but they just get on with it. They go about their business, making money and believing what they want to and that's that. You lot are the complete opposite.

OK, snakelord you're right, everybody just loves the jews. There is no evidence that they ever had a problem. The holocast never happened. The spanish inquisition never happened either. Yep, history is all a fairy tale, and we can't trust anyone in the past to get the facts straight. It would be easy enough for the Jewish community to tell the truth (a prophet named Jesus never lived), since they were accused of conspiracy from the beginning. It didn't really bother the jewish leaders when their congregation left the temple in large numbers to convert to christianity -- right Snakelord? They don't really care if nobody shows up at their place of worship, right?

So you're telling me gilgamesh, brahma, tiamat, and allah are real, are "historical evidence"?

Did any of those guys ever have supper with a bunch of people?

"This do in remembrance of me." Who gave that command?

And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me.

We had communion today in remembrance of what Jesus said. So, if it wasn't Jesus, then tell me who lied.

Good to know, but then I wonder why you bothered responding to a question I posed to Woody concerning his attempted justification of the death penalty. Hmm.

Not all Christians agree with the death penalty. I also don't agree that all murdreers should automatically be executed. I believe abortion, for example, is murder, but I don't believe every woman should be executed that has commited abortion. However, a serial killer that's brutally killed, and sexually offended dozens of children -- that is another matter -- they deserve the death penalty -- good riddance.

 

[TheTruthSeeker]

I'm a new poster, just thought I'd post a quick reply to this.

You cannot prove that Jesus exists. It has never been done and never will be done. If you are a Christian and you are trying to prove that Jesus exists then you are in error for doing this. The Bible says clearly:

"6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." in Hebrews 11:6

Ultimately Christianity and Religion are matters of faith, which is ultimately a personal choice. (Think about it this way, how could you have faith if you could prove Jesus's existence?) There is no such thing as "converting" other people to a religion. If you felt you have or can "convert" people then you are wrong as well. Ever heard that phrase "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink?" What it means is that you can teach somebody all you want about something, they ultimately have to decide on their own if they want to accept it or not. You cannot put a gun up to somebody's head and force them to change religions, nor have I ever seen anybody be convinced or not convinced of religion via a philosophical argument (its no wonder, considering that philosophy itself is a contradiction - it proves itself irrelevant by proving that you can't know anything at all). In other words, if you are religious or non-religious, you will not convince anybody of anything by making arguments against the other side.

 

[SnakeLord]

I just told you that the OT law still applies to the unbelievers, therefore the murderer should be terminated

Oh I see.

So basically if the murderer is a christian you wouldn't give him the death penalty, but if he's an atheist you would?

I suppose if a child unbeliever disrespects his parents you would also try and ensure that he's stoned to death. Right?

What about plenty of deliberate forthought before the execution, ie a judicial trial?

Well, premeditated murder is generally considered worse than heat of the moment killing.

They are under the curse after they die -- these things you mention are the sins they will pay for in the afterlife.

So in hell these people will be stoning prostitutes to death?

They didn't take someone's life therefore they don't merit the death penalty from our judicial system.

According to god and the law that unbelievers are under they do merit the death penalty. Seems everyone is ignoring god.

Yeah, she was an adulteress, not a murderer.

To god, it is just as much a crime punishable by death.

Ever wonder what happens to runaway children?

Certainly, I happen to know a few. They're just like anyone else.. some end up dying, some end up taking drugs, some end up with good jobs. What's your point?

Nope

Now you're contradicting yourself. I asked you the same question twice. The first time you said yes, now you're saying no. Take a moment to think about it heh?

God was very pleased with Abraham's faith

Incorrect. god was pleased with Abraham's "fear".

Because they are still under the law, Christ is of no effect for them.

And in saying, you must also support the stoning to death of unbeliever children that disrespect their parents. Oh and lets not forget the killing of those that perform magic.

In other words, someone has to die first before he can be called a murderer

Uhh.. yes lol. Just woke up?

1)how bad does the bastard have to be before he deserves the death penalty? There is always a chance he can escape you know.

In England.. the bastard never gets the death penalty - along with a further 86 countries. We don't seem to have a problem. We don't have escaped serial killers running all over the place.

I guess all of England's murderers aren't unbelievers, and so we can't kill them.

2)What about the danger he presents to other cellmates? Prison isn't risk-free you know. Do his cellmates deserve to die?

Serious criminals do not get shared cells. But according to you.. yes, his cellmates do deserve to die, (if they're unbelievers). So you're justifying the death of that cellmate if you do it, but not if they do it?

3) What if he kills then surrenders, then prisons get too crowded (like here in the US) then he gets out and kills again, then surrenders again, etc.

Why would the killer get out again?

4) What do you do if you can't practically house all these murderers in a prison? As I recall, your beloved Brittain started a prison colony called "Australia." So should the murderer be turned loose or executed when there is no place to put him?

A) It's 'Britain'.

B) It shows how much has improved since then, and we don't really have that much of a problem where we need a spare country to dump people on.

C) Imagine if everyone wasn't as quick as you to condemn someone to death. Maybe jesus wouldn't have been killed for his crimes.

The killer takes an innocent life, and doesn't forfeit his own. A lifetime in a jail cell isn't enough for what that person did.

How isn't a lifetime in prison enough? From a religious perspective, there's a life part II - and if that killer acknowledged jesus just before the electricity went through him then he gets to go to the good life part II. What justice has been served by his death?

Execution isn't enough either, but that's the worst penalty we have to offer.

I beg to differ. There are worse things than death.

That is indeed a terrible thing, and the guilty party is the bastard that didn't own up to his murderous deeds -- instead he let someone else take the fall.

No. The guilty party are those that decided to kill the man.

And what about when he gets out of our overcrowded prison system to kill yet again?

Why would he?

How about if all prisoners were released in your neighborhood, where you personally have to live with it. Would that change your view?

About the legal system - sure, about the death penalty - no.

OK, snakelord you're right, everybody just loves the jews. There is no evidence that they ever had a problem. The holocast never happened. The spanish inquisition never happened either.

You seemingly misunderstood what I was saying. Try again.

It didn't really bother the jewish leaders when their congregation left the temple in large numbers to convert to christianity -- right Snakelord? They don't really care if nobody shows up at their place of worship, right?

Frankly, no. Just because that's how you christians are, don't try and lump it on everyone. How many jews you see knocking on your door telling you to join their synagogue service?

Did any of those guys ever have supper with a bunch of people?

Gilgamesh did, yes. What was your point?

We had communion today in remembrance of what Jesus said. So, if it wasn't Jesus, then tell me who lied.

"go home Samwise"

We had a chat yesterday about Frodo Baggins. So, if it wasn't Frodo Baggins, then tell me who lied.

 

[davewhite04]

"We cannot depend on what are called "inspired books," or the religions of the world. These religions are based on the supernatural, and according to them we are under obligation to worship and obey some supernatural being, or beings. All these religions are inconsistent with intellectual liberty. They are the enemies of thought, of investigation, of mental honesty. They destroy the manliness of man. They promise eternal rewards for belief, for credulity, for what they call faith.

These religions teach the slave virtues. They make inanimate things holy, and falsehoods sacred. They create artificial crimes. To eat meat on Friday, to enjoy yourself on Sunday, to eat on fast-days, to be happy in Lent, to dispute a priest, to ask for evidence, to deny a creed, to express your sincere thought, all these acts are sins, crimes against some god, To give your honest opinion about Jehovah, Mohammed or Christ, is far worse than to maliciously slander your neighbor. To question or doubt miracles. is far worse than to deny known facts. Only the obedient, the credulous, the cringers, the kneelers, the meek, the unquestioning, the true believers, are regarded as moral, as virtuous. It is not enough to be honest, generous and useful; not enough to be governed by evidence, by facts. In addition to this, you must believe. These things are the foes of morality. They subvert all natural conceptions of virtue."

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/bible_substitute.html

So what is right? How do you know what is right?

 

[davewhite04]

Sorry, my sense of morality disagrees with the majority of things he's ever said. Kind of strange considering you say he created that morality.

Further to which, what "he says clearly doesn't go". What's the statistics concerning adultery? 1 in 3? etc.

Exactly.

John 3:19

19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

So somehow the killing of children as commanded by god was once moral? (I'm not talking how the people saw it but how god saw it). So what has changed with his version of morals since then?

Read the New Testament, and the Old Testament in context..

k. The OT is redundant. god's laws are redundant. Was just clarifying.

Are you completely dumb or just an ignorant twit?

What wisdom would that be?

Obviously you haven't read it or you don't know what wisdom means/is. I suspect a bit of both.

 

[(Q)]

So what is right? How do you know what is right?

I'm not sure what you're asking? Are you sincerely asking me the difference between right and wrong and how to come to that conclusion? Surely, you can't be serious?

Or are you asking what isn't left?

 

[davewhite04]

I'm not sure what you're asking? Are you sincerely asking me the difference between right and wrong and how to come to that conclusion? Surely, you can't be serious?

Or are you asking what isn't left?

If you're an agnostic/atheist where do you get your rules from?

 

[Woody]

SL said:

So basically if the murderer is a christian you wouldn't give him the death penalty, but if he's an atheist you would?

I suppose if a child unbeliever disrespects his parents you would also try and ensure that he's stoned to death. Right?

Yep, biased ain't I? Well not quite -- Let's put it this way, and you're smart enough to figure the rest. I think the OT law is harsh. But a child that disrespects his parents breaks one of the big ten -- I wouldn't stone them, but they do have a big problem. I also feel that a christian is my brother or sister, hence I wouldn't want to throw the switch on them, anymore than you'd want life in prison for your wife if she murdered someone. It's a personal issue.

Another point -- christians do not agree on capital punishment, however without capital punishment, my savior couldn't die on the cross for my sins. Hence my opinion can not be stated as purely biblical regarding capital punishment.

Well, premeditated murder is generally considered worse than heat of the moment killing.

Your way, don't they both get the same punishment? How would you punish the US judicial system? Would the jurors be guilty of premeditated murder for finding the defendant guilty or would you slap it on the judge?

So in hell these people will be stoning prostitutes to death?

Not exactly.

To god, it is just as much a crime punishable by death.

But not to Jesus.

Certainly, I happen to know a few. They're just like anyone else.. some end up dying, some end up taking drugs, some end up with good jobs. What's your point?

My point is that their life is in grave danger.

Now you're contradicting yourself. I asked you the same question twice. The first time you said yes, now you're saying no. Take a moment to think about it heh?

I'm sorry for the confusion, I guess you'll have to ask again.

Incorrect. god was pleased with Abraham's "fear".

According to the NT, it was faith that pleased him. "Without faith it is impossible to please god."

Uhh.. yes lol. Just woke up?

So attempted murder doesn't count. How would you like to be the "proof positive" evidence?

Serious criminals do not get shared cells.

Lavish indeed. Perhaps we should send you some of Castro's cuban prisoners that he released in our country. That's how cuba takes care of its crime problem. Perhaps the US could release all it's criminals in your country so you all can take care of them.

Why would the killer get out again?

Because the prisons are overcrowded.

How isn't a lifetime in prison enough?

My opinion vs. yours.

No. The guilty party are those that decided to kill the man.

My opinion vs. yours. Why should you care anyway, aren't humans just animals?

Frankly, no. Just because that's how you christians are, don't try and lump it on everyone. How many jews you see knocking on your door telling you to join their synagogue service?

So they frankly wouldn't care if nobody showed up at the service.

We had a chat yesterday about Frodo Baggins. So, if it wasn't Frodo Baggins, then tell me who lied.

Never heard of him.

 

[(Q)]

If you're an agnostic/atheist where do you get your rules from?

What rules?

 

[davewhite04]

What rules?

Hmm so you have no rules?

 

[Godless]

Hmmm...I think davewhite means how does one have morals without religion. Right dave?

Here dave have a nice read Morality without god

Godless

 

[(Q)]

Hmm so you have no rules?

Dave, please, stop beating around the bush and explain yourself - what rules, exactly, do you refer?