The supreme court backs the killing of a petty thief?
the supreme court backs self defence. if the theif has a weapon; he's not a petty thief.
i'm not alone. i know in arizona alone several cases have either been dismissed or the shooter not even charged. you may remember a case where someone held 11 illegals at gunpoint. the case got national attention b/c some mexican group had a big to-do about it.
we don't f* around here.
to use lethal force in self defense you have to have a reasonable fear of physical harm or death. you can't just shoot a guy who tries to pick your pocket.
EXACTLY! but you can pull your weapon and give him the chance to retreat.
Turn the other cheek. You probably know Jesus better than I do, how do you think he would have reacted if someone tried to steal his mule or his shoes or something?
i was held at gunpoint once by a criminal. it won't happen again
How are you so sure?
the supreme court backs self defence. if the theif has a weapon; he's not a petty thief.
You didn't say anything about a weapon. Anyway, when you have no problem with killing over a wallet or car, I think you have a problem.
EXACTLY! but you can pull your weapon and give him the chance to retreat.
If he has a weapon and you try and pull your weapon wouldn't that frighten him, or get him stressed? Do you think he's going to let you pull your gun? Would you?
EXACTLY! but you can pull your weapon and give him the chance to retreat.
you made it sound like you'd start blasting if you saw someone eyeing up your car wrong.
in any case, we were discussing gun laws. this has nothing to do with 2nd amendment guarantees of an armed militia and only exposes the need for us to keep guns from flooding our streets. what if we had a society where ONLY law-abiding citizens had guns?
Turn the other cheek. You probably know Jesus better than I do, how do you think he would have reacted if someone tried to steal his mule or his shoes or something?
people think the 10 commandments (actually 619 commandments) say thou shalt not kill. this is wrong. it says thou shalt not murder. those who not live by the law should be punished. remember stoning?
How are you so sure?
i don't hesitate to pull the trigger.
You didn't say anything about a weapon. Anyway, when you have no problem with killing over a wallet or car, I think you have a problem.
i have ho problem defending myself. what it's over is irrelevant.
people think the 10 commandments (actually 619 commandments) say thou shalt not kill. this is wrong. it says thou shalt not murder. those who not live by the law should be punished. remember stoning?
No, I don't remember stoning, I guess I'm not old enough to remember out-dated methods. Go rape a single virgin and marry her and give her some money. No harm done, it's in the Bible.
And when a rape victim (who's married) doesn't cry for help when she's being raped, stone her to death! The rapist too, how dare he abuse someone else's property.
i don't hesitate to pull the trigger.
Do you really think someone who is holding you at gunpoint will let you pull your weapon? Or will you just shoot anyone who comes up to you asking for a light?
i have ho problem defending myself. what it's over is irrelevant.
Amazing, you'd kill someone over a pencil or piece of gun. This is one of the sickest things I have ever read. Killing someone over a wallet? That's insane!
And the fact that you'd have no problem killing them, no just wounding them. They have to die.
If he has a weapon and you try and pull your weapon wouldn't that frighten him, or get him stressed? Do you think he's going to let you pull your gun? Would you?
criminals prefer unarmed victims. having a conceiled weapon gives you the element of surprise. while the criminal is thinking you're reaching for your wallet; he's concerned about who is about or seeing him. in all the cases i've heard about on the news; the criminal is in shock when confronted with a weapon. the criminal uses the weapon to induce fear. if he really planned on using it; he'd shoot first. most criminals are not trained to use the weapon. someone with a permit is.
i'm sure you saw or heard about 44 minutes. these guys used automatic weapons to rob a bank and keep the police at bay. the only deaths were the criminals with the superior weapons.
criminals prefer unarmed victims. having a conceiled weapon gives you the element of surprise. while the criminal is thinking you're reaching for your wallet; he's concerned about who is about or seeing him. in all the cases i've heard about on the news; the criminal is in shock when confronted with a weapon. the criminal uses the weapon to induce fear. if he really planned on using it; he'd shoot first. most criminals are not trained to use the weapon. someone with a permit is.
i'm sure you saw or heard about 44 minutes. these guys used automatic weapons to rob a bank and keep the police at bay. the only deaths were the criminals with the superior weapons.
so what was your response to these biblical practices again?
"No, I don't remember stoning, I guess I'm not old enough to remember out-dated methods. Go rape a single virgin and marry her and give her some money. No harm done, it's in the Bible.
And when a rape victim (who's married) doesn't cry for help when she's being raped, stone her to death! The rapist too, how dare he abuse someone else's property."
No, I don't remember stoning, I guess I'm not old enough to remember out-dated methods. Go rape a single virgin and marry her and give her some money. No harm done, it's in the Bible.
Actually, it's not that you don't remember, it's just that you don't know any better. Stoning is still prevalent in many countries around the world as a means of punishment for various crimes.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Actually, it's not that you don't remember, it's just that you don't know any better. Stoning is still prevalent in many countries around the world as a means of punishment for various crimes.
and dont we usually decry its use in most contexts... even those in which the bible specifically approved it (such as a punishment for a woman who was raped and thus dishonored her husband)?
Amazing, you'd kill someone over a pencil or piece of gun. This is one of the sickest things I have ever read. Killing someone over a wallet? That's insane!
And the fact that you'd have no problem killing them, no just wounding them. They have to die.
Collin, onelongsong has mentioned before that he has been held at gunpoint.
Perhaps his views are tainted by this memory. Victims of violent crime are more likely to be more vigilant next time. And to be more prepared to defend themselves after an attack. Having said that, given that he is generally a peaceful person, I think you'd find that what he says, how he feels and what would actually happen are all very different things. And that goes for anybody.
No one can know what they would do in these situations.
Actually, it's not that you don't remember, it's just that you don't know any better. Stoning is still prevalent in many countries around the world as a means of punishment for various crimes.
He was talking about the Bible and about the punishment people received when they didn't live by the rules of God.
So no I don't remember biblical times.
Unless of course you're trying to say Christians still do this and you agree with it. In that case kudos, I've seen some mighty fine examples of the Christian mindset here.
and dont we usually decry its use in most contexts... even those in which the bible specifically approved it (such as a punishment for a woman who was raped and thus dishonored her husband)?
I was unaware the Bible approved of the execution of a woman who has been raped. Otherwise, I have little pity for any type of criminal. I'm a pretty big supporter of the "eye for an eye" methodology anyway. What's so wrong with stoning a murderer?
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
I was unaware the Bible approved of the execution of a woman who has been raped. Otherwise, I have little pity for any type of criminal. I'm a pretty big supporter of the "eye for an eye" methodology anyway. What's so wrong with stoning a murderer?
they've been posted on here a million times... probly around the time you run away from the debate knowing you havent got a leg to stand on. the bible is chock full of proper ways to enslave people, torture rape victims for dishonor, and other vastly outdated practices.
it's one thing to say criminals should be held accountable. it's another to support that view with a book that contains a lot of practices i know (or at least hope) you would never condone, and then claim that YOU get to pick and choose which are still valid. the point being, the old testament is not justification for your stances. you have your beliefs and refer to the bible as a lazy way of rationalizing them. becos if you were consistent in your dedication to biblical justice you would have to accept practices that even you would consider abhorrent.
He was talking about the Bible and about the punishment people received when they didn't live by the rules of God.
So no I don't remember biblical times.
Unless of course you're trying to say Christians still do this and you agree with it. In that case kudos, I've seen some mighty fine examples of the Christian mindset here.
No thanks. I'm not a Christian.
And I was referring to your mention of the term out-dated. It's far from out-dated. As a matter of fact, most stonings today take place in Muslim countries. Often times the punishments are handed down by religious leaders instead of any localized government. Of course in many Muslim countries it can be hard to distinguish the two.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Collin, onelongsong has mentioned before that he has been held at gunpoint.
Perhaps his views are tainted by this memory. Victims of violent crime are more likely to be more vigilant next time. And to be more prepared to defend themselves after an attack. Having said that, given that he is generally a peaceful person, I think you'd find that what he says, how he feels and what would actually happen are all very different things. And that goes for anybody.
No one can know what they would do in these situations.
There's a difference between being more vigilant and 'having no problem with killing someone over a cup of coffee.'
I had a teacher once, he was a priest. He went to a dangerous city somewhere in Kenya or something and a thug held him at gun point and asked for his shoes, he gave his shoes and said wait, here's my wallet, backpack and watch.
You'd think he would have stayed away from dangerous places like that after being held at at gunpoint, but he didn't. You know what he told us 'I'm not afraid to be a Christian and do the Christian thing'.
collin showed the verses. the bible is chock full of proper ways to enslave people, torture rape victims for dishonor, and other vastly outdated practices.
it's one thing to say criminals should be held accountable. it's another to support with a book that contains a lot of practices i know (or at least hope) you would never condone and claim that YOU get to pick and choose which to obey in order to fit your beliefs. the point being, the old testament is not justification for your stances. you have your beliefs and refer to the bible as a lazy way of rationalizing them.
I'm not a Christian. And I wasn't using to Bible to justify anything. I'm simply in the middle of an argument that was already ongoing. Someone said stoning was an out-dated method of punishment. Morally? Maybe... Realistically? It's still pretty common.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
And I was referring to your mention of the term out-dated. It's far from out-dated. As a matter of fact, most stonings today take place in Muslim countries. Often times the punishments are handed down by religious leaders instead of any localized government. Of course in many Muslim countries it can be hard to distinguish the two.
and i think we'd all agree that a disgusting and primitive practice.
I'm not a Christian. And I wasn't using to Bible to justify anything. I'm simply in the middle of an argument that was already ongoing. Someone said stoning was an out-dated method of punishment. Morally? Maybe... Realistically? It's still pretty common.
they were arguing with onelongsong, the argument had nothing to do with the nature of the punishment (stoning vs. lethal injection) so much as it had to do with the justification for it (eye for an eye). for someone who scolded me about context about 2 minutes ago you missed the point pretty badly here
And I was referring to your mention of the term out-dated. It's far from out-dated. As a matter of fact, most stonings today take place in Muslim countries. Often times the punishments are handed down by religious leaders instead of any localized government. Of course in many Muslim countries it can be hard to distinguish the two.
I think it's outdated (I looked up the spelling ) like quartering someone is outdated, like burning someone at the stakes is outdated.
There are better, more modern ways to punish someone.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.
Deuteronomy 17:12
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.
collin showed the verses. the bible is chock full of proper ways to enslave people, torture rape victims for dishonor, and other vastly outdated practices.
it's one thing to say criminals should be held accountable. it's another to support with a book that contains a lot of practices i know (or at least hope) you would never condone and claim that YOU get to pick and choose which to obey in order to fit your beliefs. the point being, the old testament is not justification for your stances. you have your beliefs and refer to the bible as a lazy way of rationalizing them.
agreed. you can't use an old book which is why I didn't bring it up. i'm only stating the way things are in my state. take your crime to somewhere that disarm citizens.
when i lived near chicago; a few towns banned all guns within the city limits. burglary and home invasions jumped. if i were a criminal; i'd gladly travel to a place where i knew the homeowner couldn't defend him/herself.
agreed. you can't use an old book which is why I didn't bring it up. i'm only stating the way things are in my state. take your crime to somewhere that disarm citizens.
when i lived near chicago; a few towns banned all guns within the city limits. burglary and home invasions jumped. if i were a criminal; i'd gladly travel to a place where i knew the homeowner couldn't defend him/herself.
There's a difference between being more vigilant and 'having no problem with killing someone over a cup of coffee.'
I had a teacher once, he was a priest. He went to a dangerous city somewhere in Kenya or something and a thug held him at gun point and asked for his shoes, he gave his shoes and said wait, here's my wallet, backpack and watch.
You'd think he would have stayed away from dangerous places like that after being held at at gunpoint, but he didn't. You know what he told us 'I'm not afraid to be a Christian and do the Christian thing'.
And there's a difference between what you say you'd do and what you'd actually do in a situation. And it's different for everybody on any given day in any given circumstances. All I'm saying is this is a message board. Don't be getting so upset by what onelongsong says he would do in this circumstance, because this circumstance hasn't happened and he hasn't done anything as yet.
As to not being afraid to do the Christian thing, well that's fine, I'm happy that your priest has NEVER felt the need to retaliate in anyway for acts perpertrated against him. Actually that's not what you're saying is it?
All you've said is that in that circumstance that is what he did. And that's really great. He's to be commended. But I guess, again, I'd like to reiterate, no one can say absolutely what they would do. They can only summize.
Same with your priest. He may have a very different response another time.
they were arguing with onelongsong, the argument had nothing to do with the nature of the punishment (stoning vs. lethal injection) so much as it had to do with the justification for it (eye for an eye). for someone who scolded me about context about 2 minutes ago you missed the point pretty badly here
I apologize. I have a habit of jumping into threads at the very end. Reading 10 pages before replying to anything can be painful for me at times.
"Sarcasm: intellect on the offensive"
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
And there's a difference between what you say you'd do and what you'd actually do in a situation. And it's different for everybody on any given day in any given circumstances. All I'm saying is this is a message board. Don't be getting so upset by what onelongsong says he would do in this circumstance, because this circumstance hasn't happened and he hasn't done anything as yet.
Sure there may be a difference but I think it's rather sick and sad that someone says he'd have no problem with killing someone over a candy bar or whatever.
If that doesn't upset people, there's something wrong with the people. It just proves how fucked up and twisted this world really is.
As to not being afraid to do the Christian thing, well that's fine, I'm happy that your priest has NEVER felt the need to retaliate in anyway for acts perpertrated against him. Actually that's not what you're saying is it?
All you've said is that in that circumstance that is what he did. And that's really great. He's to be commended. But I guess, again, I'd like to reiterate, no one can say absolutely what they would do. They can only summize.
Same with your priest. He may have a very different response another time.
He wasn't my priest, he was my teacher. I truly believe he'd always do what he did.
Comments
How very sad and sickening. When people think a wallet or a car is worth more than someone's life there's something seriously wrong.
And I hate to throw this in your face but I thought you were a Christian?
The supreme court backs the killing of a petty thief?
naděje umírá poslední
an eye for an eye. i was held at gunpoint once by a criminal. it won't happen again
the supreme court backs self defence. if the theif has a weapon; he's not a petty thief.
i'm not alone. i know in arizona alone several cases have either been dismissed or the shooter not even charged. you may remember a case where someone held 11 illegals at gunpoint. the case got national attention b/c some mexican group had a big to-do about it.
we don't f* around here.
EXACTLY! but you can pull your weapon and give him the chance to retreat.
leaves the whole world blind.
Turn the other cheek. You probably know Jesus better than I do, how do you think he would have reacted if someone tried to steal his mule or his shoes or something?
How are you so sure?
You didn't say anything about a weapon. Anyway, when you have no problem with killing over a wallet or car, I think you have a problem.
naděje umírá poslední
If he has a weapon and you try and pull your weapon wouldn't that frighten him, or get him stressed? Do you think he's going to let you pull your gun? Would you?
naděje umírá poslední
you made it sound like you'd start blasting if you saw someone eyeing up your car wrong.
in any case, we were discussing gun laws. this has nothing to do with 2nd amendment guarantees of an armed militia and only exposes the need for us to keep guns from flooding our streets. what if we had a society where ONLY law-abiding citizens had guns?
i have ho problem defending myself. what it's over is irrelevant.
No, I don't remember stoning, I guess I'm not old enough to remember out-dated methods. Go rape a single virgin and marry her and give her some money. No harm done, it's in the Bible.
And when a rape victim (who's married) doesn't cry for help when she's being raped, stone her to death! The rapist too, how dare he abuse someone else's property.
Do you really think someone who is holding you at gunpoint will let you pull your weapon? Or will you just shoot anyone who comes up to you asking for a light?
Amazing, you'd kill someone over a pencil or piece of gun. This is one of the sickest things I have ever read. Killing someone over a wallet? That's insane!
And the fact that you'd have no problem killing them, no just wounding them. They have to die.
naděje umírá poslední
criminals prefer unarmed victims. having a conceiled weapon gives you the element of surprise. while the criminal is thinking you're reaching for your wallet; he's concerned about who is about or seeing him. in all the cases i've heard about on the news; the criminal is in shock when confronted with a weapon. the criminal uses the weapon to induce fear. if he really planned on using it; he'd shoot first. most criminals are not trained to use the weapon. someone with a permit is.
i'm sure you saw or heard about 44 minutes. these guys used automatic weapons to rob a bank and keep the police at bay. the only deaths were the criminals with the superior weapons.
so what was your response to these biblical practices again?
"No, I don't remember stoning, I guess I'm not old enough to remember out-dated methods. Go rape a single virgin and marry her and give her some money. No harm done, it's in the Bible.
And when a rape victim (who's married) doesn't cry for help when she's being raped, stone her to death! The rapist too, how dare he abuse someone else's property."
Actually, it's not that you don't remember, it's just that you don't know any better. Stoning is still prevalent in many countries around the world as a means of punishment for various crimes.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
and dont we usually decry its use in most contexts... even those in which the bible specifically approved it (such as a punishment for a woman who was raped and thus dishonored her husband)?
Collin, onelongsong has mentioned before that he has been held at gunpoint.
Perhaps his views are tainted by this memory. Victims of violent crime are more likely to be more vigilant next time. And to be more prepared to defend themselves after an attack. Having said that, given that he is generally a peaceful person, I think you'd find that what he says, how he feels and what would actually happen are all very different things. And that goes for anybody.
No one can know what they would do in these situations.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
He was talking about the Bible and about the punishment people received when they didn't live by the rules of God.
So no I don't remember biblical times.
Unless of course you're trying to say Christians still do this and you agree with it. In that case kudos, I've seen some mighty fine examples of the Christian mindset here.
naděje umírá poslední
I was unaware the Bible approved of the execution of a woman who has been raped. Otherwise, I have little pity for any type of criminal. I'm a pretty big supporter of the "eye for an eye" methodology anyway. What's so wrong with stoning a murderer?
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
they've been posted on here a million times... probly around the time you run away from the debate knowing you havent got a leg to stand on. the bible is chock full of proper ways to enslave people, torture rape victims for dishonor, and other vastly outdated practices.
it's one thing to say criminals should be held accountable. it's another to support that view with a book that contains a lot of practices i know (or at least hope) you would never condone, and then claim that YOU get to pick and choose which are still valid. the point being, the old testament is not justification for your stances. you have your beliefs and refer to the bible as a lazy way of rationalizing them. becos if you were consistent in your dedication to biblical justice you would have to accept practices that even you would consider abhorrent.
No thanks. I'm not a Christian.
And I was referring to your mention of the term out-dated. It's far from out-dated. As a matter of fact, most stonings today take place in Muslim countries. Often times the punishments are handed down by religious leaders instead of any localized government. Of course in many Muslim countries it can be hard to distinguish the two.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
There's a difference between being more vigilant and 'having no problem with killing someone over a cup of coffee.'
I had a teacher once, he was a priest. He went to a dangerous city somewhere in Kenya or something and a thug held him at gun point and asked for his shoes, he gave his shoes and said wait, here's my wallet, backpack and watch.
You'd think he would have stayed away from dangerous places like that after being held at at gunpoint, but he didn't. You know what he told us 'I'm not afraid to be a Christian and do the Christian thing'.
naděje umírá poslední
I'm not a Christian. And I wasn't using to Bible to justify anything. I'm simply in the middle of an argument that was already ongoing. Someone said stoning was an out-dated method of punishment. Morally? Maybe... Realistically? It's still pretty common.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
and i think we'd all agree that a disgusting and primitive practice.
they were arguing with onelongsong, the argument had nothing to do with the nature of the punishment (stoning vs. lethal injection) so much as it had to do with the justification for it (eye for an eye). for someone who scolded me about context about 2 minutes ago you missed the point pretty badly here
I think it's outdated (I looked up the spelling
There are better, more modern ways to punish someone.
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel.
Deuteronomy 17:12
If within the city a man comes upon a maiden who is betrothed, and has relations with her, you shall bring them both out of the gate of the city and there stone them to death: the girl because she did not cry out for help though she was in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbors wife.
Deuteronomy 22:23-24
If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives.
Leviticus 20:13
All from the "Good" book.
naděje umírá poslední
agreed. you can't use an old book which is why I didn't bring it up. i'm only stating the way things are in my state. take your crime to somewhere that disarm citizens.
when i lived near chicago; a few towns banned all guns within the city limits. burglary and home invasions jumped. if i were a criminal; i'd gladly travel to a place where i knew the homeowner couldn't defend him/herself.
Do you think a thief who stole a wallet, or a car or a box of matches should get the death penalty?
naděje umírá poslední
Who said anything about disarming citizens?
naděje umírá poslední
And there's a difference between what you say you'd do and what you'd actually do in a situation. And it's different for everybody on any given day in any given circumstances. All I'm saying is this is a message board. Don't be getting so upset by what onelongsong says he would do in this circumstance, because this circumstance hasn't happened and he hasn't done anything as yet.
As to not being afraid to do the Christian thing, well that's fine, I'm happy that your priest has NEVER felt the need to retaliate in anyway for acts perpertrated against him. Actually that's not what you're saying is it?
All you've said is that in that circumstance that is what he did. And that's really great. He's to be commended. But I guess, again, I'd like to reiterate, no one can say absolutely what they would do. They can only summize.
Same with your priest. He may have a very different response another time.
*~You're IT Bert!~*
Hold on to the thread
The currents will shift
I apologize. I have a habit of jumping into threads at the very end. Reading 10 pages before replying to anything can be painful for me at times.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Yeah, I was just following your lead.
Outdated. Outdated. Outdated. Outdated.
Ok, I've got it now.
"What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact."
Camden 5-28-06
Washington, D.C. 6-22-08
Sure there may be a difference but I think it's rather sick and sad that someone says he'd have no problem with killing someone over a candy bar or whatever.
If that doesn't upset people, there's something wrong with the people. It just proves how fucked up and twisted this world really is.
He wasn't my priest, he was my teacher. I truly believe he'd always do what he did.
naděje umírá poslední
Yeah, I know that's why I had to correct it, wouldn't want people to make spelling mistakes because of me.
naděje umírá poslední