Tell ya what. That 35% who think horrid criminals should live and stay in prison can now pay the costs of storing them and providing their care and feeding.
The rest of us will pay for a bullet.
PUBLIC OPINION > The Death Penalty Is Necessary
SodaHead Infographics
2012/04/30 16:00:00
California is getting ready to vote on whether or not to repeal capital punishment, so we took it to the broader public first, asking one basic question: Is the death penalty necessary? Though capital punishment is not practiced in most countries, it is practiced in the four most populous countries (China, India, Indonesia, and most of the U.S.), making it a complex and controversial topic. But don't worry, we broke it down for you by country, state -- and much more. Want to know how they feel about it in California? You might be surprised. Let's dive!
Top Opinion
-
Striker 2012/04/30 17:24:35
![Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003329051/thanksgiving-93109325925_crop.png "Thanksgiving: The Reason for the Season [INFOGRAPHIC]")
![A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC]](http://images.sodahead.com/polls/003194651/stealing-88440771717_crop.png "A Fourth of the Population Has Stolen From the Grocery Store [INFOGRAPHIC]")
If all killing is murder, what if someone kills another person to defend themselves? That certainly isn't murder
If we're just going to keep it going like this, I suggest we just agree to disagree.
Let me ask you, would Jesus crucify a murderer?
Perhaps a convict of a lesser crime, in prison?
The Sixth Commandment clearly is a prohibition against murder; not an injunction against capital punishment, the death penalty.
What is the Biblical Penalty for Murder?
That brings me to my next question -- What is the biblical penalty for murder? Let's look at Genesis 9:5-6. God says to Noah and his family,
"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; and at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth a man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
These verses are simply saying, murder is forbidden. Man-killing animals are to be killed and any ...
The Sixth Commandment clearly is a prohibition against murder; not an injunction against capital punishment, the death penalty.
What is the Biblical Penalty for Murder?
That brings me to my next question -- What is the biblical penalty for murder? Let's look at Genesis 9:5-6. God says to Noah and his family,
"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; and at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth a man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."
These verses are simply saying, murder is forbidden. Man-killing animals are to be killed and any person who murders another is to be killed. Killing a man is an offense against almighty God for man is made in God's image.
The verses makes it clear. Capital punishment, the taking of the perpetrators life, is what God demands for the murder of a human being by man or beast. There are some other specifics that the Lord laid out relating to capital punishment.
There must be two or more witnesses before one accused of murder can be put to death (Numbers 35:30)
A person judged guilty of murder must die. Do not allow any kind of bargain or ransom for his life. (Num. 35:30)
The blood of the victim murdered defiles the land. The only way it is cleansed is by administering capital punishment to the murderer. (Num. 35:33-34).
Capital punishment is in the Bible. it's hilarious that you think it's hilarious that Christians support this. Read Numbers chapter 35:30-34.
I wouldn't take the book to seriously...
(I'll just wait for someone to post Matthew 5:18)
Did you know that Matthew 5:18 doesn't mean the OT is irrelevant?
Most Christians love cherry-picking laws and rules that support their position, while disregarding the others.
I ought to write a silly ignorant, biased, logically unsound book attacking all religion. I might just sell over 2 million copies.
You should take some time to actually read the Bible on your own time, and form your own educated conclusion on it, so that (and this, of course, is all speculation, since you're not actually interested in being knowledgeable of something that you are so quick to criticize) you won't sound like a complete tool when arguing.
Yes, you are correct, Matthew 5:18 does not mean the OT is irrelevant. Infact, if one were to read it by itself, you could come to the conclusion (as so many have) that the Old Testament (I think the law is given in Leviticus) is the absolute, 100%, go-to book regarding the law for every Christian.
However...
If you read the verse right before Matthew 5:18, a record of Jesus's speech on the hill, and thought for a few minutes about what he was saying, you would realize that's not entirely true.
“Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." - Matthew 5:17.
So again, yes, the Old Testament is not irrelevant, and any Christian would do well to read it. But for ritualistic and legalistic things (like animal sacrifices, stoning your children, etc.) are not necessary, since they don't fit into Jesus's whole "Love your neighbor as thyself" philosophy.
And citing the Bible to defend the Bible is like using yourself as your own character witness.
and that thing about citing the Bible is obnoxious. That's like saying I can't cite Barack Obama to show something he said.
Oh, and I would just love to hear more about how the Bible has been doctored over and over. Please link me to some credible sources on these "doctorings".
"Oh, and I would just love to hear more about how the Bible has been doctored over and over. Please link me to some credible sources on these "doctorings""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Knock yourself out.
How cute. You linked me an uncited Wikipedia page about discrepancies between the Textus Receptus and Majority Text. I am so convinced.
Just for kicks though, let's assume the list is accurate and take a look at the very first verse (Matthew 5:44) which, coincidentally, happens to be the most relevant...
MT: But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.
CT: But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you.
Is that really such a huge "doctoring" that would affect your perception of the verse? Of course, the giant hole known as your argument gets even deeper when one realizes that the King James Bible, the translation that any educated Christian would use for arguing purposes, is based directly off the Textus
Receptus. (If you want to know why, just read the other source that you posted.)
All you're doing at this point is showing off your ignorance. So if you would like me to continue wasting my time, which I'm sure you would not, either stop posting or start posting something worth arguing.
Your horrible logic bores me. I don't feel like tearing down your weak arguments only for your to use fallacies to justify your blind faith in a book that's been altered, censored, and doctored through history. If you don't believe that, then fine, do you. Watch any documentary, crack open any book about the origins of Christianity and you'll know what I'm talking about.
By the way, Wikipedia did cite sources. It almost always does. That "Wikipedia is unreliable" argument is so outdated and untrue.
and being agnostic, I'm not so sure that any of us have meaning in life, but believe what you will.
The nerd part is partially correct.
The nerd part is correct and the Black, female, bisexual, agnostic, 69-year-old libertarian is incorrect, yes?
*and the agnostic