O’Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status

[Teallaura]

Not sure what your point is, Romans 13 is pretty clear.

Butt out, Seer - unless you plan to defend his accusation.

[seer]

There is no rational moral case against capital punishment - nor does Scripture provide an absolute proscription of it. Without God's clear intervention (which we no longer have - the urim and thummim) there can be no guarantee of a just outcome. God is perfect, we aren't.

What is your point about the High Priest's urim and thummim in the case of the death penalty?

[Teallaura]

I'm confused. I wasn't referring at all to anything to do with capitalization. Jim does it so often I ignore it. I was referring to calling capital punishment stupid.

You defended his accusation. Maybe you didn't intend to, as implied here, but you did. You made no clarification - you just defended what he said.

Of course, I'm mad! I can't figure out how that confuses you.

[Teallaura]

What is your point about the High Priest's urim and thummim in the case of the death penalty?

At that time God provided a direct answer that was evidently readily interpreted. There would be no mistakes because God doesn't make any.

Humans do little else.

[seer]

At that time God provided a direct answer that was evidently readily interpreted. There would be no mistakes because God doesn't make any.

Humans do little else.

But that was not applied to the death penalty cases in the OT. Two witness was all that was needed.

[seer]

Butt out, Seer - unless you plan to defend his accusation.

Butt out? I have no dog in this fight - I'm just trying to find out what your objection on Romans 13 is.

[KingsGambit]

You defended his accusation. Maybe you didn't intend to, as implied here, but you did. You made no clarification - you just defended what he said.

Of course, I'm mad! I can't figure out how that confuses you.

Because you were going on about a capitalization issue I hadn't even noticed.

[Teallaura]

Because you were going on about a capitalization issue I hadn't even noticed.

Evidently you also didn't notice exactly what was said in the post you agreed with.

[Tassman]

So? You are not making sense, many cultures and peoples accepted slavery. It was pretty much universal.

Indeed. The point being made is that slavery was equally accepted by Christians as part of their culture and justified by the use of scripture. Just as historically ALL the cultural mores of the day in Christian societies have been justified by the use of scripture...e.g. the oppression of women.

Why is that primitive or better than what we have today, especially in your morally relative world?

Your argument was that capital punishment was a deterrent. It's not, it's vindictive revenge. “Scientists agree, by an overwhelming majority, that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. They felt the same way over ten years ago, and nothing has changed since then. States without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment".

https://www.amnestyusa.org/a-clear-s...oes-not-deter/

Americans tend to favor people keeping their own hard earned money rather than giving it to the government. This goes back to the Revolution.

The consequence is one of the most inequitable and violent countries in the Western world, “U.S. Ranks 23rd Out of 30 Developed Countries for Inequality.”

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...uality/513185/

Yes and in those countries the religious would be happier than the non-religious.

Except that one of the most religious countries in the Western world, the USA, ranks well below the more secular countries in the ‘Happiness' and 'Human Development' Indices.

Not the point Tass, which is - should personal happiness be the goal in life?

“Personal happiness” is NOT the goal in life, despite the DOI’s assertion that among these "unalienable rights" are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Happiness is the consequence of a just and equitable society not necessarily the "goal". .

What do you mean by health?

I will leave that to the appropriate medical judgement in preserving the life or health of the woman in the third trimester vis a vis abortion.

[demi-conservative]

Butt out? I have no dog in this fight - I'm just trying to find out what your objection on Romans 13 is.

She has nothing. Against God-breathed Holy Scripture, she only has the worldly 'wisdom' of this age, which is nothing.

It is always the worldly wisdom of this age, "our societies are different, it's a different time, now we know better", whether it's about death penalty, (sub)ordination of women, homosexuality, or any other cherished modern belief.

[seer]

Indeed. The point being made is that slavery was equally accepted by Christians as part of their culture and justified by the use of scripture. Just as historically ALL the cultural mores of the day in Christian societies have been justified by the use of scripture...e.g. the oppression of women.

Just as many Christians did not accept slavery and used the Bible to support their position. Not that slavery is a universal wrong in your relative world. Just a cultural thing...

Your argument was that capital punishment was a deterrent. It's not, it's vindictive revenge. “Scientists agree, by an overwhelming majority, that the death penalty has no deterrent effect. They felt the same way over ten years ago, and nothing has changed since then. States without the death penalty continue to have significantly lower murder rates than those that retain capital punishment".

Are you being dense on purpose? If the murderer or rapist is executed is he deterred form ever harming anyone again? Yes or no?

The consequence is one of the most inequitable and violent countries in the Western world, “U.S. Ranks 23rd Out of 30 Developed Countries for Inequality.”

That is just nonsense. There is a reason why we are the most powerful, richest nation in history, and why most medical advancements and innovations are born here (free markets). And why you are not drinking Saki, and why the Russian Bear did not swallow up Western Europe. So if China comes knocking at your door, don't call us you ingrate...

Except that one of the most religious countries in the Western world, the USA, ranks well below the more secular countries in the ‘Happiness' and 'Human Development' Indices.

“Personal happiness” is NOT the goal in life, despite the DOI’s assertion that among these "unalienable rights" are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

Happiness is the consequence of a just and equitable society not necessarily the "goal". .

Right, again, and the religious are happier and more content than the non-religious. So what is your point? And as my link pointed out if we were all more narcissistic the happier we would be! In other words the happiness index is both arbitrary and meaningless.

I will leave that to the appropriate medical judgement in preserving the life or health of the woman in the third trimester vis a vis abortion.

Except "health" can include almost any thing, so the unborn child having brain waves is meaningless...

[Roy]

Are you being dense on purpose? If the murderer or rapist is executed is he deterred form ever harming anyone again? Yes or no?

No. They're prevented from doing it again. You can't deter some-one who is dead because they're not capable of considering the consequences and thus choosing between courses of action.

The main problem here is that seer doesn't know what "deter" means.

[seer]

No. They're prevented from doing it again. You can't deter some-one who is dead because they're not capable of considering the consequences and thus choosing between courses of action.

The main problem here is that seer doesn't know what "deter" means.

Deter does mean preventing from acting, by definition -To prevent or discourage (an action or behavior). No matter the means the murderer is prevented from harming again.

[Roy]

Emphasising:

Deter does mean preventing from acting, by definition -To prevent or discourage (an action or behavior). No matter the means the murderer is prevented from harming again.

"Deter" does not mean "prevent", as your own definition indicates - you're focussing on part of the definition and pretending the rest doesn't exist.

You called Tassman a liar because he took you to be using the actual definition, not your subset of it.

You owe him a retraction and an apology.

[Cow Poke]

No. They're prevented from doing it again. You can't deter some-one who is dead because they're not capable of considering the consequences and thus choosing between courses of action.

The main problem here is that seer doesn't know what "deter" means.

Technically, Seer is correct in that the actual definition is " to turn aside, discourage, or prevent from acting ".

Putting somebody to death certainly "prevents them from acting" to kill again.

However, it's common knowledge that the "deter" is intended to mean "deter others", and that's where it's really hard to make a case.