Gun remark makes outdoorsman an outcast

ThumbingMyWay32

Collin wrote:

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.

soulsinging

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

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)?

Jeanie

Collin wrote:

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.

Collin

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

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.

ThumbingMyWay32

soulsinging wrote:

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?

soulsinging

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

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.

ThumbingMyWay32

Collin wrote:

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.

Collin

Jeanie wrote:

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'.

ThumbingMyWay32

soulsinging wrote:

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.

soulsinging

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

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.

and i think we'd all agree that a disgusting and primitive practice.

soulsinging

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

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

Collin

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

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.

Leviticus 20:13

All from the "Good" book.

onelongsong

soulsinging wrote:

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.

Collin

I thought the concept of "an eye for an eye" was that the punishment should match the crime.

Do you think a thief who stole a wallet, or a car or a box of matches should get the death penalty?

Collin

onelongsong wrote:

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.

Who said anything about disarming citizens?

Jeanie

Collin wrote:

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.

ThumbingMyWay32

soulsinging wrote:

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.

ThumbingMyWay32

Collin wrote:

I think it's outdated (I looked up the spelling ) like quartering someone is outdated, like burning someone at the stakes is outdated.

Yeah, I was just following your lead.


Outdated. Outdated. Outdated. Outdated.

Ok, I've got it now.

Collin

Jeanie wrote:

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.

Collin

ThumbingMyWay32 wrote:

Yeah, I was just following your lead.

Outdated. Outdated. Outdated. Outdated.

Ok, I've got it now.

Yeah, I know that's why I had to correct it, wouldn't want people to make spelling mistakes because of me.