toldailytopic: What do you think of certain cold medicines having to be purchased at

[MaryContrary]

Execute wrath does not mean kill. Execute simply means to carry out.

Note that neither the NASB version nor the NIV include the word execute.

4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

This is the problem when you try to read the Bible in a single translation, with your own desires to make the text say what it does not.

Romans 13:4
For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

 

[Alate_One]

Romans 13:4
For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

The context of the passage is governmental authority. It does not say government should kill everyone for every offense, merely that government has that authority.

How you guys are getting Christian theocracy out of this when Paul is talking about Rome is beyond me.

 

[zoo22]

It's an inconvenience that the razor blades or the antiperspirant I buy is locked up, which it is in most pharmacies I go to... Whatever. It doesn't really matter much to me. It's an inconvenience. It's also an inconvenience that I can't buy morphine because my back hurts. Youch. My back hurts a lot. Why can't I just buy morphine... Woe, FREEDOM!

 

[noguru]

The context of the passage is governmental authority. It does not say government should kill everyone for every offense, merely that government has that authority.

How you guys are getting Christian theocracy out of this when Paul is talking about Rome is beyond me.

I am entirely against turning the US into a theocracy. But what we have in the US, in regard to situations such as this, is a conflict between priorities.

What do you hold as the highest priority (goal) in the US?

 

[noguru]

It's an inconvenience that the razor blades or the antiperspirant I buy is locked up, which it is in most pharmacies I go to... Whatever. It doesn't really matter much to me. It's an inconvenience. It's also an inconvenience that I can't buy morphine because my back hurts. Youch. My back hurts a lot. Why can't I just buy morphine... Woe, FREEDOM!

Is it your lower back that hurts?

 

[Alate_One]

Why do people like you keep ignoring the answer when you ask this question? Pro-life supports, upholds, defends innocent life. Pro-death penalty involves, typically, the threat against that innocent life. If you were logical you would expect one to be for both of those things at the same time.

Maybe you're not really interested in an answer.

I'm interested in answers that are humane, merciful and done with love, not mass executions.

Christ came to save sinners, not the morally perfect. A Christian advocating killing every sinner with no chance of redemption is unbelievable.

The death penalty in that case wasn't utilized the way I'm suggesting it should be. Swiftly, justly and publicly. It wasn't very effective for the same reasons the death penalty as utilized in this country typically isn't very effective.

How do you expect to ensure the perpetrators have actually committed the crime if everything is done quickly?

Secondly if you acknowledge the death penalty is not effective, why continue using it?

Most right-wingers don't agree with me on this, as you know well enough.

But there are a fair number who do. They've been seen at the Republican primary debates.

Great. Show me a a scientifically based and tested campaign against drug use that can help and I'll advocate for that alongside the death penalty. If it's effective enough I won't even have to advocate for the death penalty.

Ahh alongside the death penalty, wonderful.

Here's one

 

[Alate_One]

I am entirely against turning the US into a theocracy. But what we have in the US, in regard to situations such as this, is a conflict between priorities.

What do you hold as the highest priority (goal) in the US?

In general or with respect to drug policies?

With respect to drugs, I think harm reduction is a reasonable goal. From what I have seen, drug policies in the USA have generally not worked, made things worse or created other problems.

By making carrying needles illegal, needle sharing exploded and so did the HIV virus. By throwing into prison for extended periods of time everyone that was caught with crack cocaine you have altered communities of color because all of the men are in prison. This means there is competition for men in those communities and the remaining men could demand risky sexual behavior from the women.

Outlined in this Documentary

We have lots of well intentioned policies in this country that cause all sorts of problems. I think, as a nation, we need to rely a lot more on scientifically tested approaches vs. things that sound good. Or at least bother to go back and test the policies that are implemented.

 

[noguru]

In general or with respect to drug policies?

With respect to drugs, I think harm reduction is a reasonable goal. From what I have seen, drug policies in the USA have generally not worked, made things worse or created other problems.

By making carrying needles illegal, needle sharing exploded and so did the HIV virus. By throwing into prison for extended periods of time everyone that was caught with crack cocaine you have altered communities of color because all of the men are in prison. This means there is competition for men in those communities and the remaining men could demand risky sexual behavior from the women.

Outlined in this Documentary

We have lots of well intentioned policies in this country that cause all sorts of problems. I think, as a nation, we need to rely a lot more on scientifically tested approaches vs. things that sound good. Or at least bother to go back and test the policies that are implemented.

I agree. I am an ex heroin user. In December I will have been clean for 19 years. I can remember very clearly that Thanksgiving 19 years ago that I spent in Spanish Harlem on one of my last binges. I spent it with a Latin King friend, who was actually quite a good guy considering where he came from. His parents let us stay with them and fed us arroz rojo con pollo. Thank God they kept me safe. I could have been much worse off.

When I was using purchasing needles in a drug store without a prescription was legal. I attribute that to one of the reasons why I did not get HIV.

 

[MaryContrary]

The context of the passage is governmental authority. It does not say government should kill everyone for every offense, merely that government has that authority.

How you guys are getting Christian theocracy out of this when Paul is talking about Rome is beyond me.

1) No one is arguing that government should kill everyone for every offense.
2) You were never arguing against the government killing everyone for every offence, because no one was arguing that.
3) What you were arguing against was the death penalty, specifically in regards to 13:4 most recently.

It would be really, really great if you could be bothered to keep track of your own danged arguments, if keeping up with the whole debate is too much trouble.

 

[MaryContrary]

A Christian advocating killing every sinner with no chance of redemption is unbelievable.

:doh:

Why should I bother answering you, Alate? Seriously, give me a reason. All you're leaving me with is the frustration of having, yet again, wasted the benefit of the doubt on you.

 

[Alate_One]

1) No one is arguing that government should kill everyone for every offense.
2) You were never arguing against the government killing everyone for every offence, because no one was arguing that.
3) What you were arguing against was the death penalty, specifically in regards to 13:4 most recently.

I wasn't arguing that the death penalty should never be used. I was saying it's not commanded to be used in scripture, at least in the passage in question.

It's a different thing to say "Government has the authority to do X" vs. "Government should do X". You appear to be confusing the two. The last question is more relevant to us than Paul since we have the ability to indirectly determine and advocate for government policy.

Nowhere does the Bible command executing drug users or producers That's all you.

It would be really, really great if you could be bothered to keep track of your own danged arguments, if keeping up with the whole debate is too much trouble.

You're confused about my arguments.

But then you're the one advocating the death penalty as the solution to all of our ills, for offenses that are not even currently illegal. While no, you haven't advocated for the death penalty for literally everything, you may as well do that.

 

[MaryContrary]

I wasn't arguing that the death penalty should never be used. I was saying it's not commanded to be used in scripture, at least in the passage in question.

And when you were shown that it does command that, that's when you started babbling about how we want the government to kill all sinners.

It's a different thing to say "Government has the authority to do X" vs. "Government should do X". You appear to be confusing the two. The last question is more relevant to us than Paul since we have the ability to indirectly determine and advocate for government policy.

God says government doesn't bear the sword in vain, but rather brings wrath against evil doers. That tells me God does not consider a government that isn't doing that to be doing it's job. This is relevant to me.

That said, I then consider whether executing wrath, with the sword, against evil doers in any particular instance to be effective or not. Because I presume God expect His minister (government) to be effective. Which is why I don't advocate for the government to go out and kill all sinners.

And I'm sorry that even needs to be said. I blame you for that.

Nowhere does the Bible command executing drug users or producers That's all you.

Specifically? No, of course it doesn't. Would you like to go down the list of things that the bible doesn't specifically say should be outlawed? And yet are outlawed, and rightfully?

Pitiful argument.

Drug dealers and suppliers traffic in poison. Tell me again how there's no biblical support for the government bringing the sword against such people.

You're confused about my arguments.

Rather, you purposefully confuse them.

But then you're the one advocating the death penalty as the solution to all of our ills, for offenses that are not even currently illegal. While no, you haven't advocated for the death penalty for literally everything, you may as well do that.

Dumbest thing I've heard anyone say all week. And it's been a long week. Proof, though, that there's no point discussing this with you. I'll probably keep doing it, but that's just because I'm hopeless about giving people a chance to exercise reason.

*****

Edit: And, for crying out loud! I just realized you did it again! Immediately after pretending you didn't do it the first time!

But then you're the one advocating the death penalty as the solution to all of our ills...

It's official. You're not stupid. You're a bald-faced liar! :nono:
What the hell, man?

 

[zoo22]

Is it your lower back that hurts?

It is, yeah. It's mostly because I've been sleeping on my stomach lately.

But why can't I buy morphine?? Woe, FREEDOM!! Where has freedom gone!?

 

[Alate_One]

And when you were shown that it does command that, that's when you started babbling about how we want the government to kill all sinners.

No, it doesn't command that. It's simply stating a state of affairs. If you knew any ethics you'd know you can't get an ought from an is.

God says government doesn't bear the sword in vain, but rather brings wrath against evil doers. That tells me God does not consider a government that isn't doing that to be doing it's job. This is relevant to me.

Wrath doesn't have to be death and evildoers doesn't have to encompass everything from meth cookers on up.

Nevermind the fact that Rome in particular used it's powers against far more than evildoers.

That said, I then consider whether executing wrath, with the sword, against evil doers in any particular instance to be effective or not. Because I presume God expect His minister (government) to be effective. Which is why I don't advocate for the government to go out and kill all sinners.

And I'm sorry that even needs to be said. I blame you for that.

What you've just said doesn't make any sense. In one breath you're insisting the scripture is commanding government to kill (which is not in that particular passage) and then you turn around and make a value judgement of your own on effectiveness.

Bottom line is, if you're interested in effective government ultimately, and research shows the death penalty doesn't work, why are you still advocating for it?

Specifically? No, of course it doesn't. Would you like to go down the list of things that the bible doesn't specifically say should be outlawed? And yet are outlawed, and rightfully?

Pitiful argument.

I'm not talking about being mentioned as outlawed in scripture I'm talking about EXECUTION.

Things can be evil and worth being outlawed without being worthy of execution. Obviously scripture is not an exhaustive list of sins.

However, if something is bad enough to be worthy of execution, you'd think it would be specifically mentioned as such. Get it?

Dumbest thing I've heard anyone say all week.

You apparently have the worst reading comprehension ability I've seen all year.

But maybe it stems from your inability to see that punishment/wrath does not HAVE to equal killing someone! :doh:

It's official. You're not stupid. You're a bald-faced liar! :nono:

It's hyperbole that's really close to the mark. But I guess it's easier to call names than to defend mass killing rationally?

 

[MaryContrary]

But I guess it's easier to call names than to defend mass killing rationally?

But ignoring our arguments and claiming we want the government to kill everyone...like you did yet again right here in this sentence...that's fine.

You're not giving me reason to think responding to you isn't a waste of time.

 

[PureX]

I think we should stop inconveniencing everyone because of the stupidity of a few. Sell the cold medicine one box at a time (who needs more than one?) and let the idiots run from store to store to get more.

 

[noguru]

I think we should stop inconveniencing everyone because of the stupidity of a few. Sell the cold medicine one box at a time (who needs more than one?) and let the idiots run from store to store to get more.

As far as I know state laws now limit monthly sales to individuals based on a projected need calculated on an individual basis. So IOW, if allergies is something that runs in my family, at the end of the month, I might not be able to pick up enough medicine for myself and other relatives or friends because of that limit.

 

[lightbringer]

The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for August 23rd, 2012 12:26 PM

toldailytopic: What do you think of certain cold medicines having to be purchased at the pharmacy rather than over the counter due growing drug problems?

Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.

The razor refills I purchase are usually locked up due to the price tag so considering what Meth does to people, what's a little inconvience?

 

[sesseltheologe]

...so instead they decide to inconvenience the law abiding citizens.

Here in Germany, virutally all medicine has to be bought at a pharmacy, after you've told the pharmacist what you what. I moved here from Florida four years ago and not once did it ever cross my mind that it was somehow inconvienient. It actually is somewhat more logical in my opinion.

 

[PureX]

As far as I know state laws now limit monthly sales to individuals based on a projected need calculated on an individual basis. So IOW, if allergies is something that runs in my family, at the end of the month, I might not be able to pick up enough medicine for myself and other relatives or friends because of that limit.

I think they have no business tying sales to individuals. They should just sell one box at a time. It would be very rare that anyone would legitimately need more than one, and if it happened, they could stop in again the next day, or at another store.

Or just skip the limits all together. I just don't think everyone should have to be inconvenienced because a few people are idiots.