No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[Stripe]

Are all sins crimes?

No.

What exactly is a crime to you? The nuts and bolts of it please. Any behavior you disagree with perhaps?

Oh, please.

A crime would be defined by a criminal code. Our discussion is focused on what a government would be justified in including in its criminal code.

I don't think there's an easy way to define the things that should be in it and why. Something along the lines of "detrimental to society." Haven't really thought about it.

 

[ok doser]

No.

Oh, please.

A crime would be defined by a criminal code. Our discussion is focused on what a government would be justified in including in its criminal code.

I don't think there's an easy way to define the things that should be in it and why. Something along the lines of "detrimental to society." Haven't really thought about it.

aka "antisocial behaviors"

 

[ok doser]

WoO proposes a scenario and predicts a result:

If adultery was a capital crime, hardly anyone would get married, ever. Marriage rates would plummet to nearly zero.

dozer disagrees with WoO's prediction and explains why:

this one doesn't pass the sniff test for me - when my wife and i married, we married for love, we married forever, we married because we wanted to spend the rest of our lives together, we wanted to raise a family, build a home together, grow old together - it never occurred to us to plan for the opportunity to ruin that by cheating

inexplicably, artie feels it necessary to demonstrate his inability to understand:

Was there a law in place whereby one of you could have been executed if they had extra marital relations? No, there wasn't so all of this is moot in relation to Wiz's post.

Not any more moot than that part of WoO's post to which I was responding. WoO proposed a scenario and predicted a result. I responded to his prediction with my own perception of how that scenario would be received - I suspect [MENTION=7959]WizardofOz[/MENTION] understands what I was talking about - if you don't, perhaps it would be wiser for you to refrain from responding

 

[ok doser]

Right, so, the mob ...

there's no "mob" mentioned in the scripture - as i patiently explained, the characters in the story are the following:

Jesus
"all the people"
"the scribes and pharisees" who brought the woman
the woman
other pharisees

tried to trap Jesus by the law

that would be "the scribes and pharisees"

while being experts on it

they were the legal experts of the day, yes

and were thoroughly undermined

that's not in scripture

with abject ease

that's not in scripture

and taught a lesson beyond that.

that's not in scripture

Some experts...

yes, they were the legal experts of the day

 

[ok doser]

"Girls as elderly as fifteen"?!

right - the scenario i'm describing applies to any post-pubescent female of any age

i believe the record for youngest mother is a brazillian girl who was pregnant at 6

If you have states that advocate stuff whereby girls can be abused then that is appalling

i didn't say they can be abused, artie

i was very specific with my language:

in NYS (and others) there is a specific circumstance in which the state cedes any interest in the sexual molestation of a post pubescent girl of any age

 

[chair]

...
The state should protect our rights, but it cannot develop our character.

This viewpoint would not go over well in most dictatorships. Don't try translating it into Chinese, for example....

 

[ok doser]

This viewpoint would not go over well in most dictatorships. Don't try translating it into Chinese, for example....

should the state have forced unwanted legislation on private business and private individuals in 1964 in order to force changes in character?

was the state acting dictatorially when it directed private citizens to act in ways they would have otherwise chosen not to?

 

[ok doser]

Who regulates modern culture/society? Who directs society wrt values?

Government, through law

wanted to come back to this - this role used to be owned by the church - that's no longer the case

the church relinquished control of social norms and handed it over to government

the government, bowing to the will of the noisy few, is in the process of relinquishing control of social norms altogether

who will take up the reins?

will it be:

1. responsible Christians
or
2. perverted leftists

 

[Idolater]

What do you mean by "regulate?" What I take it to mean, is the authorization of law enforcement /government to variously penalize people, through force, coercion, arrest, imprisonment, etc., according to whether said people are innocent /law abiding, or criminals. So the law is that authorization. The law "releases the hounds" so to speak, licitly and validly, not criminally, such as in true cases of police brutality. So that's what I think when you say "regulate," and so my view is that the right to religious liberty is inalienable, and so no law can validly and licitly authorize law enforcement /government to harass, etc. people in any matter of faith or morals. And so I think that ideally (we are not ideal right now in the US, although we are at the top of the heap), laws are made only that authorize law enforcement /government to trouble people who infringe the inalienable rights of others.

But what do you mean by "regulate?"

 

[ok doser]

enforce by law - regulate behaviors (not character)

 

[Idolater]

OK tyvm. So we're using the same word. I think the right ideal is to make laws that regulate specifically the behaviors that infringe inalienable rights, some of which are implied in the Ten ("like the right to life (Ex20:13KJV), the right to property (Ex20:15KJV and Ex20:17KJV), the right to not be falsely testified against (Ex20:16KJV)"). Of course the right to religious liberty was not recognized in the Old Covenant, but it is in the New Covenant.

 

[chair]

should the state have forced unwanted legislation on private business and private individuals in 1964 in order to force changes in character?

was the state acting dictatorially when it directed private citizens to act in ways they would have otherwise chosen not to?

An interesting question. It is not easy to find the right path between extremes.

 

[drbrumley]

This viewpoint would not go over well in most dictatorships. Don't try translating it into Chinese, for example....

I agree....this viewpoint doesn't go over well here either.

 

[Stripe]

This viewpoint would not go over well in most dictatorships. Don't try translating it into Chinese, for example....

台灣就是台灣!!!

 

[drbrumley]

台灣就是台灣!!!

Now all you gotta do is go to China and post that

 

[Stripe]

Now all you gotta do is go to China and post that

I'd get disappeared.

 

[drbrumley]

Now all you gotta do is go to China and post that

I'd get disappeared.

Yep, cause you committed a crime.

 

[Arthur Brain]

WoO proposes a scenario and predicts a result:

dozer disagrees with WoO's prediction and explains why:


inexplicably, artie feels it necessary to demonstrate his inability to understand:

Not any more moot than that part of WoO's post to which I was responding. WoO proposed a scenario and predicted a result. I responded to his prediction with my own perception of how that scenario would be received - I suspect [MENTION=7959]WizardofOz[/MENTION] understands what I was talking about - if you don't, perhaps it would be wiser for you to refrain from responding

Wiz is the one that made the salient point, that the marriage rate would plummet, which it would if laws came in making extra marital relations a capital crime. So, you married for love, what do you suppose most people get married for or make relationship commitments over? Doesn't mean to say that all marriages/relationships work out and lots of folk would simply not bother getting married and run the risk. If you can't understand the obvious logic in that then perhaps you shouldn't bother responding in turn.

 

[Arthur Brain]

there's no "mob" mentioned in the scripture - as i patiently explained, the characters in the story are the following:

Jesus
"all the people"
"the scribes and pharisees" who brought the woman
the woman
other pharisees



that would be "the scribes and pharisees"



they were the legal experts of the day, yes



that's not in scripture



that's not in scripture



that's not in scripture



yes, they were the legal experts of the day

Of course they were undermined and with a few simple words. They certainly weren't very clever either.

 

[Bradley D]

And what was their attitude while they did so?

Did they show humility, were they sorry for disobeying you?

Or were they resentful, hating you for their being punished?

They were probably sorry they got caught. But they learned if they did the same thing again they would be punished for it. Hopefully as they grow older they will understand the wrong they did. Especially when they have their own children.