woman in america

Genuine question: who or what gives you the right to take another persons life, regardless of their behaviour?

Closing down debate again are we? Has what Christ said about non-violence any merit to it? He wasn't "just passing on the word of God" as he in effect was going against what the word of God (An eye for an eye). Clearly you believe in state sanctioned murder, which is of course your choice.

Baby out with the bathwater. That's like me selecting a piece of science that has been proven wrong and then claiming all science is wrong.

The Bible is a title given to many pieces of work compiled in one book. I doubt when the original authors wrote their pieces they had any idea what would become of them.

My original comment was that Christ's purported views on non-violence was something that I think makes a lot of sense. The fact that view was then compiled into a Bible hundreds of years later is neither here nor there. You've not commented on what he said, or argued against it, just repeated how the Bible is rubbish and therefore we should ignore everything that's in it.

 

RE: Well thats the point

*sigh*

But i'm not asking you to believe it because its in the Bible! I was saying I thought the words were good ones, DESPITE being in the Bible.

 

Genuine question: who or what gives you the right to take another persons life, regardless of their behaviour? [/QUOTE]

Nothing. Purely my stance on the punishment that should be meted out to pre-meditated murderers. I believe the world becomes a better place with these animals released from their mortal coil.

Closing down debate again are we? Has what Christ said about non-violence any merit to it? He wasn't "just passing on the word of God" as he in effect was going against what the word of God (An eye for an eye). Clearly you believe in state sanctioned murder, which is of course your choice. [/QUOTE]

But the way of mankind has proved that some level of force is required in order to maintain order. If half of us chose to maintain a completely pacifist way of life then there would soon be elements of the remaining "violent" half that would not respect our ways and destroy us. Better to rid the world of these types.

Baby out with the bathwater. That's like me selecting a piece of science that has been proven wrong and then claiming all science is wrong.[/QUOTE]

But science is based on logical probability of research and evidence. Science also constantly evolves and corrects itself based on new factual findings. Religion doesn't. Religions are the most arrogant self serving myths around.

The Bible is a title given to many pieces of work compiled in one book. I doubt when the original authors wrote their pieces they had any idea what would become of them.[/QUOTE]

Its a book of stories. In the same way that Aesop's fables are. there's nothing wrong with anyone choosing to live their lives by the words in the bible or the words in a fairy story, but to claim that modern life should be based on either is debatable.

My original comment was that Christ's purported views on non-violence was something that I think makes a lot of sense. The fact that view was then compiled into a Bible hundreds of years later is neither here nor there. You've not commented on what he said, or argued against it, just repeated how the Bible is rubbish and therefore we should ignore everything that's in it.[/QUOTE]

Which "quote" of Jesus should I respond to? Bearing in mind that the supposed words of Jesus were written into the Bible hundreds of years after his death at a time when archiving and recording of information was primitive how do we know he even said them at all? But maybe that's not the point? Maybe the point is that whoever wrote or said the words you are referring to is irrelevant and its the sentiment behind them that makes sense to you? In that case I cannot argue with your personal opinion, as it is just that. Yours.



[/QUOTE]

 

RE: Well thats the point

sigh too. It is getting a bit tedious now anyway don't you think.

 

What is pre-meditated murder? It is the cruel, calculated, cold-blooded killing of a fellow human man. It is the most wicked of crimes and the same one the State is guilty of it every time it executes a human being. People can never be animals, they are always human beings. When you dehumanize people in that manner you can justify any form of killing as history has shown.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction........How odd it is that those at the top, those 'maintaining order' are the same ones doing most of the mass killing........Should we rid the world of those types too? Or are we back to Stalin's old saying of, "One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is just a statistic"?

It's an idea, not a sentiment. But you got the point, eventually!

 

sen·ti·ment
Pronunciation:
\'sen-t?-m?ntFunction:
noun
Etymology:
French or Medieval Latin; French, from Medieval Latin sentimentum, from Latin sentire
Date:
1639
1 a: an attitude, thought, or judgment prompted by feeling : predilection b: a specific view or notion



(neer) Stop clevering...

 

PS

I see your point, I just don't agree with it.