Disprove The Bible, Not Modern Christianity

[white_raven23]

By "fleshy desires" I think they're a cannibal. And we all know atheists are baby eaters. This would make the OP quite sincere.

 

mwc

 

OMG...you are RIGHT!! Two years prior to my deconversion, I asked my anthropology professor who was the FIRST person to actually answer (the query: If you were a cannibal, what color wine goes with your meal?) , and even directed me to further reading.... I asked a hypothetical question... being a psych student, I was more interested in the reaction to the question than the actual answer...but his answer was so fascinating!!

 

I now have several books on the topic! Interest in cannibalism is a symptom of deconversion!

 

 

The professor's answer btw, was a Blush, as that is what one would serve with pork if one was following the old rules for wine and meat pairings.

[Neon Genesis]

Who amonst us left an entire religion because we fucked? This looks like a christians attempt at appearing as though they are ready to leave the faith and are inviting deconverters. This looks like really bad baiting. Those of us who have done so, know damn well leaving religion behind was not to shallowly justify our sins. This stinks of christian presumption.

And what kind of honest struggling Christian uses such language as "fleshly desires?" In all my times I've been at ex-c, I don't remember a single instance in the forums where a person who was actually struggling with their faith used xtian code language like that.

 

But to give a little explanation, I picked this particular verse I on purpose, because I wanted to avoid the explanation that the authors used the name "YHWH" to reference God, whatever name he had before Moses. The apologist answer could be: Abraham had a different name on God, and it wasn't YHWH, but the author's wrote the Abraham story with the new name which was given to Moses. And other infinite made up answers ... blh blah.. So, to avoid that, I picked what I think is the most damaging one, where a city (village?) is named YHWH-ville!

This reminds me of how in Matthew 1:21, God commands Mary and Joseph to name their child Jesus to fulfill a prophecy that said the Messiah would be named Immanuel but Jesus' name isn't Immanuel, it's Jesus, so I fail to see how the prophecy is fulfilled.

[Badger]

I got an explanation once for this contradiction, but it was very woo-woo It was something like: it's not the name that was new to Moses, but the meaning of the name. Abraham new God by YHWH, but it meant something else, and Moses got YHWH again, but with a new meaning... And my question is: what new meaning? That YHWH really means "Taco Tuesday at Del Taco?"

 

Good one

[OpheliaGinger]

I'm puzzled why the Bible should be disproved. What's the point? You can always ignore it, if you don't like it. It's that simple.

 

We would be content to just ignore the Christian bible if Christianity didn't have a habit of sticking its nose in politics and try to control everyone's life. We refute it because Christians want to subjugate people and limit the freedoms of people.

 

Sorry if I am just repeating what someone else on the thread just said.

[Ouroboros]

Good one

Glad that you liked it.

 

I think YHWH changed meaning again, sometime during the Renaissance maybe? It now means: "I'm out. Please leave a message after the beep."

[hollygolightly]

This is what's so irritating with Christians, they have a sliding scale, as soon as something makes then uncomfortable they move the goalpost to fit their skewed view.

Nothing makes me uncomfortable regarding the the issue, but obviously you think you know me better. That a biblical author shared a view with his contemporaries, which we know is wrong from modern perspective, is not error. It is to be expected that each book of the Bible reflects ideas and views of their day since they were written in specific point in human history and are tied to the world of their authors.

 

This bothers me. I am not saying *all* Christians do it, but a fair number of some of the loudest one's certainly do. They will say something like this and then claim Darwin is a racist (not accounting for cultural/time/scientific advances). In fact, such a thing is more dubious than it looks on the surface because of that whole omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient thing. God did breathe the word into it's authors did he not? Shouldn't he have accounted for such errors. Couldn't he have set things up in such a way that the Bible wouldn't be misinterpreted? Couldn't he have put some scientific concept in there that would let modern people know that such a thing could have only come from divinity? People out there also claim to know the Koran to be true. If the Bible was so obviously true then why so many other religions? Why are so many people so devoted as to spend their lives preaching, studying, even dying for their respective truths? And seriously, why in the world would anyone be puzzled that someone in a crisis of faith would want evidence proving the Bible false? He/she is (hopefully) earnestly seeking something and not just losing his/her faith because he/she is "angry at god" (which is sadly what so many Christians believe).

[Guest]

That a biblical author shared a view with his contemporaries, which we know is wrong from modern perspective, is not error. It is to be expected that each book of the Bible reflects ideas and views of their day since they were written in specific point in human history and are tied to the world of their authors.

 

 

This view would make perfect sense if we are discussing anything from the past...except a book written by an omnipotent deity. I just do not see why god would allow errors into his book that he knew would prevent me and others from believing it 2,000 years later, and thus dooming me to eternal hellfire. It would be expected that god would make sure his book remains up to date and correct in everything it discusses for all time. god would know how times would change, he should have planned this much better.

 

However, I can conceive of the idea that the bible was just another book written by humans that contain the knowledge available to humanity at the time. The bible passes that test with flying colors.

[rayskidude]

In fact, Neon Genesis, that's not contradiction. The commandment "You shall not murder" had specific meaning, that left the way open for the killing in war or as capital punishment.

Whatever broadening of application it may have had in later years, its basic prohibition was against killing, for whatever cause, under whatever circumstances, and by whatever method, a fellow-member of the covenant community. - - What is certain is that רצח describes a killing of human beings forbidden by Yahweh to those who are in covenant with him. The use of such a specialized term in the specific context of the Decalogue leaves the way open for the killing of the Yahweh-war or capital punishment, both of which are of course permitted by the OT, and also sets apart other uses of רצח by relating them inevitably to the obligations of the covenant with Yahweh. (John Durham, World Biblical Commentary, Volume 3: Exodus)

That's a pretty good explanation. One I've heard quite frequently.

 

Ummm...Can you clarify one thing for me?

 

Why does Joshua say this:

20:3 that the

manslayer

who kills any person unintentionally, without premeditation, may flee there, and they shall become your refuge from the avenger of blood.

...

20:5 'Now if the avenger of blood pursues him, then they shall not deliver the

manslayer

into his hand, because he struck his neighbor without premeditation and did not hate him beforehand.

That's the same word in Hebrew. I'm just curious why "murderer" here is defined as someone who kills "unintentionally?" Of course you should not kill unintentionally. So the injunction, in the commandments, should be against someone who kills intentionally or a premeditated murderer. But "god" does not forbid that. Does he approve premeditated murder?

 

But perhaps I'm in need of a better example? One more relevant? Deuteronomy?

4:42 that a

manslayer

might flee there, who unintentionally slew his neighbor without having enmity toward him in time past; and by fleeing to one of these cities he might live:

...

De 5:17 'You shall not

murder

.

...

De 19:4 "Now this is the case of the

manslayer

who may flee there and live: when he kills his friend unintentionally, not hating him previously--

Same rules except for that one there in the middle. Looks like that same one from Exodus...because it is.

 

The same applies throughout Numbers as well.

 

In other books the word takes on the meaning of premeditated killing. People just want to soften the blow of the word. Leave it open for old YHWH to get his way but everyone else to tow the line. The texts speak for themselves. You aren't to murder. But the same word means "unintentional" so "Thou shall not kill unintentionally." If you only desire to have people kill people that they hate, intentionally, the so be it. I think it makes YHWH out to be rather blood thirsty and would rethink this.

 

mwc

 

Murder is the taking of an innocent life. The manslayer is guilty of what we would call today, manslaughter. If you're guilty of manslaughter you took an onnocent human life - but not by intent, rather thru clumsiness, carelessness, inattention, etc. So you're still guilty of taking an innocent life - and there is a consequence to that. In the OT, you were consigned to live in a city of refuge - to protect you from a family member bent on revenge. And today we incarcerate those found guilty of manslaughter.

 

In His Law, God mandated that His people take into account the difference between taking an innocent life thru murder (pre-mediated) and manslaughter (accident).

[rayskidude]

I will raise my hand as another person who lost faith after actually reading the Bible. I am amazed at how easily I accepted Christianity without ever reading the freakin' book.

 

And my deep thought for the day...if God is all knowing and all powerful, what is the point of her existance? God can't learn anything. God can't experience anything new. God knows what is going to happen in advance. God can never be surprised or enraged or saddened, because God has known (since..umm..forever?) that certain things would happen. God can't relate to anyone because God is unique. No one can understand God. God has no one to talk about her day with. Its like one of those stories where someone gains all the knowledge in the universe...the question is always, "what now?"

 

It sounds like an especially cruel version of Hell to me.

 

Allow me to say 4 things:

 

1) God is not like us - we tend to think of God's nature in terms of our own nature, based on how we think, act, surmise, thrive, etc. But we need to remember that;

Isa 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

Isa 55:9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Isa 55:10 "For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater,

Isa 55:11 so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

 

2) One of the better analogies re: this issue goes as follows; God is like a playright. And what brings the most joy and fulfillment to a playright? It is seeing his play performed exactly as he conceived and wrote that play. He full well knows each and every line and motion and set, etc. and yet as he sees it portayed before his eyes, he is elated with what he sees. And when that successful play is completed, the audience crys out "Encore" and asks the actors to take a well-deserved bow. But also, for a very moving and successful play, the audience will cry out; "Author! Author" demanding to know who is the one who is most responsible for this fabulous work of art. Who conceived and wrote these characters and this amazing story? Then the author stands to receive his well-deserved accolades.

 

But all the while - this playright was not surprised, nor did he learn. God takes great joy from His Creation, and its progression throughout all time; not thinking, "What now?"

 

3) Even humans can be saddened or enraged or elated, etc when something happens, which we knew would certainly happen. We anticipate with certainty that things will happen, and yet when they actually occur - we experience whatever reaction is appropriate.

 

4) God exists as a Trinity - One God existing as 3 Persons; Father, Son & Holy Spirit. God, therefore, converses and fellowships and loves and plans and implements and cooperates all within the Triune Godhead.

 

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.

 

Joh 5:19 So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Joh 5:20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all that he himself is doing. And greater works than these will he show him, so that you may marvel.

Joh 5:21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will.

Joh 5:22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son,

Joh 5:23 that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

Joh 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life. He does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Joh 5:25 "Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.

Joh 5:26 For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.

Joh 5:27 And he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man.

Joh 5:28 Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice

Joh 5:29 and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment.

 

Joh 6:35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst.

Joh 6:36 But I said to you that you have seen me and yet do not believe.

Joh 6:37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out.

Joh 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me.

Joh 6:39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

Joh 6:40 For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

 

 

 

Just some thoughts on the nature of God.

[rayskidude]

I just said. Exodus 20:13 ("You shall not murder") prohibited individuals from killing a fellow-members. The verb רָצַח is a specific term for murder and includes any unauthorized killing. It is never used of killing in war. Therefore, as I said, there is no contradiction.

So murdering babies as long as they're not a part of your religion is somehow justified because? What happened to that whole love your enemies thing Jesus preached or is that metaphorical too?

 

The context is how we conduct ourselves in our personal lives, and in our national life.

 

Though I am no longer Catholic, I would commend a recent Pope, who survived an assasination attempt. The Pope personally forgave the assasin, and yet allowed the law to carry out a just sentence to incarcerate this man.

 

SO the Pope loved his enemy, yet also applied the law.

 

We must also differentiate between murder and execution. Murder involves the intentional & unrighteous taking of a human life. Execution is society taking the life of someone found guilty of a capital crime - and warfare would come under this heading.

 

When the Allies fought to defeat Hitler and his followers, weren't we seeking to deliver the German people (and the world) from the scourge of Nazism? Isn't love for our fellow man a significant motivation in such an endeavor?

[DarthOkkata]

Yes, we were seeking to save Europe from the crazy bloodthirsty Christian sect of Nazi Germany.

 

No, delivering the German people from it wasn't involved in our thinking. To us, it -was- the Germans. We were liberating Europe from them, not attempting to rescue or liberate the Germans from themselves. They were the enemy, saving them wasn't part of the plan.

 

In fact, we attempted to bomb them into oblivion, and split their country up between ourselves and the Soviets.

 

You're also the victim of a very Disney esque delusion about our motivations for getting involved with WWII. Helping our fellow man was secondary to protecting ourselves and our interests. It had very little to do with what we did outside our propaganda.

 

At the very least, Love had nothing to do with it. It was a security issue, and had more to do with the Global Economy, the danger presented by losing Europe and our allies, and the fact that our very way of life was threatened by what was seen as a Global threat, and not just one that would stay across the ocean from us forever. It was not a humanitarian mission, it was just a mission that had humanitarian benefits.

 

We went to save Europe, but for our own security. Losing the allied nations and leaving Germany to it's own devices had just become too dangerous for us. The US was very reluctant to enter the war at all. It was not something that was taken lightly, nor did it have 'humanitarianism' as it's primary cause. It was not a motivating factor. When we went to Europe, it was to save ourselves, not to save them. That was just a nice side benefit.

 

There was a lot of resistance to entering the war. It was not a popular decision at all.

 

Also, if 'God is not like us' why does he -act- like us? He's a jealous, hateful, angry, arrogant, douche that blames others for his own faults and demands attention like some sort of primadonna throughout the Bible.

 

He endorses, and -directly commands- slavery, rape, genocide, human sacrifice, kidnapping, racism, and causes needless suffering by punishing countless numbers for the bad behavior of only a few individuals.

 

He created evil, and performed countless evil acts.

 

He also doesn't understand how the Universe he supposedly created works. Remember him holding the sun in place for a day? You know, so there would be enough light for the war he instigated to begin with? As if the Sun was moving?

 

He's a very human invention, and acts just like a human. A sociopathic, schizophrenic, manic depressive, bi polar, drama queen with insecurity issues. It doesn't get more human than that.

 

You're splitting hairs about a Universal moral system that doesn't exist.

 

There's no such thing as Universal or intrinsic morals. They don't exist.

 

Morals depend on what culture you're dealing with at the time, when it is in history, and what influences are involved.

 

The Maya believed that you had to kill someone every day to make the sun rise, and they used to play a sport that involved using a human head as a ball.

 

It's immoral to shave in some parts of the world. Enough that barbers who perform shavings have been beheaded for it.

 

There are places in the world where buying a wife or a slave, having sex with children, killing others for being the wrong race, eating your family, and strapping yourself with explosives to blow up yourself and large numbers of infidels is considered perfectly moral, and even honored as the highest of virtues.

 

It's also worth noting that eating Shellfish or pork, having long hair, showing your ankles, and creating a depiction of a prophets face are all considered immoralities of the highest order.

 

So no. Your argument that there are things that are right and wrong, good and evil that are true throughout the world in every corner of it is false. Completely so.

 

It depends on what culture you were brought up on.

 

The general consensus of 'moral behavior' in the civilized world was brought about by the influence of large nations and powerful cultures gradually over time. There are generally accepted morals thanks to the increasing influence of trade and interactions between large nations. Not Universal or intrinsic morals.

 

The idea that it's some sort of genetic programing or etched into our very being by some sort of invisible sky man is just plain false.

 

It's all abstract and completely based on culture and context. There's nothing Universal or Natural about it at all.

 

It's something our improved lifestyle, safety and security, and modern amenities has allowed us to develop. Not some naturalistic instinct.

 

Human children are selfish and self centered things that have to be taught how to relate to others and fit in to society. They learn morals from their parents, and other cultural influences. Not some divine time released program from God. Children need to be trained how to behave, it does not come naturally.

 

Your arguments here are based on false assumptions to begin with. The least of which is that there is a God to begin with. If you have to pre assume that God exists in order to 'prove' that your argument for him works, it's not a viable argument.

 

That's called circular reasoning, and it's a complete logical fault.

[Neon Genesis]

Murder is the taking of an innocent life. The manslayer is guilty of what we would call today, manslaughter. If you're guilty of manslaughter you took an onnocent human life - but not by intent, rather thru clumsiness, carelessness, inattention, etc. So you're still guilty of taking an innocent life - and there is a consequence to that. In the OT, you were consigned to live in a city of refuge - to protect you from a family member bent on revenge. And today we incarcerate those found guilty of manslaughter.

 

In His Law, God mandated that His people take into account the difference between taking an innocent life thru murder (pre-mediated) and manslaughter (accident).

So, did God commit murder in Deuteronomy 13:6-11 then since God pre-mediated it?

If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or* your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.

 

We must also differentiate between murder and execution. Murder involves the intentional & unrighteous taking of a human life. Execution is society taking the life of someone found guilty of a capital crime - and warfare would come under this heading.

How is God slaughtering innocent babies even remotely similar to execution? What did the babies do that was so horrible to deserve execution?

[mwc]

Murder is the taking of an innocent life. The manslayer is guilty of what we would call today, manslaughter. If you're guilty of manslaughter you took an onnocent human life - but not by intent, rather thru clumsiness, carelessness, inattention, etc. So you're still guilty of taking an innocent life - and there is a consequence to that. In the OT, you were consigned to live in a city of refuge - to protect you from a family member bent on revenge. And today we incarcerate those found guilty of manslaughter.

 

In His Law, God mandated that His people take into account the difference between taking an innocent life thru murder (pre-mediated) and manslaughter (accident).

So you cannot read or cannot comprehend?

 

In what I had posted the word for "murder" and "manslayer" are the very same in Hebrew. So your argument doesn't make much sense.

 

Your own argument even hinges on this distinction but you don't seem to understand that the word is the same. So is the commandment against accidental "murder?" Since the rest of the text uses the word in the same fashion it would appear so. It's only in other texts that the word is used in a "pre-meditated" fashion and then read back into the single commandment.

 

So which is it? Using the word in a consistent fashion throughout the text or applying a usage from one of the other texts into a single usage? I know how you have been using it so far so I'm going to go with the latter. I've no need to justify your use or integrity in this matter.

 

mwc

[Guest]

1) God is not like us - we tend to think of God's nature in terms of our own nature, based on how we think, act, surmise, thrive, etc.

 

There is a very good reason for that! The latest brain imaging is showing us that the same section of the brain used for "the self" is the very same area of the brain used to determine what god wants/is! IOW, we are all our own gods...yet another thing Buddhism has known for thousands of years!

[florduh]

Disproving the Bible is like disproving Harry Potter. Not my (or anyone's) job. It's up to the believers to prove it.

 

I keep looking at the posts from people claiming to be Christians just in case they have something new. No luck so far, and I need a break.

[mwc]

I tend to agree...but I want our xian pal to sort out the flaw in my "argument" I've put here first (and there is one in case they're reading this).

 

mwc

[rayskidude]

Murder is the taking of an innocent life. The manslayer is guilty of what we would call today, manslaughter. If you're guilty of manslaughter you took an onnocent human life - but not by intent, rather thru clumsiness, carelessness, inattention, etc. So you're still guilty of taking an innocent life - and there is a consequence to that. In the OT, you were consigned to live in a city of refuge - to protect you from a family member bent on revenge. And today we incarcerate those found guilty of manslaughter.

 

In His Law, God mandated that His people take into account the difference between taking an innocent life thru murder (pre-mediated) and manslaughter (accident).

So you cannot read or cannot comprehend?

 

In what I had posted the word for "murder" and "manslayer" are the very same in Hebrew. So your argument doesn't make much sense.

 

Your own argument even hinges on this distinction but you don't seem to understand that the word is the same. So is the commandment against accidental "murder?" Since the rest of the text uses the word in the same fashion it would appear so. It's only in other texts that the word is used in a "pre-meditated" fashion and then read back into the single commandment.

 

So which is it? Using the word in a consistent fashion throughout the text or applying a usage from one of the other texts into a single usage? I know how you have been using it so far so I'm going to go with the latter. I've no need to justify your use or integrity in this matter.

 

mwc

 

Context determines the exact translation of a word. THe Hebrew word "Elohim" can mean either God, or it can refer to false gods, or even be used to decribe powerful men who act as judges of the people - so how you translate a word exactly depends on the context.

 

Is this news to you?

[rayskidude]

Murder is the taking of an innocent life. The manslayer is guilty of what we would call today, manslaughter. If you're guilty of manslaughter you took an onnocent human life - but not by intent, rather thru clumsiness, carelessness, inattention, etc. So you're still guilty of taking an innocent life - and there is a consequence to that. In the OT, you were consigned to live in a city of refuge - to protect you from a family member bent on revenge. And today we incarcerate those found guilty of manslaughter.

 

In His Law, God mandated that His people take into account the difference between taking an innocent life thru murder (pre-mediated) and manslaughter (accident).

So, did God commit murder in Deuteronomy 13:6-11 then since God pre-mediated it?

If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or* your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, ‘Let us go and worship other gods’, whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.

 

We must also differentiate between murder and execution. Murder involves the intentional & unrighteous taking of a human life. Execution is society taking the life of someone found guilty of a capital crime - and warfare would come under this heading.

How is God slaughtering innocent babies even remotely similar to execution? What did the babies do that was so horrible to deserve execution?

 

Please note that idolatry is described as an enticement to go after other (false) gods, and this is further described as wickedness. So there is a heinous crime that is being perpetrated and condemned by execution.

[rayskidude]

We must also differentiate between murder and execution. Murder involves the intentional & unrighteous taking of a human life. Execution is society taking the life of someone found guilty of a capital crime - and warfare would come under this heading.

 

We must not differentiate between murder and execution. Execution involves the intentional and unrighteous taking by society of a human life otherwise restrained from causing further harm.

 

Execution undoes no crime qualified as "capitol".

 

If execution does not undo a crime, what purpose does it serve? What seeds does the execution of a disarmed being sow?

 

Phanta

 

Restrained from causing further harm - surely you jest? Are you unaware of how often those incarcerated murder other inmates, and guards - and beat & rape other inmates?

 

Execution recognizes that someone has commited a capital crime, a blatant disregard for the sanctity of human life. Therefore, there is a just PUNISHMENT for such a crime, the taking of the guilty life. The punishment must fit the crime to be effective and a deterance.

 

Note that when a person commits a capital crime - they have already condemned themselves. Because they knew full well before their action to take an innocent life, that their execution was a real possibility. They have no one to blame but themselves.

[mwc]

Context determines the exact translation of a word. THe Hebrew word "Elohim" can mean either God, or it can refer to false gods, or even be used to decribe powerful men who act as judges of the people - so how you translate a word exactly depends on the context.

 

Is this news to you?

Yes. This is news to me. Please continue but with the word in question. Show context.

 

mwc

[Guest]

How is God slaughtering innocent babies even remotely similar to execution? What did the babies do that was so horrible to deserve execution?

 

Please note that idolatry is described as an enticement to go after other (false) gods, and this is further described as wickedness. So there is a heinous crime that is being perpetrated and condemned by execution.

 

So let me get this straight; babies were being enticed to follow other gods...how?

[Guest]

Context determines the exact translation of a word. THe Hebrew word "Elohim" can mean either God, or it can refer to false gods, or even be used to decribe powerful men who act as judges of the people - so how you translate a word exactly depends on the context.

 

Is this news to you?

 

IIRC, Elohim is plural, and refers to multiple gods, and El is the singular, thus names like El Shaddai (god of the mountain). To my memory, Elohim is not used in reference to false gods, but is one of many names used to refer to Yahweh.

[DarthOkkata]

Well, I'd say it saves us the cost of keeping them incarcerated indefinitely, but the truth is, executions are more expensive than Life imprisonments for some reason.

 

I've still not figured out why that is. It should be cheaper, but it's not.

 

As it exists now, there's no real advantage to it.

 

Make it cheaper than a life interment, and there are advantages to executions.

 

To be honest, who is to truly say that a Life imprisonment term is less humane than an execution?

 

That's really a relative question. You may actually suffer more in a Lifetime of prison than you would if you were executed.

 

Of course, Life terms are easier to correct if there is a mistake or wrongful prosecution.

 

The moral arguments aside, execution as it exists now doesn't benefit anyone. It's expensive, often publicly inflammatory, and impossible to undo in the event of a mistake.

 

As it's currently implemented, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages, even for those who feel Death is a justifiable punishment for some crimes. It's not implemented efficiently, cheaply, or effectively enough to make the justification alone worth the headache involved.

 

We should do away with it, or give it a serious reform. It doesn't work as it should as it exists now. If nothing else, costs need to be lowered a great deal before it's viable as a practical solution to punish certain crimes.

[Guest]

I think life imprisonment is more costly because they are allowed infinite appeals to their convictions, thus they spend their entire lives trying to get out of life.

[DarthOkkata]

That's just it though. Life isn't more expensive. It costs less than putting someone to death.

 

I'm not entirely sure of the details of why, but it actually costs more money to put a prisoner to death than it does to lock one up for the rest of his life.

 

It's strange, but true.

 

Execution is massively expensive. Life in prison cost tons of money too, but it still works out to less than executing a prisoner.

 

One of life's odd little quirks I suppose.

 

I've nothing against killing certain types of criminals as a moral issue.

 

I'm against it for financial reasons though. The death penalty should be repealed or revised, because I'd rather pay to keep them behind bars for life than spend even more money to kill them. No matter what they did.

 

My reasons for being against the Death penalty are entirely economical, not moral or human rights issues. If you've screwed up enough to deserve it, I've no problem with putting such a criminal to death. Provided it doesn't cost more than keeping them alive and in prison indefinitely.

 

If it was cheaper to kill them, I'd be completely for it. It isn't though, so I'm not.

 

Doesn't make much sense that it's more expensive to me, but that is the case.