Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 12, 2005 18:23:15 GMT -5
I'll get back to you tomorrow, but to answer the last part, yes I am against war because I interpret the teachings of Jesus to indicate non-violence. Not necessarily so. Jesus whipped people who were selling stuff at the Temple. He wasn't always Mr Passive-Resistance. Granted MOST of what he said was advocating non-violence but sometimes violence is the only way. Let me put it this way. Let's say you are in a store and have a gun. Someone comes in and gets in a fight with the owner and it becomes apparent that they will shoot and kill the owner. Do you do nothing and let the owner (and maybe yourself) die or do you get out your gun and confron t the gunman? That's essentially the choice we are sometimes given w/ war. Do you stand back and let something bad happen or do you step in and try to right the situation? Sometimes the right thing will hurt someone else. The problem is a blanket support of one view or the other is dangerous. Being totally against war is as stupid as being totally for war. Being totally against the DP is as bad as being for the DP for every infraction. In both cases there is a proper middle ground.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Dec 12, 2005 18:30:09 GMT -5
You never disappoint! I'm glad you are around because you always take the time to give me a real run for my money and that's what I like to see! I'd have to say the same for you. I wouldn't have such long posts unless my counterpart was coming up with good arguments Hm, I don't quite agree with that logic. God definitely knew that the death penalty needed to happen if Jesus was to die for our sins. However, he also knew that betrayal and wrongful accusation were needed if Jesus was to die for our sins; both of those occurred, yet they are condemned actions. I agree that not all killing is murder. However, I think there is a clear difference between God telling Israel to go to war, versus us deciding that someone should die. Then my question is, what logic is it based on? Someone killed this person, therefore their punishment should be death; am I understanding that correctly? Again, that comes back to the idea that the system itself is flawed, not the ideal. I don't think prisoners should have TVs and internet or those types of things. I actually think prisoners should be made to do something productive. But to simply 'get rid of them' if they aren't showing progress in rehabilitation is flawed, because it means that you are no longer punishing them for their crime, you're eliminating them for utilitarian reasons. Firstly, correlational studies have shown that the death penalty is not a deterrant (I won't go into details, but basically, crime rates in states with the death penalty are not any lower than crime rates in states without the death penalty). As for certain criminals deserving death, again, who decided that? You've decided that those particular people deserve death; someone else would extend it to car theft and corporate theft; and history tells us that society is bad at comming up with compromise. Answered above. Yes, but as I mentioned before, I fundamentally believe in giving people as much time as possible to repent. We have no place to judge when a person is a 'lost cause' or not. Agreed, killing isn't always murder. But not only were they under a different rule set (I'll go into detail about my interpretations if you'd like), they were also told, directly by God, specifically what to do. We aren't. The wages of sin is death, true, because all who sin die an earthly death. To say that 'the wages of sin is death' justifies the death penalty is a stretch, because if sin is punished by death, then why is it that only certain sins are punished by death? My interpretation of that passage is not one that supports the death penalty; rather, that passage simply indicates that outside of the grace of God, we die; and even with God, our earthly bodies will die because of sin.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Dec 12, 2005 18:36:56 GMT -5
I'll get back to you tomorrow, but to answer the last part, yes I am against war because I interpret the teachings of Jesus to indicate non-violence. Not necessarily so. Jesus whipped people who were selling stuff at the Temple. He wasn't always Mr Passive-Resistance. Granted MOST of what he said was advocating non-violence but sometimes violence is the only way. Let me put it this way. Let's say you are in a store and have a gun. Someone comes in and gets in a fight with the owner and it becomes apparent that they will shoot and kill the owner. Do you do nothing and let the owner (and maybe yourself) die or do you get out your gun and confron t the gunman? That's essentially the choice we are sometimes given w/ war. Do you stand back and let something bad happen or do you step in and try to right the situation? Sometimes the right thing will hurt someone else. Could you provide passages that indicate that Jesus hurt people in the temple incident? From what I've read, he overturned some tables and let some chickens free. Vandalism, yes; infliction of bodily harm, no. As far as the incident in the store, I know what I would do, but I don't know what is right. To logically equate total support for the death penalty with total opposition for the death penalty is flawed, because it establishes the 'middle ground' as something that occurs exactly between the two extremes. (visual) everyone should die - - - - - MIDDLE - - - - - nobody should die Whereas, realistically (i.e. based on the common perception of the issue), the middle ground is actually between the two moderate sides. everyone dies - - - - - some should die - - MIDDLE - - nobody should die The extreme, in many cases, lies far beyond the middle ground on one side, but close to the middle ground on the other (for example, people who are totally against abortion cannot be equated to people who want the state to enforce abortions).
|
|
Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 13, 2005 18:52:32 GMT -5
The problem is that God does not directly speak to us anymore. Israel had it easy because they just did what God literally told them to do. It's more complicated now because we can't directly ask his advice. Back in my example of WWII: Was the US wrong in entering the war? Was the death of every German and Japanese soldier on the heads of the US soldiers? Or were we fighting for the greater good? In the DP we aren't doing it for the greater good in general but as a fitting punishment for certain crimes. Once again, the pay the piper argument.
The logic is that their crime was so bad that no other punishment is fitting. Whether that logic is right or not is up to interpretation. I can't even really fully support the DP for EVERY violent criminal. Some might have had a good reason, some might have been totally off their rocker, etc. But in some cases it seems the fitting punishment.
You've got a valid point there. If the DP is used it should be used for punishment and not for utilitarian reasons.
Yes but the problem is that nothing is a deterrant if it is not dealt out with certainty. Right now death row takes so very long and is so rare that no one would fear it much. The crips leader who was executed today was in prison for more than 20 years. That's too long! By the 5 year mark they should be freed of the DP or dead. I don't support the DP for every violent criminal, as I said above. But I do support the DP if there is no shadow of a doubt that the criminal did what they did. If we reliably enforced the DP then I think the numbers would turn out far different.
The fact that we aren't is a great burden. And I can't honestly think of why God would all of the sudden quit talking directly to us. It causes these sort of problems. Now everyone argues over what it is that God would want and he's not available to set the record straight. That's one of the big things I really don't understand about the new testament. Now we're on our own in trying to figure things out.
|
|
Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 13, 2005 18:57:01 GMT -5
Sorry, my recollection of the story was different from how it really is. I could have swore that there was something in there about cords or whips or something but alas there is not.
And how on Earth could you doubt that killing the gunman would be the right thing to do?!? Would you really rather stand there and get shot? Does it matter to you how many bodies the gunman could pile up while you do nothing? The situation is a textbook ethics and philosophy question. Should you kill someone to save a bunch of other people or should you stand there and do nothing. Which puts more blood on your hands? Obviously my opinion is that shooting the gunman (whether you kill him or not) is the right choice because it saves innocent people while hurting the guilty party. This is the message you want to send to society. That guilty people lose.
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Dec 13, 2005 19:29:47 GMT -5
The logic is that their crime was so bad that no other punishment is fitting. Whether that logic is right or not is up to interpretation. I can't even really fully support the DP for EVERY violent criminal. Some might have had a good reason, some might have been totally off their rocker, etc. But in some cases it seems the fitting punishment. Well yeah, see what 'seems' one way to you 'seems' a different way to me. I would still say no. Psychologically speaking, somebody who is committing a serious crime does not do so while taking into consideration the fact that they can be caught. People who commit crimes virtually all the time either don't believe they'll be caught, or they know they'll be caught but believe that their personal reasons for committing the crime outweight the consequences. It's because God didn't want to have the rules anymore. He didn't want the hundred-page rulebooks that existed in the Old Testament. Jesus came and not only did he free us from the burden of sin, but he also established a new spiritual mindset that was based in love. No longer do we have to interpret the abstractions of what defines 'murder' and 'justified killing'; we must do what is loving to God and loving to others. It's a textbook ethics question because it has no clear answer, not because the answer is obvious to everyone. The issue that is raised by the question is, are we responsible for the consequences of preserving our moral code? One philosophy (the utilitarian philosophy) states that ethics is based on the greatest good for the greatest number of people; in that case, killing a person before he is capable of causing harm to a greater number of people is justified. The contrary philosophy is the personal code of ethics, whereby one should uphold one's personal code of ethics, and if one does the morally correct thing he is absolved of the consequences of his actions. As I said, I know what I would do: I would shoot the guy. It's not only my survival instinct, it's also my fear of being held responsible for the deaths of others, and my pathos for the other potential victims of the criminal. By the utilitarian standpoint (which is generally the most accepted in the mainstream world), what I did was right, whereas by the personal code of ethics I did not act ethically. And again, it's not about what I would 'rather do'. However, (man we go off topic a lot) I think the death penalty is very different from the elimination of a threat.
|
|
deadlock
Junior Member
"Onward Christian soldiers moshing as to war!"
Posts: 92
|
Post by deadlock on Dec 13, 2005 19:32:56 GMT -5
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, Death Adder, especially the point about how long in prison it takes to finally carry out the DP. If you received a sentence of death in the 1800s, they took you out back and hung you pretty quickly. Now, I'm not in favor of instant execution, but a five-year window seems to be a reasonable amount of time to carry it out. If it is not done in five years, then they should be automatically commuted to life in prison without parole. Sitting around for 20-30 years on death row is ridiculous.
|
|
Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 13, 2005 22:14:30 GMT -5
The logic is that their crime was so bad that no other punishment is fitting. Whether that logic is right or not is up to interpretation. I can't even really fully support the DP for EVERY violent criminal. Some might have had a good reason, some might have been totally off their rocker, etc. But in some cases it seems the fitting punishment. Well yeah, see what 'seems' one way to you 'seems' a different way to me. Yeah, I know. We disagree but that's OK. That's what makes this country great. We can disagree and both still live here. ;-) I'm sure that. to a certain extent, what you say is true. A lot of crimes are crimes of passion. People get caught up in things and do something they might regret or that isn't right. It happens to all of us to a lesser extent. Still, knowing you might get severely punished IS a deterrant. It's what stops people from doing all sorts of things. I don't speed much because I don't want a ticket. I don't go 120 in a 55 because I might go to jail. I'd LIKE to go 120 sometimes but I know that there could be consequences. I'm not saying that the DP would stop everyone but it would stop some people. And the rest probably know what would be coming their way anyway and are prepared to accept the results. Yes, but putting someone in jail for life isn't much of a statement of love either. Love and punishment sometimes coincide as when a parent punishes a child to help them become a better person. But sometimes punishment is punishment and we just have to accept the punish due. I don't dispute that as Christians we should love one another. But I do not see how even the DP can not be a valid punishment. We aren't talking about love here we're talking about a response due an action. A person kills another for money. The due punishment is what? Some would say life in prison, some the DP. Neither is necessarily advocating a more or less Christian response. The debate is what is a due punishment. Is the death of the perpetrator a due punishment or does it just propegate a cycle of death? I believe that the DP is a due punishment for some crimes. Maybe it's only due for unrepentant people who have no remorse at all. Maybe it's due to any murderer. Maybe to any rapist. But I think that society has a valid right to assert that there are times when it is due. Yeah, it's a little offtopic but I obviously dont mind doing that. ;-) And yes, theres no clearcut answer which is why I posted my opinion afterward. I shouldn't have phrased the beginning of that paragraph so forcefully. Clearly, I would have no problem in shooting the gunman to save myself and the store clerk. I would have no problem killing another person to save just myself if that person was putting my life in danger. I feel that it's everyone's right to self-preserve. It's a Christian thing to self-sacrifice if need be but if NOT need be then all the better. As such, I'd also tackle a gunman if they were threatening someone else. Might I get shot? Maybe, but it's still the right thing to do. (In my opinion it's the right thing to do anyway.)
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Dec 14, 2005 7:19:20 GMT -5
I think we're done here.
That was a good one, some very long posts.
|
|
|
Post by Solid on Dec 14, 2005 23:48:56 GMT -5
I didn't even try reading this...so, where's the summary?
|
|
|
Post by amoyensis on Dec 15, 2005 7:47:16 GMT -5
There isn't one, sorry
|
|
deadlock
Junior Member
"Onward Christian soldiers moshing as to war!"
Posts: 92
|
Post by deadlock on Dec 15, 2005 9:32:25 GMT -5
I didn't even try reading this...so, where's the summary? Death Adder started with "Kill 'em all!" Amoyensis said "Don't kill anybody!" Then, Death Adder said, "Let's just kill the violent criminals!" Amoyensis said "Let's still not kill anybody!" Then they decided to call it a draw and go off and have tea together or something. ;D
|
|
Death Adder
Junior Member
The Wizard of the Code
Posts: 65
|
Post by Death Adder on Dec 15, 2005 11:37:00 GMT -5
Hehe, Deadlock is pretty close! ;-) I never quite said kill 'em all but I did take a more hardline stance initially so I guess in that respect he wins because I'm the only one to change my stance at all. But, it is over. I think we've pretty well covered everything.
|
|
|
Post by In Christ, the metalhead on Dec 15, 2005 14:29:06 GMT -5
wow, you guys put up a good arguement, I'm not that good with words, and i can't believe i read all that. lol. but it was very interesting.
|
|
|
Post by mithrandir1356 on Dec 21, 2005 10:28:24 GMT -5
I'll bite, always being the one to stick my finger in a hornet's nest... I fully support the death penalty. It is a maximum punishment for a maximum crime. A punishment should not be less severe just because one is sorry. Of course a caught person will be sorry (sorry they got caught). A person who has reformed has still committed the crime in the first place. A person has to accept the punishment for the crime they committed whether they are reformed or not. If I steal a million dollars from a charity and blow it on screwing hookers and then snort the rest of the money up my nose in cocaine should I be punished? I would hope so. Would it make it all better if I said I was sorry? Would it make it alright if I agreed to do a little community service afterward? My point is that a crime is a crime and there is an appropriate punishment for each crime. That punishment should not change. If you are sorry about it and try to change the course of other peoples lives then great. Your reward is in Heaven not here. I don't think God decides when a given person should die. Nature does that. You might be able to live to 100 but if you are 20 and you step out in front of a bus you just might die. God merely gives us the life in the first place. How that life goes is up to us and fate. Maybe sometimes God intervenes and prevents death (sure seems like that's happened to me before!) but I don't think he's got a definate plan to take any of us from this Earth. Otherwise getting cancer would be a great time to curse God. That would be an excellent time to ask 'Why did you plan for me to die so soon!?!?!?!' I think deadlock is talking about something different, and that is a true change of heart in the person, something that can really only be brought about by Jesus Christ. I agree with the death penalty, but only if the person will obviously never change.
|
|