we are discussing cows here, and their right to exist is inherently linked to their meat and milk ..on the other hand humans have an inherent right to exist...and to substain themselves by consuming any lower life form .
Capital punishment
- Thread starter Tarkyn_24
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Says who?
- Nov 28, 2005
- 6,234
- 121
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Australia
"Since executions resumed in 1993, a rise in street crime during the 1990s, the sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway in 1995 and several high profile brutal murders have hardened attitudes amongst the public and the judiciary."
Are you trying to suggest that the victims of crime want those responsible to suffer in executaion as you had stated? What a load of rubbish. Show your sources that they want them to actually suffer.
Some victims may want them to pay for their crime with execution, many victims don't want them to be executed though of course, and I believe it to be very few that actually want them to suffer as you do.
Stop your spinning regarding sympathy for criminals because it's nothing of the kind of course. It is simply concern for the lives of those that are in fact innocent as there are many of them on death row in the US alone. People do not have the right to kill, unless under extreme cases of self-defence, but it's quite clear that you simply support death.
Of course that is not humane, and I oppose this too. Prisoners should not have any access to weapons of any sort, and if they do, then it is the fault of those in charge of the prison whether that be a warden, or a guard.
Execution is too final. If someone is found to be innocent after the execution, then it is too late to reverse it. If someone is found to be innocent after time in prison, then at least they have the rest of their life, which is better than nothing.
Conditions in prison should never be inhumane because there has to be a fine line between punishment, rehibilitation and the possibility of a prisoner being innocent because of flaws in the legal system.
What about the US, or Iran, or China? Looking at the nations that have no cp, they on average have a very low murder rate (NZ, Australia, Canada, UK, Sweden, Germany etc.). Contrast this with Sierra Leone, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Russia, Iraq etc. and there's a difference.
Gotta love the faux-Christians. ItN might well be a troll, but there are certainly plenty of so called Christians out there who use little lines in Leviticus to justify their homophobia etc, yet, despite their love of the Old Testament to justify hatred, they completely miss the fairly unequivocal line in the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt not kill".
Not a lot of wriggle room there, but hey, that's the inconsistency of the faux-Christian for you.
When Jesus Christ was crucified, there were two others crucified with him, two others condemned by Rome to be crucified on Calvary (Golgotha) with Jesus. According to the Gospels, the two others, condemned thieves, were also crucified, one on each side of him. According to Matthew and Mark, both thieves reviled Jesus. According to Luke, one of the thieves reviled Jesus, while the other declared Jesus innocent and begged that he might be remembered when Jesus came to his kingdom. Jesus said to the man that he would be with him "in paradise"... Here is a time for Christ to condemn Capital Punishment and He did not, as Capital Punishment in society was and is used, then and now. Did He? No. Should we?
So now you're quoting New Testament to overthrow Old Testament.
Surely then the parable of the woman caught in adultery (let he who is without sin cast the first stone), or the new commandment: Love one another as I have loved you clearly tell you to give up hatred and condemnation of your fellow man and leave judgement up to God. So which is it to be, Old Testament or New Testament?
You faux-Christians need to work out a bit of consistency before you use Biblical texts to cover your outpourings of hatred.
What of it?
The words of Jesus ring true for the individual; clearly your elementary understanding of them have you confused. I am not surprised.
Jesus did not speak of society with his words you cite, only to the individual. To society he gave acceptance, as you should, and its rules governing man.
- Banned
- #62
Can't Bigfooty ban Christian whacko's?
jimmy.h
Club Legend
The Roman Catholic Church seems to disagree with you on this one, yet you are still prepared to call yourself Catholic?
If you can so blatantly disagree with the Church on Capital Punishment is it OK for others to disagree with the Church on abortion and homosexuality?
Yes, that is badly written, but it says that because of those instances people have become even more supportive of the death penalty. It still doesn't escape from the fact that they have a very low rate of major crime.
Yes, in an ideal world that would be the case but it is not an ideal world.
If you are going to play 'ideal world' then so will I - no one innocent is found guilty. How many people are?
Again, real world...
Sources?
Not much of an argument, but I'm not surprised...
The Vatican, through the Pope, advances encylicals from time to time on social issues and always advises individual Catholics in the flock to make decisions first on what Jesus said to the individual. Thus, individually, I wish there was no need for capital punishment and that all followed God's word. That however does not happen. Society needs to be governed. There is nothing inherently wrong, in my opinion, with supporting society's governnance, as many Catholics do, in an effort to enforce how society is controlled.
jimmy.h
Club Legend
So, you concede there is nothing inherently wrong with Catholics supporting abortion when it is allowed by those who govern society?
Not the same at all. With abortion, you see, an innocent life is taken. With capital punishment, a life is taken based on judge and jury determination. If you wish to invoke judge and jury for each abortion, we might reach compromise. Do you?
How about if the person was innocent?
you'll donate some moolah to the victim's purgatory fund?
jimmy.h
Club Legend
I don't recall debating the merits of either CP or abortion.
The question is, if it's OK for Catholics to disagree with the Vatican on abortion, why is it wrong for others to do the same with abortion?
Surely if you are prepared to use your own conscience ahead of the Vatican's teaching on this issue, you have no problem with other Catholics doing the same on other issues
You are unfairly comparing the merits of one issue to another; these issues, abortion and capital punishment, are far different. Even someone like you should be able to determine the complexities of difference between capital punishment (the execution of a convicted person by the state) and abortion (the execution of an innocent person by the individual). Surely even you can see differences in these two issues and no real commonality.
Perhaps not though...
jimmy.h
Club Legend
You keep avoiding the question.
Is it, or is it not, OK for Catholics to apply their own personal conscience on social issue in preference to the teaching of the Vatican?
- Feb 14, 2002
- 17,797
- 6,858
- AFL Club
- Brisbane Lions
- Other Teams
- Lexton, Northcote Park
Of course we can see the difference - one's a person.
Depends on the issue! I keep telling you that you cannot globally make comparisons between capital punishment and abortion and arbitrarily determine that folks can do what they want in regard to social issues. Governments conduct and perform capital punishment while individuals conduct and perform abortions... the difference between the two issues is huge. You seem to incorrectly see similiarities between the two and wish to use both as reasons to defy the Vatican...
