Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
Same thing for my steaks as well...I like them cooked all the way through.Originally posted by Bro. Curtis:
I like my murderers & rapists well done.
Joseph Botwinick
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
U.S. Nears 1,000th Execution Since 1977
- Thread starter bb_baptist
- Start date
Joseph Botwinick
That means that the California execution of Tookie Williams (founder of the Crips gang), scheduled for Dec 13th, will be the 1001st. The second execution of the year in CA. Couldn't happen to a more deserving person.
1000 sounds high to some, low to others. It works out to about 35 per year. That sounds about right, if one is a proponent of the death penalty being used in only the most extreme cases.
Joseph_Botwinick
<img src=/532.jpg>Banned
John,
please define your subjective idea of "extreme cases". Personally, I think committing murder is an extreme case, and everyone who murders should be executed. What say you?
Joseph Botwinick
please define your subjective idea of "extreme cases". Personally, I think committing murder is an extreme case, and everyone who murders should be executed. What say you?
Joseph Botwinick
I suppose that would include multiple murders, serial killers, cases of stalking/lying in wait, etc. I'm not saying I side with that view or others, just pointing out an observation.
I think you know my view. In cases where it's a clear case of intentional murder, the death penalty in the very least is permissible, imo.
I think you know my view. In cases where it's a clear case of intentional murder, the death penalty in the very least is permissible, imo.
Bro. James Reed
New Member
The fact that we allow for multiple appeals, proof beyond reasonable doubt, trial by an independent jury, and such an unpainful death should proove to all that we are a civilized nation.
Uncivilized would be to kill millions of innocent people based on the claims of a single person, and no defense allowed for the convicted person.
Oh, wait, we already do that to our unborn children. I guess we aren't very civilized after all.
Uncivilized would be to kill millions of innocent people based on the claims of a single person, and no defense allowed for the convicted person.
Oh, wait, we already do that to our unborn children. I guess we aren't very civilized after all.
Er...you're the one who keeps quoting Gen 9, remember? The passage deals with both - why won't you?
Hey Matt,
Before you climb up too high on the European High Horse you ought to consider a couple of things.
1. It was the U.S. who showed the rest of the world what a true democratic republic with government for the people and by the people looks like.
2. It is the Christian Church in Europe that has become so weak and ineffectual so as to be almost unimportant in the lives of her citizens. This is due to generation upon generation of its leaders following hard after scholasticism, secular humanism, and biblical liberalism.
3. It is in the U.K. where Darwin is honored with his grave in Westminster and that Scottish Reformer, John Knox, is buried under a car park (parking lot for those in the U.S.).
I don't care if every Christian in England were to say that capital punishment is now wrong. Their opinions do not change the fact that God's Word gives the state the authority and mandate to carry it out. I'll stick with the Word. Pastor Larry has nailed to topic.
So deal with my question re Gen 9 then.
I assume you are talking about the question regarding eating rare or medium rare meat?
The Bible is clear we are not supposed to eat meat with the blood still in it. I suppose that the state health department could regulate restaurants and force them to only serve medium-well amd well done meat. In fact, I have had some servers tell me those are the only two options available in their place of business.
The real question: Is it the responsibility of the government to enforce a religious food "law" (a specific situation for a specific religious group)? However, it is clear from Romans and elsewhere in the Bible that it is the responsibility of the government to protect and honor life (a general principle or law applicable to all creation) as Pastor Larry has already pointed out.
The Bible is clear we are not supposed to eat meat with the blood still in it. I suppose that the state health department could regulate restaurants and force them to only serve medium-well amd well done meat. In fact, I have had some servers tell me those are the only two options available in their place of business.
The real question: Is it the responsibility of the government to enforce a religious food "law" (a specific situation for a specific religious group)? However, it is clear from Romans and elsewhere in the Bible that it is the responsibility of the government to protect and honor life (a general principle or law applicable to all creation) as Pastor Larry has already pointed out.
If you're claiming that Gen 9 gives some kind of universal mandate to the state to enforce the laws contained in that passage, then yes.
So what would the English do with Mugabwe? Have him over for tea and say, "Naughty, naughty, you should not have murdered all those people"? I say put him to death.
Er...you're the one who keeps quoting Gen 9, remember? The passage deals with both - why won't you? </font>[/QUOTE]I have. I first dealt with the part that was relevant to this topic. Then, at your request, I dealt with the part that is irrelevant to this topic.
We should probably keep this discussion on topic of death penalty, not on the topic of how you like your steaks cooked.
But the one is highly relevant to the other. Look, let me explain it in simple terms:-
1. Those of you who are pro-CP are continually quoting Gen 9:5-6 as justification for your stance
2. Further, you say that Gen 9 is of universal application and gives a mandate to the State to enforce the principle contained therein.
3. But Gen 9 also contains the principle that meat is not to be eaten with blood in.
4. Therefore, if Gen 9 is of universal application and madates the State to enforce the principle contained therein, as you argue, then by the same token you should petition your legislatures to prohibit the eating of rare steak.
So will someone please answer the question, as I am getting increasingly suspicious of your coyness and ducking and diving on this issue.
1. Those of you who are pro-CP are continually quoting Gen 9:5-6 as justification for your stance
2. Further, you say that Gen 9 is of universal application and gives a mandate to the State to enforce the principle contained therein.
3. But Gen 9 also contains the principle that meat is not to be eaten with blood in.
4. Therefore, if Gen 9 is of universal application and madates the State to enforce the principle contained therein, as you argue, then by the same token you should petition your legislatures to prohibit the eating of rare steak.
So will someone please answer the question, as I am getting increasingly suspicious of your coyness and ducking and diving on this issue.
According to whom?
Matt,
You have decided that eating meat with blood in it is a violation of Gen 9. But read Gen 9. It says "meat with life ... that is, the blood." The question is simply, Is the meat you are eating dead meat. It has nothing to do with the red liquid but with the life that it gave. Again, go back and read what was quoted. This is simple.
I believe Gen 9 is universally applicable. But it has nothing to do with the way you like your steaks cooked.
You ask "according to whom." The answer is "according to Scripture." Read it and understand what it is saying apart from your preconceived notions about disproving part of it. After 9 pages, you either believe or you don't. You are chasing rabbit trails of irrelevant issues to try to escape the teaching of the text.
Major failure. This question was already answered on the prevoius page. Why do you keep pushing it?
You have decided that eating meat with blood in it is a violation of Gen 9. But read Gen 9. It says "meat with life ... that is, the blood." The question is simply, Is the meat you are eating dead meat. It has nothing to do with the red liquid but with the life that it gave. Again, go back and read what was quoted. This is simple.
I believe Gen 9 is universally applicable. But it has nothing to do with the way you like your steaks cooked.
You ask "according to whom." The answer is "according to Scripture." Read it and understand what it is saying apart from your preconceived notions about disproving part of it. After 9 pages, you either believe or you don't. You are chasing rabbit trails of irrelevant issues to try to escape the teaching of the text.
No one has been coy, or ducked and dived on this issue. To the contrary, we have given clear answers rooted in the text. You appear to have simply decided that the text is old fashioned and out-dated, which leads me to wonder what else of Scripture you would like to do away with.
I'm pushing the question because you do not give an adequate answer. Your post amounts to yet more avoidance of the issue; you cannot pick and chose what Scripture means and which Scriptures apply today and then accuse me of doing the same.
Again, I ask, Scripture according to whom. You as usual come up with your 'Scripture is plain enough' mantra, which gets us nowhere; I can simply retort that "Scripture plainly says that the blood is the life and therefore any meat which has blood in it has life in it and is therefore forbidden". Who is to arbitrate between our interpretations (of course you will predictably argue that your interpretation isn't an interpretation at all but the 'plain meaning' of the text, but that's a matter for you)?
Again, I ask, Scripture according to whom. You as usual come up with your 'Scripture is plain enough' mantra, which gets us nowhere; I can simply retort that "Scripture plainly says that the blood is the life and therefore any meat which has blood in it has life in it and is therefore forbidden". Who is to arbitrate between our interpretations (of course you will predictably argue that your interpretation isn't an interpretation at all but the 'plain meaning' of the text, but that's a matter for you)?
This is exactly the problem. YOu are thinking backwards. The point is not that "things with blood have life." The point is that "things with life have blood." What is forbidden is eating things with life.
The text in its historical grammatical sense is the arbiter. On that basis you lose, Matt, because you are interpreting according to a non historical grammatical foundation. Go back and study what it means to have "blood." It is reference to life. Don't eat meat that isn't dead.
IT seems to me that you are the one avoiding the issue here.