I believe that you have communicated that some people responded to your question. That did not include me.
Do you have a non racial definition for the word negro? It sounds like racism.
No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
- Status
I believe that you have communicated that some people responded to your question. That did not include me.
Do you have a non racial definition for the word negro? It sounds like racism.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
no
it is a term of racial identification, like Caucasian or oriental
i suppose that depends on what you think the term "racism" means
what do you think the term "racism" means?
I am unfamiliar with discussions of race or what race means. Racism is grouping people into races. Different people groups. Instead of realizing that we are all descended from Adam and Eve.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and yet if i showed you this picture you could tell at a glance which child was negroid and which child was caucasian
no
look it up
i recommend websters or oxford for online dictionaries
To be honest I don't know. I have even heard different things about what makes someone Caucasian. Maybe I am Caucasian or white or neither.and yet if i showed you this picture you could tell at a glance which child was negroid and which child was caucasian
racism noun
rac·ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- \
Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
rac·ism | \ ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm also -ˌshi- \
Definition of racism
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
The Google definition might be closer to what you are thinking.
rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, bias, intolerance; More
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
"theories of racism"
/ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
"a program to combat racism"
synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice/bigotry, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, bias, intolerance; More
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
"theories of racism"
So I was wrong. But I don't know much about race or races. If I know what a race is, hopefully I don't know one that is mine or something, because then asking how many races there are or what the other ones are would produce people not like me in my mind rather than other people.
glassjester
Well-known member
Okay, fair enough. For once we seem to agree on a subject more than disagree...
For once? Come on now - we've agreed at least one other time. What did you think of Bandersnatch, anyway?
glassjester
Well-known member
Again, I never said there is no distinction between ritual law/ criminal law/ civil law/ moral law, in the OT. Instead, I'm wondering how you distinguish between them.
For example, you said earlier:
So how do you know that specific penalties for specific crimes were intended for every nation, and not just for Israel?
Last edited:
Because of your own stated premise...
"Of course the moral code remains. That which was morally wrong then, remains morally wrong today."
You state it in the negative but the affirmative holds just as well. That which was morally right then, remains morally right today.
Therefore...
The punishment for a moral based crime is just as valid as is the crime itself. If the law against murder would still apply so would it's punishment for the same reason.
Further, justice itself tells you what the punishment should be for most crimes anyway. It's not difficult to understand that the person who takes a life forfeits his own. The biblical precept of life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe is totally intuitive justice. The governing official does unto the convicted criminal as he has done (or sought to do) to his victim. It is nothing at all other than the Golden Rule applied by force to the criminal.
How could the punishment for crime ever justly be anything else?
Clete
" The authors noted criminals do not consider the consequences of their actions, particularly when the consequence is rarely applied, as in the case of the death penalty. "Much psychological and sociological research suggests that many criminal acts are crimes of passion or committed in a heated moment based only on immediate circumstances, and thus potential offenders may not consider or weigh longer-term possibilities of punishment and capture, including the possibility of capital punishment."
Source
Source
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
if this were true, one would expect to see that drunk driving laws, for example, were ineffective
similarly rape, child molestation, etc
Abortion has more affect on murder rates (criminal rates in general.)than the d.p.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
a perfect example of "criminals do not consider the consequences of their actions, particularly when the consequence is rarely applied", as the proper consequence for murdering your child should be the death penalty
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Ah yes, we did agree on Black Mirror as I recall. Unfortunately I still haven't seen Bandersnatch yet but that will be rectified shortly...
Interesting observation.
Even as - via your apt example - the death penalty remains functionally ineffective? Sounds like an emotional, personal crusade to me.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
you're a brilliant poster with a keen intellect, so I'm at a loss to explain why you believe "the death penalty remains functionally ineffective"
perhaps it is - i don't see it, but you're a brilliant poster with a keen intellect, so it's probably beyond my comprehension
Last edited:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
glassjester
Well-known member
Was it morally right (then) to kill someone for cursing their parents?
Read the law. If it was followed, where would the immorality be?
Or are you one of these guys who thinks they are above the law?
bibleverse2
New member
Note that imprisonment, keeping legal offenders "in ward" (Leviticus 24:12, Numbers 15:34), was practiced during the time of the Old Covenant Mosaic law.
Also, Hades is God's "prison" for souls (1 Peter 3:19), even under Jesus Christ's New Covenant law (Matthew 5:22-26, Matthew 18:23-35, Luke 12:58-59).
Also, the souls of all obedient believers who died during Old Testament times are now part of the Church in heaven (Hebrews 11:13-16, Hebrews 12:22-24). For now there are no believers outside of the Church (Ephesians 4:4-6). And 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Peter 3:18c-19, and Ephesians 4:9 show that there was a post-resurrection descent of Jesus Christ into Hades to preach the fulfillment of the Gospel (of 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) to the souls of the dead imprisoned in Hades, after which preaching, Jesus ascended into heaven with all of the souls of those in Hades who had died in faith (Ephesians 4:8-9, Hebrews 11:13-16, Hebrews 12:22-24).
bibleverse2
New member
Regarding Matthew 5:17-18, it means that Jesus Christ came the first time not to abolish the prophecies in the Mosaic law and the Old Testament prophets regarding the Messiah's/the Christ's first coming, but to fulfill all those prophecies (Luke 24:44-48; e.g. Acts 3:22-26, Isaiah 53). Matthew 5:17-18 cannot mean that Jesus came not to abolish the letter of the commandments of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, for He did come to do that, on the Cross (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17, Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Hebrews 7:18-19). Also, Matthew 5:17-18 cannot mean that Jesus came to fulfill the letter of all of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments, for He could not possibly have done that. For example, some of those commandments applied only to women after childbirth (Leviticus 12:4-8), or to wives suspected of adultery by their husbands (Numbers 5:19-31).
As the Christ (Matthew 5:17, Luke 24:44-46), the mediator of the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-9), Jesus had the divine authority to contradict the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments and replace them with His own, even better, New Covenant commandments (Matthew 5:38-44, Matthew 19:7-9, John 8:5-7), such as those He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37; 1 Thessalonians 4:2). And as the Christ, Jesus had the divine authority to allow His disciples to break the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law's commandments (Matthew 12:1-8).
- Status