the religious and capital punishment

[nailit]

I would like to hear religious peoples attitude towards capital punishment.
State sanctioned execution is obviously a contentious and contraversial subject at the best of times but Im more interested in the religious aspect of it.
If you are religious, what crimes would warrent death? Are there 'crimes' that your holy books once sanctioned death for that are no longer applicable? Would society be better of if we (in the western world) followed your religious laws concerning capital punishment?
Thanks.
(obviously, thread open to non religious as well...)

[jno]

naomi, there's no reason to suppose Jesus was speaking only of adulteresses (or only of one adulteress, for that matter). He frequently spoke in parables whose meanings had wider implications. Likewise. if a law court made the same ruling now (I'm not saying it would), future courts would look to it as a precedent for all crimes.

[Anlyn]

Jebus (if he lived at all) was a schizophrenic that mostly babbled ***. It was interpreted by profiteering power hungry gits and scribbled down any way they saw best.
Tell me that's not so jno.

[ummmm]

Except that isn't the question!!

[jno]

I'm impressed that you can diagnose people who lived 2000 years ago; have you trained in medicine?

[birdie1971]

@Jno

Isn't it fair to say that Anlyn can no more prove that Jesus was schizophrenic than you can prove that He was the son of God?

[jno]

I haven't made any attempt to prove he was the son of God.

[birdie1971]

@Jno

But you believe that this is the case, no?

[jno]

my religious beliefs are nobody's business but my own.

[birdie1971]

@Jno

Then why do you prostrate them on AB? You've already tacitly accused Anlyn of misunderstanding Jesus (with a side order of belittling) but when challenged about such views, you simply bow out, claiming that your views are your own and not up for discussion!

Clearly, you saw where I was going and realised you had no defence – so you bailed out.

[jno]

Anyone who wishes to keep their beliefs private is free to do so. Anyone who announces their beliefs in public may expect them to be challenged. I haven't bailed out, I never bailed in.

I have no idea what "prostrating my beliefs" might mean.

[naomi24]

Jno, //there's no reason to suppose Jesus was speaking only of adulteresses (or only of one adulteress, for that matter).//

There’s no reason to believe he was speaking of anything else either, especially considering his advice on the punishment for disobedient children. Gentle Jesus meek and mild, eh?

//He frequently spoke in parables whose meanings had wider implications.//

Useful things, parables. ;o)

//Likewise. if a law court made the same ruling now (I'm not saying it would), future courts would look to it as a precedent for all crimes.//

Why bring law courts into this? Is God’s law only incontrovertible when it’s convenient, then?

//I never bailed in.//

Oh, you have. You don’t realise it, but you have. Reading your posts is a bit like playing ‘Through the Keyhole’ – only easier. You know what they say…… “The clues are there”. Why, you’re practically an open book. ;o)

[sandyRoe]

Is R&S taking a rather unattractive turn with these personal attacks on some of us? I believe some here are talking through their hats, but they still have the right to be heard.

[humbersloop]

^ Sandy, reading over the thread this morning, I would agree a couple of posts do jump out as just gratuitous insults.

Imho, those who can only engage at that level are more to be pitied than scorned: I often find your own posts devilishly funny ;)

Though as for planting seeds of doubt, I'm afraid some fall on stony ground...

[nailit]

Re: jno's post concerning the woman caught in adultery, If jesus himself was a jew, then why wasnt he following jewish law and stoning the woman himself? Where in the old testament does it say 'only stone people to death if you yourself are fit to'? It doesnt. The bible is very pro death penalty.

[jomifl]

Would any right thinking person decide another persons fate (life or death) based on the alleged sayings of someone who allegedly knew someone who was believed to be the friend of a person who claimed to be the son of a deity whose existence has never been satisfactorily demonstrated (let alone proved)?

[sandyRoe]

Lets leave aside for the moment the question of the man taken in adultery. Jesus didn't deny the authority of the law as it was then. He simply stated that if the woman was to be stoned then the people to do it shouldn't be candidates to be beside her when the stones started flying.

[Davethedog]

The world moves on, if you wish to base youe entire moral compass on a book writtrn (approx) 2 millenia ago very good.

However in the intervening 2k years man has advanced. So you either live by the rules or you live in the 21st century, as has been pointed out, Theists are very, very, selective about what the chose to follow and believe about their kind and loving god.

So it boils down to this, the bible advocates the stoning to death of adulterers, so should we in this century stone adulterers to death? If not why not, it is the word of god.

Me i'm a 21st century man and think they shoould lose the house, you could maybe stone the windows before they leave.

[sandyRoe]

Stone the crows!!! Lose the house.That's a bit drastic.

[Davethedog]

Your not wrong Sandy but somethings gotta give.

[naomi24]

Jno’s point was that Jesus (him being God according to the Christians) changed the rules, but he didn’t because he didn't say the punishment was wrong and should no longer apply. He simply told those who thought they were without sin to carry it out. It seems that, for the religious, the laws of God in their original form really ought to stand. Ouch!