No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[ok doser]

The Pharisees have been called the "Heavy Duty Sunday (or would it be Saturday? :think School Teachers of their time."

They certainly knew their stuff.

They had to.

In a single 13 week class of A&P, i had a quiz/test/exam every week, typically with 50 questions, often more, on top of the lab practicals we had with another 50 or so bits of information we had to identify under a microscope, etc. So 100 bits of information a week for 13 weeks to master. The final was 250 questions, the lab final was twelve stations with ten questions at each station.

do the math


i should take a picture of my textbooks

or weigh them :chuckle:

 

[Arthur Brain]

You seem to be making an argument from incredulity, being that you find it hard to believe that the Pharisees would know all 613 laws by heart, therefore they couldn't have...

You also seem to be forgetting that ancient folk, even the average roman citizen, were pretty darned smart, way smarter than your well-educated adult today.

Heck, just look at some of the love letters sent by men to their honeys during the civil war. Even they were far more eloquent than your average soldier of today is.

Nobody's arguing that people back then couldn't be smart so that's a non starter. They weren't that smart if they were trying to trap Jesus through laws they couldn't uphold though were they?

Law #147. What is it? I bet you don't know off the top of your head do you?

 

[ok doser]

So, you, being a person who has read the bible cover to cover in any given translation should just as easily have been able to give law 145 without equivocation then shouldn't you?

i can't imagine why you'd think so

I'm well aware of your disdain for lawyers as well

i expressed no disdain for lawyers in my post

and that makes this all the more ironic given that you're so legalistic on the matter. You're arguing for and against your own position in effect.

am i?

in what way?

I wouldn't have a clue what law 145 or 613 was in honesty and yet according to you I should do if I've read and taken note of what the Bible says on the score.

no, that's not according to me

So how come you couldn't remember what law #145 was then?

because i didn't read it to memorize it

if i had, i would have used different strategies

I could recite all manner of works by artists, film directors, composers and the years and genre of each of their works and so what?

i'm impressed

Is that supposed to be impressive?

is it?

I also know a fair bit about pharmacology and physiology too with working in domiciliary care as its part of the job. Weehey.

then you can appreciate at a superficial degree the complexity that exists at a deeper level :thumb:

So, you read it several times and never memorized only 613 laws?! How so?

i wasn't trying to

Oh, yes, there does seem to be some weird laws across the pond where young girls can get married with parental consent

this isn't that

and there's even wingnuts like Phil "Duck Dynasty" Robertson who advocate and encourage it even.

OK :idunno:

If they get as old as twenty they'll pick your wallet no less. 15/16? That's when they'll pick your ducks for you instead.

and 25 or six to 4

You're quite right. That sort of garbage needs kicking into touch across the board.

this is a different sort of garbage, enthusiastically supported by the left

 

[ok doser]

couldn't find an answer to this:

how many laws do you think a first year law student has to master?

but i did find this, regarding the bar exam:

The answer to the question, “How many MBE questions should I do total before the bar exam?” for most students tends to be somewhere between 800-1000.

https://www.jdadvising.com/how-many-mbe-questions-should-i-do-in-total/

no mention of channeling sheldon cooper :idunno:

 

[JudgeRightly]

no mention of channeling sheldon cooper :idunno:

Who? :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

Who? :idunno:

iirc, he's an aspie on Big Bang

never seen it myself, but i pick up on stuff

 

[Arthur Brain]

i can't imagine why you'd think so

Then why would you suppose the folk of the time could memorize all of that?

i expressed no disdain for lawyers in my post

Well, not this time around no but surely you're not going to deny your disdain for such in general given your track record on the subject of such a profession on here?

am i?

in what way?

By being entirely legalistic when it suits you.

no, that's not according to me

Oh, you were the one to bring these 613 laws into the equation so don't shy away now. They were obviously of some importance to you on the matter here...

because i didn't read it to memorize it

if i had, i would have used different strategies

"Strategies"? You're not playing a game of chess here, you're reading a book, and supposedly one whereby these laws are important to be familiar with? You brought them into the discussion after all?

i'm impressed

You shouldn't be. I'm not with your declarations.

is it?

No.

then you can appreciate at a superficial degree the complexity that exists at a deeper level :thumb:

And at a more advanced level. Once again, weehey.

lain:

i wasn't trying to

:think:

And why would anybody to be fair?

this isn't that


OK :idunno:



and 25 or six to 4



this is a different sort of garbage, enthusiastically supported by the left

Well, you certainly have the likes of Phil Robertson advocating getting girls as young as fifteen before they'll pick your wallet if they get as old as twenty etc as recorded on air by the man himself. I don't support anything like that garbage so how about you get to your own or just throw it away depending?

 

[ok doser]

Then why would you suppose the folk of the time could memorize all of that?

The folk?

I wouldn't expect "the folk" to

I would expect the pharisees and the scribes to

Do you know what the pharisees and the scribes were? What their job was?

Well, not this time around no ...

then we don't need to drag it into this conversation

By being entirely legalistic when it suits you.

in what way am i being "entirely legalistic"?

Oh, you were the one to bring these 613 laws into the equation

right, because the pharisees and the scribes lived and breathed these laws - the Law was their life

so don't shy away now.

i don't know what that means

They were obviously of some importance to you on the matter here...

have you forgotten already? :sigh:

"Strategies"?

yes, learning strategies

have you never been exposed to the concept of learning strategies?

You're not playing a game of chess here, you're reading a book, and supposedly one whereby these laws are important to be familiar with?

not important enough to memorize - i'm not studying to be a pharisee or a scribe

You brought them into the discussion after all?

And do you remember why? In what context?

And at a more advanced level.

that's what i find exhilarating about studying stuff like A&P - the deeper you dig, the more you realize there's no bottom

And why would anybody to be fair?

if they were a scribe or a pharisee?

because it was their job, their life, their identity

Well, you certainly have the likes of Phil Robertson advocating getting girls as young as fifteen before they'll pick your wallet if they get as old as twenty etc as recorded on air by the man himself. I don't support anything like that garbage so how about you get to your own or just throw it away depending?

this isn't about phil robertson or girls as elderly as fifteen

this is New York State policy/law that applies to any post pubescent girl of any age

 

[glassjester]

Homie ain't gonna play your Roman games.

No game. You said Christ gave you the list of books that were inspired. When and how did that happen?

 

[chair]

I have not been following this thread. I will point out that:
1. The "613 commandments" were first mentioned in the time of the Talmud. There has been some dispute over how one counts them- what exactly does one consider to be an individual independent law? The 613 has apparently been given more importance in this discussion than it deserves.
2. The Pharisees knew their law. You should take that as a given.
3. "Original Sin" is a Christian concept.

Chair

 

[WizardofOz]

With exceptions?

Or actual "abolitionist" pro-life?

There is no reason to purposely kill a fetus. That particular practice should be illegal in all situations. If a mother is going to otherwise die with medical intervention, treat both as a patient and try to save them both if removal is necessary due to non-viability.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There is no reason to purposely kill a fetus. That particular practice should be illegal in all situations. If a mother is going to otherwise die with medical intervention, treat both as a patient and try to save them both if removal is necessary due to non-viability.

:thumb:

 

[WizardofOz]

What would that percentage be, I wonder, if the couples knew (no, the one's who are deterred from marrying because of the following don't count) that if they cheated on their spouse and were caught and brought to trial, that they would be executed for committing adultery?

Sure, the overall marriage rate would drop for a bit, but that would (within a few years) lead to marriages being stronger and lasting longer, because couples would want to make sure that the person they are with is someone whom they can live with for the rest of their life.

If adultery was a capital crime, hardly anyone would get married, ever. Marriage rates would plummet to nearly zero.

Or, are we executing fornicators as well?

Also, define adultery as it relates to you making it a capital offense. Cause I can think of a few people you might prefer to see spared that would otherwise not be, if you had it your way.

 

[Rusha]

If adultery was a capital crime, hardly anyone would get married, ever. Marriage rates would plummet to nearly zero.

Indeed. The choice would be to stay silent and accept the adultery OR participate in having your child/children’s other parent be executed and thus deny them of any future relationship.

 

[JudgeRightly]

If adultery was a capital crime, hardly anyone would get married, ever. Marriage rates would plummet to nearly zero.

Not true.

Adultery was a capital crime for the past 3500 years, and PLENTY of people still got married in spite of it.

Why make such a baseless claim?

If adultery was a capital crime, fewer people would commit adultery for fear of being caught and potentially executed. And it might lead to a few people not marrying, but the claim that the marriage rate would drop to nearly zero is unfounded FUD.

Or, are we executing fornicators as well?

Fornication between two unmarried persons (heterosexual) is not a capital crime.

Also, define adultery as it relates to you making it a capital offense.

Adultery: voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and a person who is not his or her spouse.

Cause I can think of a few people you might prefer to see spared that would otherwise not be, if you had it your way.

:AMR:

Indeed. The choice would be either stay silent and accept the adultery OR aid in having your child/children’s other parent be executed and thus deny them of any future relationship.

False dilemma.

As I said above (or, at least, I thought I did...), sexual immorality is the ONLY valid reason for divorce. Divorce doesn't inherently imply execution, last I checked.

 

[drbrumley]

Here we go again.

The proper role of government is supposed to be to protect people’s life, liberty, and property from the violence or fraud of others. The only legitimate purpose of government is to prosecute and punish those who initiate violence against others, commit fraud against them, or violate their property rights. It is simply not the business of government to keep people from vice, sin, bad habits, immoral practices or activities that take place between consenting adults.

 

[drbrumley]

Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C.S. Lewis

 

[Rusha]

False dilemma.

As I said above (or, at least, I thought I did...), sexual immorality is the ONLY valid reason for divorce.

I disagree. Spousal and child abuse are valid reasons as well as the moral response.

Divorce doesn't inherently imply execution, last I checked.

I agree ... it doesn’t currently imply execution ... because it’s not an offense that is worthy of the DP.

 

[Stripe]

It is simply not the business of government to keep people from vice, sin, bad habits, immoral practices or activities that take place between consenting adults.

This description begs the question. It is your assertion that adultery is not a crime on par with murder and faggery.

It is the government's job to protect society from harm. Destruction of the family, which adultery and homosexuality achieve far more effectively than murder does, is a faster way to send society down the toilet than epidemic murder rates.

Also: Because you say so?

 

[WizardofOz]

Not true.

Adultery was a capital crime for the past 3500 years, and PLENTY of people still got married in spite of it.

When is the last time someone was executed for adultery in the United States?

Why make such a baseless claim?

Why do you feel that the "overall marriage rate would drop for a bit"?