JPD

You don't seem to be able to see why calling for people to be killed for something that will cause them to be sent to hell in any case does not strike one as being a rule that has its feet firmly set in intelligence and wisdom.

So what should happen is that someone convicted of being homosexual (I'm sorry - this would be so funny if your viewpoint was not real) would be put to death. Or would you get them to promise that they will seek salvation in order to have the death sentence reduced or annulled? In that case their concern would be with themselves - you wouldn't know whether they actually believed it. Or perhaps you would like to see them tagged and appearing on a virtual reality show.


Really? Do you think that someone who is homosexual can just switch it off and start enjoying the opposite sex instead (Biblical limitations apply)? Your understanding of homosexuality is on par with your understanding of probability in the 'God's Mercy & Compassion' thread

JPD

Not Biblical literalists. Any justification based on an internally inconsistent foundation is not going to be great.

Rape? Well if the person had done it before maybe castration, maybe medication and monitoring. If they knew they had a deadly STD and raped someone with the intention of causing that person to die after contracting the disease then a case could be made. I can see why the death penalty could be used in extreme cases where the evidence is very clear. But there is always the chance that an innocent person is convicted, there is the problem of the person pulling the lever or injecting the needle (or whatever it might be) being, basically, a murderer. Does it work as a deterent? If not, doesn't it just become a revenge act? What makes the person exacting the revenge any less a killer than the convicted killer him or herself?



Oh crikey - you're doing it again - you love your false dichotomies don't you? I'm not going to accept the Bible as the basis for passing judgement on people (whether they believe in the Bible or not) so therefore the only other possibility is no rules at all? Are you for real? You seem to alternate between false dichotomies and saying "Nonetheless...." when you don't know how to respond followed by some variation or other on Pascal's wager. We can tell when your argument has dried up.

JPD

I think he suspects that this may not be the most intelligent solution but is unable to say this because of the rules that have to be obeyed to reach a positive outcome after this life. Once one comes to rely on one text for guidance it makes things simple - too simple. I wonder why this hasn't been realised. 3 sets of belief - in Satan, in God, in an afterlife. One inconsistent and menacing text that ties it all together. Lovely!

rhutchin

I have been pretty consistent in saying that we should do things God's way. Consequently, my position is to follow the judicial procedures in the Bible (Matthew 18). You guys are always letting your imaginations run rampant.

JPD

It isn't about what you are saying but about what you really think. I don't think that you really regard the Bible as being as useful as you would have us believe you think it is. I think that you know deep down that the cracks are showing.

I am particularly amused by the type of smilie you have used - perhaps it would be a good idea to take a look at what you believe, and the rationale that you employ to support it, before attempting to pin the "your imagination is wild" label on anyone else.

Faith, most assuredly, requires the wildest imagination of all, the greatest degree of "running rampant".

rhutchin

You seem to go along with the idea that standards for behavior are good and punishment is proper under certain conditions. We could probably both agree that rape is wrong and that the punishment for rape would be death in some cases. We would then disagree with those who said that rape was not wrong and that people should freely have sex if requested so that the person refusing a request for sex would be in the wrong and rightfully forced to participate.

Punishment is levied simply because it is legally required. It is neither a determinant nor an act of revenge. It is the just consequence earned by the person who does wrong.

OK. Then who does it? Would you favor enforcing standards if you were excluded from setting those standards?

Then you must have another system for establishing standards. Can you divulge any details about it?

rhutchin

The Bible and the instruction it gives to people is superior to anything else a person could devise. I see no cracks.

Faith only requires that a person believe the Bible. Little real imagination is required. Those who imagine a universe without a cause and annihilation as the end of life have little to excite their imagination. It is no wonder that they are so attracted to the Bible.

JPD

A group made up from all walks of life - a full range of beliefs and non-beliefs.


Growth and development for all. No religious indoctrination of children. Non-biased exposure to as wide a range of ideas as possible. More equal distribution of resources. People on benefits must do some form of work for their money unless their illness or other disability makes this impossible. Accountability for one's actions. Punishment has to have something in it that the criminal can engage with to break out of the cycle of harm to self and to others.

The problem is that any course of action, whatever its foundations, exhibits a degree of shooting itself in the foot and being hypocritical. What I am keen not to see, however, is the implementation of a system that meted out punishment in an entirely different society from today's under the cloud of belief in, or negative reaction to, the potential of an all-powerful entity that, through time, has been able to hide in fewer and fewer places. In other words, a dwindling justification.

JPD

Of course you can't - you believe in it without condition. This is why there is little point discussing it with you. If the Bible said "This is all a lie" you would tally up all the verses that indicated otherwise and claim victory for the Bible or perhaps argue for a different definition of the word "lie". Is there anything that the Bible could say that would make you doubt it?

Or, blah blah blah, the Quran or blah blah blah, the Zoroastrian Bible, or blah blah blah any of the other texts on offer blah blah blah. Biblefaith only requires that a person believes the Bible. But, naturally, you know that the Bible is the only true text, and you know that your take on it is the true one. I find it amazing just how many people who can't agree just know that they are all correct in their thinking.

And another false dichotomy just to round off your total non-argument.

I don't believe in the Bible therefore I don't believe in causation? Why would that be the case? I can conceive of something creating the universe but that itself has to be created. How is an eternal regression in any way less imaginative than a first cause? But I will become a part in billions of other systems - this doesn't strike me as anything other than what it is - reality.

There is a difference between having a profound imagination and having a profound imagination and exercising it in a non-ridiculous manner.

rhutchin

I would have problems with inconsistencies that were significant and could not be reconciled. If there were some, they would have come out by now.

You are a man of faith (that death results in annihilation). On what do you base your great faith?

Do you have a physical law that allows for infinite regression without a first cause or is it just your imagination that you have faith in?

Why don't you exercise your imagination in a non-ridiculous manner and present a viable position contrary to the Bible?