if believing that a murderer should receive the same circumstances they inflict
is what you call revenge
so be it
i believe
over time
it would make the world a safer place to live
how does murdering someone, the same way they murdered another, make it a safer place to live. dead is dead, no matter how the final act is carried out.
as for the repaid torture
it would not be for delight
do you understand what these children were put through?
as you lay down and close your eyes tonight
try to see what they saw in their final minutes
seconds
at eight years old
put what words you need to in your responce to this
but
it is not about bringing them back
what the monster did prevents this
which is why these monsters
cannot stay here
see that's what you pro DP folk don't understand. i have lost someone who was infinitely precious to me at the hands of another, and i can tell you, i don't need to lay there at night an imagine what they went through. i'm already living every single day without them. it's hard enough as it is without torturing myself further. nothing will ever bring them back. the life of the person that killed my brother is not considered an equal trade for him, and never will be. some total stranger assuming that by sentencing the offender to death, things will automatically be squared up, has no clue. how about asking us what we want. there's a thought.
i am completely against state-sanctioned murder under any circumstances.
"how about asking us what we want"
i am of the we
and we want murderers to die
simple
as simple as our disagreement
i can sleep tonight knowing i want evil to die
why do you want evil to live?
The whole world will be different soon... - EV
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
i'm pretty sure everyone who is against the death penalty has explained that already. including me. many times. you don't have to agree with our views, but if you don't get it after 70 pages of debate, i don't think you ever will.
i'm pretty sure everyone who is against the death penalty has explained that already. including me. many times. you don't have to agree with our views, but if you don't get it after 70 pages of debate, i don't think you ever will.
you make it sound like the anti death penalty folks think murderers should not be held accountable for their actions, which of course is completely false. it's the method of their punishment that we disagree on.
how come neither of you have posted your views in here?
doesn't anyone find it mildly ironic that a lot of the pro Dp people tend to be conservative, right wing, or religious and one of the commandments they are supposed to follow is "thou shalt not kill"??
so now after all this time she wants out and feels she is ready to join society and not be a threat but her victims are still dead and their family's still miss them...yea but the killer has been reformed !!!! right ?
so now what..., all I'm saying is "who really knows"
Godfather.
I asked you this before and you didn't answer, so I'll ask again: What would Jesus do?
quit with the dumb ass questions would ya...if I knew that I knew that I wouldn't have keep reading your.... opinion......as I have said MANY times I DON'T KNOW !..both sides of this debate have good points.
I'll say it. I'm calling absolute bullshit on this, GF, because you KNOW what Jesus would do, and that's why you won't answer it. He would NEVER, EVER agree with the death penalty. I don't believe in God, but I believe Jesus was a real person, and his teachings were true, and he always turned his other cheek, and taught forgiveness for everything, not select actions. Don't you remember that lesson? It's only the most important one!
quit with the dumb ass questions would ya...if I knew that I knew that I wouldn't have keep reading your.... opinion......as I have said MANY times I DON'T KNOW !..both sides of this debate have good points.
Godfather.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'll say it. I'm calling absolute bullshit on this, GF, because you KNOW what Jesus would do, and that's why you won't answer it. He would NEVER, EVER agree with the death penalty. I don't believe in God, but I believe Jesus was a real person, and his teachings were true, and he always turned his other cheek, and taught forgiveness for everything, not select actions. Don't you remember that lesson? It's only the most important one!
quit with the dumb ass questions would ya...if I knew that I knew that I wouldn't have keep reading your.... opinion......as I have said MANY times I DON'T KNOW !..both sides of this debate have good points.
Godfather.
so your half in but still wise enough to call BS,interesting.
you say turn the other cheek and forgiveness is the most important lesson but you can't believe in the Father,
we all fall short of the greatness of God and teaching of Jesus,I can tell you that I honestly don't know and you can tell me that you do ?..we all have much to learn and your no different.
I'm not "half in", Godfather. I'm not in at all. Believing that a human being existed has no bearing on one's religious/spiritual beliefs, nor does being able to forgive have anything to do with me not believing in "the father". It's well-documented that most scholars, religious and non, believe Jesus was a real person, so that's not the issue.
What is the issue here, is you are saying is you honestly believe it's possible that Jesus would be pro death penalty, based on the good book that you follow?
your first statement implies that those that believe are wiser than those that don't. how ignorant and insulting.
so your half in but still wise enough to call BS,interesting.
you say turn the other cheek and forgiveness is the most important lesson but you can't believe in the Father,
we all fall short of the greatness of God and teaching of Jesus,I can tell you that I honestly don't know and you can tell me that you do ?..we all have much to learn and your no different.
Godfather.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm not "half in", Godfather. I'm not in at all. Believing that a human being existed has no bearing on one's religious/spiritual beliefs, nor does being able to forgive have anything to do with me not believing in "the father". It's well-documented that most scholars, religious and non, believe Jesus was a real person, so that's not the issue.
What is the issue here, is you are saying is you honestly believe it's possible that Jesus would be pro death penalty, based on the good book that you follow?
your first statement implies that those that believe are wiser than those that don't. how ignorant and insulting.
so your half in but still wise enough to call BS,interesting.
you say turn the other cheek and forgiveness is the most important lesson but you can't believe in the Father,
we all fall short of the greatness of God and teaching of Jesus,I can tell you that I honestly don't know and you can tell me that you do ?..we all have much to learn and your no different.
Godfather.
ez Billy I never implied any such thing and I never said Jesus would agree or disagree to the death penalty,why are you assuming that I have,my words did not say that.I'll say it again "I don't know" both sides have a good argument, oh yea and I never said anybody was wiser then the next so there's no reason to be offended or insulted.
Billy I looked on line and found this, I understand you claim to not believe in God and I don't think any different of you than I do a believer, you used my beliefs to make your point so I look this up. http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... le&sid=219
i wonder why no other inmate(s) ever stabbed him in the neck?
this dude is out of control.
kentucky state penitentiary, nice place.
that is out of control.
I asked you this before and you didn't answer, so I'll ask again: What would Jesus do?
quit with the dumb ass questions would ya...if I knew that I knew that I wouldn't have keep reading your.... opinion......as I have said MANY times I DON'T KNOW !..both sides of this debate have good points.
Godfather.
A man who calls himself a Christian should not think this is a dumb-ass question. As a matter of fact, isn't it supposed to be the question by which you live your life? How convenient to be able to just dismiss it with an "I don't know."
Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.
I also find it rather convenient with the questions he won't answer. Furthermore, I still find it appalling that anyone Christian would believe it's possible ("I don't know" is an admission of possibility) that Jesus might be ok with the death penalty.
I asked you this before and you didn't answer, so I'll ask again: What would Jesus do?
quit with the dumb ass questions would ya...if I knew that I knew that I wouldn't have keep reading your.... opinion......as I have said MANY times I DON'T KNOW !..both sides of this debate have good points.
Godfather.
A man who calls himself a Christian should not think this is a dumb-ass question. As a matter of fact, isn't it supposed to be the question by which you live your life? How convenient to be able to just dismiss it with an "I don't know."
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I also find it rather convenient with the questions he won't answer. Furthermore, I still find it appalling that anyone Christian would believe it's possible ("I don't know" is an admission of possibility) that Jesus might be ok with the death penalty.
A man who calls himself a Christian should not think this is a dumb-ass question. As a matter of fact, isn't it supposed to be the question by which you live your life? How convenient to be able to just dismiss it with an "I don't know."
render unto cesar that which is cesars. Meaning follow the law. DP being the law (as of now) I would guess that he may not agree with it , but would respect the fact that it was law.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.
They were not historians.
Josephus was an historian who lived during the supposed time of Jesus, and yet his comprehensive history of the region makes no mention of Jesus.
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr ... jesus.html 'John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:
Apollonius Persius
Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus
Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon
Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger
Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela
Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian
Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca
Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius
Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus
Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus
Paterculus Valerius Maximus
Pausanias
According to Remsburg,
“Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author [Josephus Seneca], and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.”'
Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.
Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.
Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.
Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.
I also find it rather convenient with the questions he won't answer. Furthermore, I still find it appalling that anyone Christian would believe it's possible ("I don't know" is an admission of possibility) that Jesus might be ok with the death penalty.
quit with the dumb ass questions would ya...if I knew that I knew that I wouldn't have keep reading your.... opinion......as I have said MANY times I DON'T KNOW !..both sides of this debate have good points.
Godfather.
A man who calls himself a Christian should not think this is a dumb-ass question. As a matter of fact, isn't it supposed to be the question by which you live your life? How convenient to be able to just dismiss it with an "I don't know."
And ya know, the death penalty took on a whole different form back in the days of Jesus. No lethal injections or electric chairs. Those were the days of capital punishment via crucifixion and stoning and such, were they not? So for Jesus to support the death penalty, he would have had to support it in forms even most pro-DP people find barbaric today. Think Jesus would have supported that?
Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.
after reading this, I decided to do a little research, and some speculate this would be correct, that Jesus stated himself he was not there to oppose the law. At the same time, however, there is also speculation that this very topic (death penalty imposed because of adultery) is what brought about "he who is without sin may cast the first stone".
Anyway, I honestly believed that he would be outright against it, but it doesn't appear so. That is, based on scripture, which I don't believe. But the point was I thought even the scripture would state so, and that religious pro-DPers were being hypocritical, which they were not. My bad.
render unto cesar that which is cesars. Meaning follow the law. DP being the law (as of now) I would guess that he may not agree with it , but would respect the fact that it was law.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I also find it rather convenient with the questions he won't answer. Furthermore, I still find it appalling that anyone Christian would believe it's possible ("I don't know" is an admission of possibility) that Jesus might be ok with the death penalty.
A man who calls himself a Christian should not think this is a dumb-ass question. As a matter of fact, isn't it supposed to be the question by which you live your life? How convenient to be able to just dismiss it with an "I don't know."
render unto cesar that which is cesars. Meaning follow the law. DP being the law (as of now) I would guess that he may not agree with it , but would respect the fact that it was law.
Good point. But the original question was What would Jesus do? Do you think he would sentence someone to death? Do you think he would be the executioner? I guess to me there's a difference between respecting the law and actively participating in it. Today, with our representative government, I don't think anyone can pretend to not be an active participant. (Though I think they try to distance themselves from the nastiness of things they support politically, which I think is a huge problem with our society - but I guess that's another thread.)
render unto cesar that which is cesars. Meaning follow the law.
That's not my interpretaion. Seems to me he's saying leave earthly pursuits to the earth while spiritual matters belong with the spritual/'God'/Jesus. It says nothing about the law.
(100) 'They showed Jesus a gold piece and said to him: Caesar’s men demand tribute from us. He said to them: What belongs to Caesar, give to Caesar; what belongs to God, give to God; and what is mine, give it to me.'
after reading this, I decided to do a little research, and some speculate this would be correct, that Jesus stated himself he was not there to oppose the law. At the same time, however, there is also speculation that this very topic (death penalty imposed because of adultery) is what brought about "he who is without sin may cast the first stone".
Anyway, I honestly believed that he would be outright against it, but it doesn't appear so. That is, based on scripture, which I don't believe. But the point was I thought even the scripture would state so, and that religious pro-DPers were being hypocritical, which they were not. My bad.
render unto cesar that which is cesars. Meaning follow the law. DP being the law (as of now) I would guess that he may not agree with it , but would respect the fact that it was law.
I don't know; I still tend to think they are. I'd like to see this research that supposedly shows otherwise.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "that which is Cesar's" was not enacted in the name of Jesus. The death penalty in the United States, however, is enacted in the name of each of the citizens of the United States. I think it's the moral and Christian responsibility of the people of the U.S. to stand up and say Not in my name.
Comments
"how about asking us what we want"
i am of the we
and we want murderers to die
simple
as simple as our disagreement
i can sleep tonight knowing i want evil to die
why do you want evil to live?
RED ROCKS 6-19-95
AUGUSTA 9-26-96
MANSFIELD 9-15-98
BOSTON 9-29-04
BOSTON 5-25-06
MANSFIELD 6-30-08
EV SOLO BOSTON 8-01-08
BOSTON 5-17-10
EV SOLO BOSTON 6-16-11
PJ20 9-3-11
PJ20 9-4-11
WRIGLEY 7-19-13
WORCESTER 10-15-13
WORCESTER 10-16-13
HARTFORD 10-25-13
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
how come neither of you have posted your views in here?
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=136923
quit with the dumb ass questions would ya...if I knew that I knew that I wouldn't have keep reading your.... opinion......as I have said MANY times I DON'T KNOW !..both sides of this debate have good points.
Godfather.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Our murder is good. Their murder is bad.
so your half in but still wise enough to call BS,interesting.
you say turn the other cheek and forgiveness is the most important lesson but you can't believe in the Father,
we all fall short of the greatness of God and teaching of Jesus,I can tell you that I honestly don't know and you can tell me that you do ?..we all have much to learn and your no different.
Godfather.
What is the issue here, is you are saying is you honestly believe it's possible that Jesus would be pro death penalty, based on the good book that you follow?
your first statement implies that those that believe are wiser than those that don't. how ignorant and insulting.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
ez Billy I never implied any such thing and I never said Jesus would agree or disagree to the death penalty,why are you assuming that I have,my words did not say that.I'll say it again "I don't know" both sides have a good argument, oh yea and I never said anybody was wiser then the next so there's no reason to be offended or insulted.
Godfather.
http://www.truthortradition.com/modules ... le&sid=219
Godfather.
sunday midmorning briefing
great pacific northwest u.s.a. head quarters
weather: 56f, cloudy, wind west @ 10mph, humidity 94%.
today is a good day to stop evil and be at peace
saying thank you to the sky
the sun
and to the moon
is best
(hammer taps desk... recess)
:twisted: :evil: :twisted: :evil: :crazy: :think: :wtf: :lolno: :shock:
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
i wonder why no other inmate(s) ever stabbed him in the neck?
this dude is out of control.
kentucky state penitentiary, nice place.
that is out of control.
this monster needs put away and taken down.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
That's not quite true. No evidence exists to support Jesus' existence. None whatsoever.
The death penalty is evil.
Discuss.
A man who calls himself a Christian should not think this is a dumb-ass question. As a matter of fact, isn't it supposed to be the question by which you live your life? How convenient to be able to just dismiss it with an "I don't know."
Would you like to be the one to do this to someone?
I am. Or at least my wife says so.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
from: http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html
Further, the vast majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian) will grant that the Epistles of Paul (at least some of them) were in fact written by Paul in the middle of the first century A.D., less than 40 years after Jesus' death. In terms of ancient manuscript evidence, this is extraordinarily strong proof of the existence of a man named Jesus in Israel in the early first century A.D.
from: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm
The vast majority of historians and theologians have always believed in the reality of Jesus' life.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
They were not historians.
Josephus was an historian who lived during the supposed time of Jesus, and yet his comprehensive history of the region makes no mention of Jesus.
http://www.christianity-revealed.com/cr ... jesus.html
'John E. Remsburg, in his classic book The Christ: A Critical Review and Analysis of the Evidence of His Existence1 lists the following contemporary historians/writers who lived during the time, or within a century after the time, that Jesus was supposed to have lived:
Apollonius Persius
Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus
Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon
Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger
Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela
Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian
Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca
Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius
Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus
Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus
Paterculus Valerius Maximus
Pausanias
According to Remsburg,
“Enough of the writings of the authors named in the foregoing list remains to form a library. Yet in this mass of Jewish and Pagan literature, aside from two forged passages in the works of a Jewish author [Josephus Seneca], and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there is to be found no mention of Jesus Christ.”'
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
ALL CLAIMS OF JESUS DERIVE FROM HEARSAY ACCOUNTS
No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings. Although one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, I will use the information and dates to show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay accounts.
Hearsay means information derived from other people rather than on a witness' own knowledge.
Courts of law do not generally allow hearsay as testimony, and nor does honest modern scholarship. Hearsay provides no proof or good evidence, and therefore, we should dismiss it.
If you do not understand this, imagine yourself confronted with a charge for a crime which you know you did not commit. You feel confident that no one can prove guilt because you know that there exists no evidence whatsoever for the charge against you. Now imagine that you stand present in a court of law that allows hearsay as evidence. When the prosecution presents its case, everyone who takes the stand against you claims that you committed the crime, not as a witness themselves, but solely because they claim other people said so. None of these other people, mind you, ever show up in court, nor can anyone find them.
Hearsay does not work as evidence because we have no way of knowing whether the person lied, or simply based his or her information on wrongful belief or bias. We know from history about witchcraft trials and kangaroo courts that hearsay provides neither reliable nor fair statements of evidence. We know that mythology can arise out of no good information whatsoever. We live in a world where many people believe in demons, UFOs, ghosts, or monsters, and an innumerable number of fantasies believed as fact taken from nothing but belief and hearsay. It derives from these reasons why hearsay cannot serves as good evidence, and the same reasoning must go against the claims of a historical Jesus or any other historical person.
Authors of ancient history today, of course, can only write from indirect observation in a time far removed from their aim. But a valid historian's own writing gets cited with sources that trace to the subject themselves, or to eyewitnesses and artifacts. For example, a historian today who writes about the life of George Washington, of course, can not serve as an eyewitness, but he can provide citations to documents which give personal or eyewitness accounts. None of the historians about Jesus give reliable sources to eyewitnesses, therefore all we have remains as hearsay.
Epistles of Paul: Paul's biblical letters (epistles) serve as the oldest surviving Christian texts, written probably around 60 C.E. Most scholars have little reason to doubt that Paul wrote some of them himself. However, there occurs not a single instance in all of Paul's writings that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does he give any reference to Jesus' life on earth. Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.
And ya know, the death penalty took on a whole different form back in the days of Jesus. No lethal injections or electric chairs. Those were the days of capital punishment via crucifixion and stoning and such, were they not? So for Jesus to support the death penalty, he would have had to support it in forms even most pro-DP people find barbaric today. Think Jesus would have supported that?
Check this out: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/060980 ... ss_product
Anyway, I honestly believed that he would be outright against it, but it doesn't appear so. That is, based on scripture, which I don't believe. But the point was I thought even the scripture would state so, and that religious pro-DPers were being hypocritical, which they were not. My bad.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Good point. But the original question was What would Jesus do? Do you think he would sentence someone to death? Do you think he would be the executioner? I guess to me there's a difference between respecting the law and actively participating in it. Today, with our representative government, I don't think anyone can pretend to not be an active participant. (Though I think they try to distance themselves from the nastiness of things they support politically, which I think is a huge problem with our society - but I guess that's another thread.)
That's not my interpretaion. Seems to me he's saying leave earthly pursuits to the earth while spiritual matters belong with the spritual/'God'/Jesus. It says nothing about the law.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gosthom.html
Gospel of Thomas
(100) 'They showed Jesus a gold piece and said to him: Caesar’s men demand tribute from us. He said to them: What belongs to Caesar, give to Caesar; what belongs to God, give to God; and what is mine, give it to me.'
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I don't know; I still tend to think they are. I'd like to see this research that supposedly shows otherwise.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "that which is Cesar's" was not enacted in the name of Jesus. The death penalty in the United States, however, is enacted in the name of each of the citizens of the United States. I think it's the moral and Christian responsibility of the people of the U.S. to stand up and say Not in my name.