posted
Oh, and by the way: this whole "unless..." stuff is stupid and a straw-man. The Commandments don't say "Thou shalt not...unless you can get away with it", that is simply how some very poor-quality Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) behave in everyday life.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
TL, why do you get that message from those commandments? My thought is thou shalt not... especially when it is most tempting.
Sswak, I have wondered to myself at the amount of killing that goes on in the Old Testament. I honestly don't understand it myself. But I do wonder how much of it really was God-condoned.
I was making the point in order to argue someone saying that because the Bible contains the commandment "thou shalt not kill", we should never kill under any circumstances. I was pointing out that in the very society in which this commandment was given, there was a lot of apparently God-condoned killing going on--thus making the above a poor argument.
I try to follow the LDS codes for when we should and should not kill. Those are found heavily in the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. They don't appear to be the same as what is found in the Old Testament. I don't know why.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly! I mean, I didn't realize that we were allowed to just arbitrarily ADJUST the commandments of God to fit our own views. I wish I had known!
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: JW -- I fail to see what you find funny. Do you disagree about what I said you can find in the Bible?
Sorry, no offence intended. It was the phrasing that simply sounded funny to me. I don't disagree with you at all.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Every group has it's fair share of God-Condoned killing, even the Mormons (though, of course, they pale before the Jews and the Christians and the Muslims), and all groups have their Holy Books both decrying and condoning killings of various sorts.
It all points to the original premise of this thread: "Topic: How can we have a culture of life and still have the death penalty?"
As I read it: these claims of US "Culture of Life" is just a lot of BS. We, apparently, stand for whatever the hell it is we want to stand for at any given moment of time, and we are always right.
And again, I voted for an entirely different country.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bev, I believe the reason why LDS codes for when we should and should not kill differ from those in the Old Testament is because (this is how it was explained to me) God gives different commandments for different people, and different generations. As the world is constantly changing, the circumstances of society change. When those circumstances change, we need different directives from God.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: One tiny correction -- Mormons are Christians.
Thanks, I saw that and was very confused. I had a LDS roommate in college that spent a lot of time explaining this to me (I'm Roman Catholic).
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I read it: these claims of US "Culture of Life" is just a lot of BS. We, apparently, stand for whatever the hell it is we want to stand for at any given moment of time, and we are always right.
Ssywak, are you not included in this group then? What is wrong with standing by what you believe? So other people disagree with you. So other people think you are evil. So we can't all agree on what is moral and what isn't. That doesn't mean we give up our view of morality because someone else thinks it is wrong.
Edit: Or maybe I have my head in the sand, because I have no idea what this "Culture of Life" that everyone keeps mentioning refers to. Is it something Bush said?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was using sarcasm to point out the ridiculousness of another post.
TL -- the problem was that your posts didn't seem any more extreme than those that were made seriously.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahh, more clarification on my hypothesis is needed.
1) This is my opinion. It is backed by non-professional research and is not written in stone. Feel free to disagree with me. I won't be upset.
2) This is not just about the "Thou Shall Not Kill" commandment. This same addendum can be attached to all the commandments for a more accurate view of history. Not for a moral compass, but for an accurate view of how its been used in history.
History is filled with soldiers and sailors traveling the world seducing, sleeping with or just raping non-believers and folks outside the tribe. They were not members of society and as such some people did not consider it adultery. Nor were marriages made to members outside society considered valid.
Similarly you can loot the town of the heathen you attack. Its not theft.
3) While this is just my opinion, remember that these commandments were created to define a lawful society. (whether created by God or by members of the society is a religious debate I will not delve into now.) Those who uphold them are members of that society. Those who do not are not members of that society.
How to treat members outside that society was debated for centuries by the Old Testament scholars, prophets, and Judges. Jesus Christ gave a fairly clear answer. Your society is everyone, even your enemies.
4) While many of my comments were based on biblical commandments, this seems to be a fairly universal, socialogical argument. The ancient Greeks or Celts or Chinese had the same duality of law, for those within society and for those outside of it.
The most intrigueing Icelandic Saga's are about the laws their members follow, and the chaos that results when they break those laws and are "Outlawed".
It used to be legal to kill anyone "Outlaw" in any way you wanted.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
2) This comes across very different from what you said earlier. I have no problem with you saying that people tend to not live up to their own ideals. My problem was when it appeared that you were saying that you knew what our ideals really are.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:How to treat members outside that society was debated for centuries by the Old Testament scholars, prophets, and Judges. Jesus Christ gave a fairly clear answer. Your society is everyone, even your enemies.
I like that. I want to live by that. I am sad that so many people in history have not.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Edit: Or maybe I have my head in the sand, because I have no idea what this "Culture of Life" that everyone keeps mentioning refers to. Is it something Bush said?
Yes, it is a "Bushism" that has been picked up by most of the Republican party (actually, I don't know who used it first). The term even appeared in a question today during the President's press conference.
Posts: 514 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess, then, to him and all those who use it, the term refers to protecting innocent life. The death penalty and war are more about removing threats to society.
Not that that is necessarily my personal view. I am ambivalent about the death penalty and the war. And Bush. And Republicans. Democrats too. I'm just ambivalent about most things. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exactly! I mean, I didn't realize that we were allowed to just arbitrarily ADJUST the commandments of God to fit our own views. I wish I had known!
quote:From my point of view, all killing is murder.
Really? So if I kill someone in self-defense, you would consider that murder? I just don't understand that. Should I allow myself to be killed?
Also, Ghandi, like so many others, did not know the original interpretation of that quote (or perhaps he was just speaking to the common misinterpretation). It is not about vengeance, it's about temperance. The message is that the punishment should fit the crime - not a life for an eye nor a fine for an eye.
Posts: 3037 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:That make no diference. Murder is the name we give to killing when we wish no part of it. From my point of view, all killing is murder.
Well, your point of view is wrong. Murder is the name we give killing when it is not justified by self-defense, and some people would place warfare under that category as well. If the life of my loved ones, an innocent, or myself is threatened, and I take the life of the threatener to prevent it, and I could not have prevented it otherwise, I am not a murderer.
If you say I am, you've put yourself so high in an ivory tower I wonder that you even bother trying to see people in the real world.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, Ghandi, like so many others, did not know the original interpretation of that quote (or perhaps he was just speaking to the common misinterpretation). It is not about vengeance, it's about temperance. The message is that the punishment should fit the crime - not a life for an eye nor a fine for an eye.
I don't see how this original interpretation makes the saying any better.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was chosen deliberately in response to a similar meaning from him. And I really do believe it:)
And yes, Jebus, I believe the death penalty is murder. I believe someone can do something so foul that they have forfeited their right to life, and thus deserve to be murdered.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Sure, they need to be removed from society, but what is the benifit of killing them over a life-time in prison?
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some people believe that society is no longer obligated to expend resources and put guards at risk for the span of their natural lives.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not only putting guards at risk -- but causing them to spend their careers dealing with murderers.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard that in fact, due to all the repeals available, the death penalty actually costs more then life-imprisonment.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm saying instead of the murderers, they'll be dealing with criminals who are likely just as dangerous.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jebus -- if people are executed, then there aren't as many people in the prisons, and there won't be as many guards necessary.
Also, your statement that a non-murderer is likely "just as dangerous" as murderer is highly suspect.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, there's still the question as to which causes more damage -- dealing with murderers day in and day our, or killing said murderer. I don't know what I think about that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not all non-murderers obviously. But I iamgine there are plenty in prison who are just as dangerous as muderers even they were never convicted of it.
Oh and as to the cost, this website claims that "NY - The estimated costs for New York’s death penalty, which was reinstated in 1995: $160 million, or approximately $23 million for each person sentenced to death, with no executions likely for many years. (The Times Union, Sept. 22, 2003)"
quote:Ok, there have been some strict and true non-violence types. But they are a real rarity.
Even for the many that are not strictly non-violent, personal dislike of a person is not a valid reason for killing, despite what you are implying.
I meant to keep my statement general. Read this thread through, and you'll find a wide range of exceptions to "thou shalt not kill." Ranging from translation issues - kill vs. murder - to the responsibility of the state. All of these reasons only apply to people you don't like.
Except for the extreme pacifists, we all of us can come up with a reason to kill someone.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, and about the kill/murder translation debate - it's actually a moot point. Whichever translation is appropriate, there is still not definition of "murder," and it still comes down to "thou shalt not murder someone, unless you think you have really good reason to."
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I am sad that so many people in history have not.
