Should Children Be Executed If They've...

[JudgeRightly]

The more rants you post, so the more sure I feel.

:yawn:

Isaiah 55:11

Jesus banned you and any others from believing that they have a [r]ight to execute people,

Jesus:
Matthew 5:17-19, 15:3-4, 23:2-3, 28:19-20; Mark 7:8-11; John 7:19-23; Acts 21:20

and as for killing people in maximum pain

Who said that? I certainly didn't.

I have no doubts at all what Jesus would have said about that.

That's nice.

Jesus spoke clearly about this, and he never showed any change of mind.

Supra.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How adorable - satan telling the Christian about Jesus

:mock: satan

Brings to mind John 8:44...

 

[eider]

:yawn:

Isaiah 55:11

Jesus:
Matthew 5:17-19, 15:3-4, 23:2-3, 28:19-20; Mark 7:8-11; John 7:19-23; Acts 21:20

Who said that? I certainly didn't.

That's nice.

Supra.

Showing you that nobody can execute anybody, including little children, is not derailing this thread.
Throwing your nasty insults and rants around cannot cover the words of Jesus.
John wrote after Paul, the other Apostles......... and he showed what Jesus wanted.
Read it all again. Read it and remember it...... eh?

John{8:5} Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? {8:6} This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not. ]{8:7} So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. {8:8} And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. {8:9} And they which heard [it,] being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.


Is anybody without sin JudgeRightly?
Did you really want to see kids getting the knife?

 

[7djengo7]

Do you accept that Jesus has banned executions?

No. I've never learned, from the Bible, that Jesus has banned executions.

​

He said quite clearly, and write it in the dust that only a 'person without sin' could execute someone...... so nobody can do such a thing.

Maybe that happened in your neighborhood of make-believe, Mr. Rogers? I don't know. But I do know, of course, that the Bible does not tell us that nobody can execute murderers.

Why do you support executing unborn babies, hypocrite?

 

[eider]

No. I've never learned, from the Bible, that Jesus has banned executions.

Maybe that happened in your neighborhood of make-believe, Mr. Rogers? I don't know. But I do know, of course, that the Bible does not tell us that nobody can execute murderers.

What does the bible tell you?
Who is Mr Rogers?

Why do you support executing unborn babies, hypocrite?

I do not believe in the murder of babies, before or after birth.
I believe in their protection.
How about you? I don't think you care about them at all. I think you are a hypocrite.

 

[7djengo7]

What does the bible tell you?

That murderers are to be executed. Duh.

​

Who is Mr Rogers?

One of your fellow fruitcakes.

​

I do not believe in the murder of babies, before or after birth.

Oh. Forgive me; I was mistaken in thinking that you are pro-abortion.

​

I believe in their protection.

I'm glad to learn that you are anti-abortion!

​

How about you? I don't think you care about them at all. I think you are a hypocrite.

Oh well. On TOL, you've copiously shown yourself to be of grossly unsound judgement, so what, really, is it to me when you say stuff like this? That's right: it's meaningless.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Showing you that nobody can execute anybody, including little children, is not derailing this thread.

Except that you haven't shown that no one is allowed to execute anyone, whereas I have shown you repeatedly from scripture where God expects governments to execute criminals who have committed crimes worthy of death.

Throwing your nasty insults and rants around

Truth is offensive to those who hate the truth.

Deal with it.

cannot cover the words of Jesus.

You're right, they cannot.

Again:

[JESUS]For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[/JESUS] - Matthew 15:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV

John wrote after Paul, the other Apostles......... and he showed what Jesus wanted.

So Jesus contradicted Himself?

[JESUS]For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[/JESUS] - Matthew 15:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV

Read it all again. Read it and remember it...... eh?

John{8:5} Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? {8:6} This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not. ]{8:7} So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, [JESUS]He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.[/JESUS] {8:8} And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. {8:9} And they which heard [it,] being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

It's so plain for anyone but you to see, it seems.

1) They were trying to trap Jesus with the law, so that they could accuse Him. Except that Jesus is the one who gave the Law to Moses. He knew exactly what the law says, even the parts they ignored.
2) By ignoring the parts of the law that were applicable in this "trial," they undermined their own position. Those laws were:
a. that both the man AND the woman be brought before the judge
b. that there be two or three witnesses (physical and/or circumstancial evidence, and/or eyewitnesses)
3) By not bringing any evidence, and by not bringing the man the woman was supposedly with, they were in direct violation of the law, and because of they, the were not "without sin" (violating the Law of Moses was a sin and a crime, because the law came from God)
4) the Jews were not allowed, while under Roman authority, to sentence anyone to death (the part they were attempting to trap Jesus with), so even if their case had been valid to begin with, Jesus could not have sentenced her to death, nor suggested such.
5) because the men were "convicted by their own conscience," they departed, leaving no witnesses against the woman
6) because there were no witnesses, no judgment could be made in the trial
7) because there was no judgment, the woman was not convicted of being an adulteress
8) Under Mosaic law, she was innocent
9) Under God's law (which the Mosaic law is derived from) she was guilty, but only God has the ability to forgive sins AND crimes, but since the woman was not accused of any crime (there was no case against her to be made), all that was left were her sins, which Jesus forgave, and then told her to "go and sin no more"

Nowhere in the entire event did Jesus repeal, in any way, shape, or form, the death penalty for adultery, or murder, or rape, etc.

Is anybody without sin JudgeRightly?

Jesus was without sin.

Did you really want to see kids getting the knife?

If they committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, such as murder.

John wrote after Paul, the other Apostles.........

So what? All of them wrote after Jesus' ascension. Paul, who was given revelation by Jesus Christ Himself, said that governments do not bear the sword in vain.

A sword isn't used for flogging, or for locking people up. A sword is used for killing.

and he showed what Jesus wanted.

And it wasn't what you say.

In fact, John, who also wrote Revelation, recorded this as well:

And I heard the angel of the waters saying:

“You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things.For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, And You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.”​

- Revelation 16:5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NKJV

Did you catch that?

"It is their just due."

The repayment for shedding innocent blood is the blood of those who shed the innocent blood.

Life for life.

 

[eider]

Except that you haven't shown that no one is allowed to execute anyone, whereas I have shown you repeatedly from scripture where God expects governments to execute criminals who have committed crimes worthy of death.



Truth is offensive to those who hate the truth.

Deal with it.



You're right, they cannot.

Again:

[JESUS]For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[/JESUS] - Matthew 15:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV



So Jesus contradicted Himself?

[JESUS]For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[/JESUS] - Matthew 15:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV



It's so plain for anyone but you to see, it seems.

1) They were trying to trap Jesus with the law, so that they could accuse Him. Except that Jesus is the one who gave the Law to Moses. He knew exactly what the law says, even the parts they ignored.
2) By ignoring the parts of the law that were applicable in this "trial," they undermined their own position. Those laws were:
a. that both the man AND the woman be brought before the judge
b. that there be two or three witnesses (physical and/or circumstancial evidence, and/or eyewitnesses)
3) By not bringing any evidence, and by not bringing the man the woman was supposedly with, they were in direct violation of the law, and because of they, the were not "without sin" (violating the Law of Moses was a sin and a crime, because the law came from God)
4) the Jews were not allowed, while under Roman authority, to sentence anyone to death (the part they were attempting to trap Jesus with), so even if their case had been valid to begin with, Jesus could not have sentenced her to death, nor suggested such.
5) because the men were "convicted by their own conscience," they departed, leaving no witnesses against the woman
6) because there were no witnesses, no judgment could be made in the trial
7) because there was no judgment, the woman was not convicted of being an adulteress
8) Under Mosaic law, she was innocent
9) Under God's law (which the Mosaic law is derived from) she was guilty, but only God has the ability to forgive sins AND crimes, but since the woman was not accused of any crime (there was no case against her to be made), all that was left were her sins, which Jesus forgave, and then told her to "go and sin no more"

Nowhere in the entire event did Jesus repeal, in any way, shape, or form, the death penalty for adultery, or murder, or rape, etc.


Jesus was without sin.


If they committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, such as murder.



So what? All of them wrote after Jesus' ascension. Paul, who was given revelation by Jesus Christ Himself, said that governments do not bear the sword in vain.

A sword isn't used for flogging, or for locking people up. A sword is used for killing.



And it wasn't what you say.

In fact, John, who also wrote Revelation, recorded this as well:

And I heard the angel of the waters saying:

“You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things.For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, And You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.”​

- Revelation 16:5-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...6&version=NKJV

Did you catch that?

"It is their just due."

The repayment for shedding innocent blood is the blood of those who shed the innocent blood.

Life for life.

I'm sad to have to say this yet again, but as only Jesus was without sin, and as he showed so clearly that no one can kill another without being clear of sin, that here is a case where he showed finally and absolutely that the death penalty was and is revoked.

So it's no good thrusting previous laws in under my nose.

And to quote the OT laws at me when you disregard so many others is strange .

Another member thought it amusing that I, a Deist, would quote Jesus. Who else would I quote was when talking to a Christian?

Jesus spoke his wishes. It is done.

 

[eider]

One of your fellow fruitcakes.

I live in England. Duh.

I'm glad to learn that you are anti-abortion!

I care more about children than you do........ hypocrite!

 

[eider]

Except that you haven't shown that no one is allowed to execute anyone, whereas I have shown you repeatedly from scripture where God expects governments to execute criminals who have committed crimes worthy of death.

Wrong. You've shown nothing of the kind, and the execution of children is just criminal.
You can't show me where little cgildren may be put to death, even if Jesus had not banned executions which he clearly did.

Truth is offensive to those who hate the truth.
Deal with it.

Oh I'm used to your insults.
But you dishounour yourself when you check them. You do......

[JESUS]For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[/JESUS] - Matthew 15:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV

No it did not. What translation are you using?
KJV does not say that.

So Jesus contradicted Himself?

If Jesus said something then he said it. You just don't like it so you want to dismiss it, kit seems.

[JESUS]For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’[/JESUS] - Matthew 15:4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...4&version=NKJV

It's no good trying to poke this translation at me twice. The KJV does not say that.
Which bible did you get that out of?

It's so plain for anyone but you to see, it seems.

How many Christians want to see children put to death in public?
How do you want then killed, by the way? The sword is painful.......

1) They were trying to trap Jesus with the law, so that they could accuse Him. Except that Jesus is the one who gave the Law to Moses. He knew exactly what the law says, even the parts they ignored.
2) By ignoring the parts of the law that were applicable in this "trial," they undermined their own position. Those laws were:
a. that both the man AND the woman be brought before the judge
b. that there be two or three witnesses (physical and/or circumstancial evidence, and/or eyewitnesses)
3) By not bringing any evidence, and by not bringing the man the woman was supposedly with, they were in direct violation of the law, and because of they, the were not "without sin" (violating the Law of Moses was a sin and a crime, because the law came from God)
4) the Jews were not allowed, while under Roman authority, to sentence anyone to death (the part they were attempting to trap Jesus with), so even if their case had been valid to begin with, Jesus could not have sentenced her to death, nor suggested such.
5) because the men were "convicted by their own conscience," they departed, leaving no witnesses against the woman
6) because there were no witnesses, no judgment could be made in the trial
7) because there was no judgment, the woman was not convicted of being an adulteress
8) Under Mosaic law, she was innocent
9) Under God's law (which the Mosaic law is derived from) she was guilty, but only God has the ability to forgive sins AND crimes, but since the woman was not accused of any crime (there was no case against her to be made), all that was left were her sins, which Jesus forgave, and then told her to "go and sin no more"

Your long winded 'take' on how to ignore the words of Jesus is just sad.
Jesus spoke. He meant what he said. Everyone there obeyed.

Nowhere in the entire event did Jesus repeal, in any way, shape, or form, the death penalty for adultery, or murder, or rape, etc.

That's what you think, or want to think.

Jesus was without sin.

Yes, and even Jesus would not hurt the woman.
Done. QED

If they committed a crime worthy of the death penalty, such as murder.
So what? All of them wrote after Jesus' ascension. Paul, who was given revelation by Jesus Christ Himself, said that governments do not bear the sword in vain.
A sword isn't used for flogging, or for locking people up. A sword is used for killing.

Well that's what they do in Saudi.
But Paul told Christians to obey the laws of their countries, didn't he?

In fact, John, who also wrote Revelation, recorded this as well:
And I heard the angel of the waters saying:

“You are righteous, O Lord, The One who is and who was and who is to be, Because You have judged these things.For they have shed the blood of saints and prophets, And You have given them blood to drink. For it is their just due.”​

I'll need to check the translation, I think. - Revelation 16:5-6 Ah yes...... this is nothing to do with man's law, it is to do with God's law.......... you don't get to carry out any of this....... God's laws are in God's hands, I think.

"It is their just due."

Yes....... people who have lived free of crime all their lives could be in for that. You're manipulating scripture, I think?

Life for life.

Ah! That's interesting......... and who dies if an innocent is executed, as has happened so many times before.
The Judge? The Executioner? Ah... yes.... Life for life.
Or you could just lock threm up.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Wrong. You've shown nothing of the kind,

Sure I have.

You just ignored it because it conflicts with your position.

and the execution of children is just criminal.

Because you say so?

Sorry, but God says put the murderer to death.
Children are capable of committing murder.

You can't show me where little children may be put to death, even if Jesus had not banned executions

Post #358

which he clearly did.

Saying it doesn't make it so, and I have shown you now multiple times that He did not.

Oh I'm used to your insults.
But you dishounour yourself when you check them. You do......

:yawn:

No it did not.

Uh, yes it did and does...

What translation are you using?
KJV does not say that.

That's because I'm not using the KJV.

If Jesus said something then he said it.

And your tautology is supposed to do... what, exactly?

You just don't like it so you want to dismiss it, kit seems.

Someone needs to look in a mirror.

It's no good trying to poke this translation at me twice.

Repetition is the mother of all learning.

Or so they say...

The KJV does not say that.

Sure it does, just not the same way.

Which bible did you get that out of?

You can't figure it out yourself?

Fine, I'll tell you.

It's called the New King James Version.

Maybe you've heard of it?

I could quote the greek, if you like. It'll say the same thing. I could also quote the passage from the Old Testament which Jesus was quoting, which also says the same thing.

Take your pick.

How many Christians want to see children put to death in public?

Appeal to popularity won't help your argument.

How do you want then killed, by the way?

To quote Paul:

If I have committed a crime worthy of death, I do not object to dying.

The sword is painful.......

It's also a very quick way to execute someone.

Ecclesiastes 8:11

Your long winded 'take' on how to ignore the words of Jesus is just sad.

I thought maybe trying to break it down for you would make it easier for you to understand.

But it seems you're just not willing to listen, let alone understand what was said.

Jesus spoke. He meant what he said. Everyone there obeyed.

Yup.

Thankfully, He didn't say what you assert that He said.

That's what you think, or want to think.

Then it should be very easy to point out where, exactly, Christ repealed the death penalty, when others later pointed out that the law is still in effect. You also need to show that when Jesus said He came not to destroy the law, that that apparently means something other than letting it remain in effect.

Yes, and even Jesus would not hurt the woman.
Done. QED

God is merciful to those who repent of their sin?

Nooo, really? :mock:

Well that's what they do in Saudi.

And? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Even wicked governments can have just punishments for crimes.

Or do you assert otherwise?

But Paul told Christians to obey the laws of their countries, didn't he?

He did, and he was right. But also, we must obey God rather than men.

That means if God says "do not murder" and "put the murderer to death swiftly so that the hearts of men do not become fully set in them to do evil," but the government of man says "don't put the murderer to death, just lock him up like an animal for several years," that means we obey God, rather than the government of man.

I'll need to check the translation, I think. - Revelation 16:5-6 Ah yes...... this is nothing to do with man's law, it is to do with God's law..........

Duh, what do you think we've been talking about this entire time, eider?

Man's laws should reflect God's laws, or was that not obvious to you?

you

Who said anything about me?

You won't find in any of my posts where I advocate that citizens be the ones to mete out punishments for crimes, except as given authority by the government to do so.

don't get to carry out any of this....... God's laws are in God's hands, I think.

:yawn:

Romans 13:1-5

Yes....... people who have lived free of crime all their lives could be in for that.

What are you talking about?

You're manipulating scripture, I think?

Using scripture is not manipulating it, at least not in the sense you're trying to use.

Ah! That's interesting.........

What, not going to deny it?

and who dies if an innocent is executed,

That would be determined on a case by case basis.

There would be very few such cases, however, almost zero.

as has happened so many times before.

It happens far more often over the course of one year with the current systems than it would over the course of a thousand years with a system that puts criminals who commit capital crimes to death within 24 hours of their conviction.

The Judge?

Only if it was his negligence that allowed an innocent person to be put to death, or if he intentionally had the innocent person executed.

Also, the person who bore false witness in the trial that said the innocent person was guilty.

The Executioner?

Why?

Ah... yes.... Life for life.
Or you could just lock [them] up.

Like an animal?

You can't serve a prison sentence speedily.

Ecclesiastes 8:11

 

[ok doser]

Is anybody without sin ...

The woman taken in adultery if you misunderstand Christ's last 5 words to her, the same way you misunderstand His statement to the scribes and pharisees.

 

[ok doser]

(Jesus) showed so clearly that no one can kill another without being clear of sin ....

You're deliberately misrepresenting what He said because you're ruled by satan. You're trying to sow confusion and division because you're evil. I don't expect you to stop it and I'm sure it's obvious to those who might be confused by your lies that you are lying.

 

[eider]

Sure I have.

You just ignored it because it conflicts with your position.

Because you say so?

Sorry, but God says put the murderer to death.
Children are capable of committing murder.

I'll leave the reply thus:-
God said:-
Matthew:{9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.


Do you know what that means?

Someone needs to look in a mirror.

True

I could quote the greek, if you like. It'll say the same thing. I could also quote the passage from the Old Testament which Jesus was quoting, which also says the same thing.

Take your pick.

Jesus spoke Eastern Aramaic. Maybe you didn't know that?

Appeal to popularity won't help your argument.

Learn some Greek.
Demos = People!
Kratia = Power!

That's who you have to convince...... and the words of Jesus in his dispensation are a against you ideas.

If I have committed a crime worthy of death, I do not object to dying.

They killed him anyway!

I thought maybe trying to break it down for you would make it easier for you to understand.

But it seems you're just not willing to listen, let alone understand what was said.

I'll listen...... by reading Jesus and his main message:-
Matthew {9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

You really believe that every sinner who confessed to an OT capital offence was taken out and executed.... not redeemed?

Thankfully, He didn't say what you assert that He said.

Then it should be very easy to point out where, exactly, Christ repealed the death penalty, when others later pointed out that the law is still in effect. You also need to show that when Jesus said He came not to destroy the law, that that apparently means something other than letting it remain in effect.

You don't accept the vast majority of the OT laws......

He did, and he was right. But also, we must obey God rather than men.

That means if God says "do not murder" and "put the murderer to death swiftly so that the hearts of men do not become fully set in them to do evil," but the government of man says "don't put the murderer to death, just lock him up like an animal for several years," that means we obey God, rather than the government of man.

Duh, what do you think we've been talking about this entire time, eider?

Christianity?

It happens far more often over the course of one year with the current systems than it would over the course of a thousand years with a system that puts criminals who commit capital crimes to death within 24 hours of their conviction.

Let's try asking the people if that would be a gross miscarriage of justice, eh?
Demos Kratia........... No chance for your idea.

Only if it was his negligence that allowed an innocent person to be put to death, or if he intentionally had the innocent person executed.

Also, the person who bore false witness in the trial that said the innocent person was guilty.

Tell Bentley that!
Tell all those convicted who were beyond reason at time od incident.

Nah! If a Judge wants to kill in careless judgement kneejerk we shouldn't let him hide later, eh?

You can't serve a prison sentence speedily.

Ecclesiastes 8:11

You keep quoting old Jewish verses and then so often dismiss old Jewish verses
Do you make up the rules as you go along?


Remember what Jesus said......... only those free of sin could execute convicts.... true?
Remember Jesus's mission:- Mercy and not sacrifice.
Where's the mercy?.

 

[ok doser]

... Remember what Jesus said......... only those free of sin could execute convicts.... true?.

:darwinsm:

 

[7djengo7]

I live in England. Duh.

LOL

Sorry, I did not know that you have nationalistic sentiments regarding the fact of your being a fruitcake--that you do not consider your fellow fruitcakes in other countries to be your fellow fruitcakes.

 

[eider]

Arthur Brain
Ah ha! You're back.
All the best........

 

[Arthur Brain]

Premeditated murder? Why focus on only that?

We're talking about ALL kinds of murder, where one person intentionally and unjustly kills another person.

I don't think it's been discussed much on TOL, and I only recently was made aware of it, but the law against coveteousness isn't a law against the sin of coveting, but it should ALSO be used in a criminal court to determine intent.

This ties in to what Jesus said regarding adultery:

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. - Matthew 5:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...8&version=NKJV

If there was an INTENT to kill the person, it becomes murder.

Whether it was premeditated (thought out beforehand) makes little to no difference other than determining if there were others involved.

This is how the Bible differentiates murder from accidental killing, and repeatedly reinforces this difference.

An example being intentionally swinging your axe blade at a man, versus swinging your axe and the head flies off and hits a man in the head, killing him, such a difference determines whether the man is guilty or not guilty of murder.

The Bible does mention premeditated murder, but focuses on the intent, rather than the premeditation.

Well, there's varying degrees where it comes to murder but let's focus on intent if you want. The law rightfully recognizes the difference between adults and children where it comes to culpability. A child is neither physiologically and more importantly, psychologically developed enough to be deemed as responsible for their actions as a fully developed adult. The same applies to adults who suffer with mental retardation where they effectively have the mental age of a child in turn. This is basic, common sense stuff.

Because you say so?

Because common sense should tell you. A five year old child simply isn't developed enough to fully understand their actions. It's like TH said earlier in the thread. At that age they're doing math with a bad calculator.

Oh?

They weren't?

Not from what I saw.

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

Sometimes an assertion is ridiculous to begin with. If you assert that unicorns live on the moon than nobody's obliged to give it any credence or disprove it by way of.

Who said such?

I should have stipulated their lack of psychological development as that's more salient.

Scenario A: Little Timmy (6yo) gets into a fight with Bobby his play mate because Bobby wouldn't give Timmy the toy he wanted, and strangles Bobby to death, that is murder.

Tommy coveted the toy that Bobby had, and because Bobby wouldn't give him the toy, Tommy strangled Bobby.

That's murder.

Scenario B: Little Timmy and Bobby start wrestling, but because of Timmy holding Bobby the wrong way while they play, Bobby dies of strangulation.

There was no intent to kill Bobby, just the intent to have fun with Timmy's friend. Timmy strangled Bobby, but Timmy would be found innocent of murder, because there was no intent to kill him

A tragedy, but not murder.

No, the first scenario isn't murder for all the reasons presented above and previous.

Appeal to extremes is another logical fallacy, Arthur.

It makes the point. This isn't addressed to five year old children, certainly not in the main. A bit like how advanced maths papers aren't directed at kindergarten...

Sorry, but there is no indication that it's addressed to any specific age group.

Your argument is unfounded.

So, two year olds would be expected to get the gist as well then maybe? Otherwise, the point is pretty much obvious.

Calling you out on your use of fallacies isn't naive nor is it pompous.

Except you're not calling me out on anything of the sort. Science, common sense, logic and reason differentiate between the levels of responsibility and culpability between adults and children. Answer me this JR. Currently (and rightfully) the law recognizes that an adult having sex with a 10 year old is guilty of child rape as a 10 year old is deemed incapable of giving informed consent at such an age. Do you agree? Or, to be consistent with your own position, is the child an equally guilty party?

Which ones, specifically?

I didn't see any where any of the children in question were referred to as murderers.

You didn't answer the question.

Do you know what the term "avenger of blood" means?

Yes and it has no bearing on what you advocate where it comes to executing children. There is no "avenging" going on by stabbing a child to death JR.

Question begging.

No, it isn't for all of the reasons prior.

Of course they are. But that doesn't preclude them from being murderers.

Yes, it does.

The problem isn't that you're having an emotional reaction.

It's that you're using that emotional reaction to define what is right and wrong.

In other words, you aren't being objective and rational. Don't let your emotions cloud your judgment.

It isn't being clouded and having an emotive reaction or revulsion to something isn't irrational in itself. For example, I'm repulsed by rape. It is abhorrent, it is an evil and atrocious act of violation. Now, do I need to explain my reasoning further as to why or can the obvious just be left to stand as it is?

Pretty sure Jesus is as objective as it gets. And besides, Jesus wasn't debating the morality of the death penalty. In fact, He's the one who wrote in stone "Do not murder" and told Moses that those who murder should be put to death.

God is rational.

Don't be irrational.

Using emotional appeals to defend your position is irrational and fallacious.

What did Paul say when he was accused of doing things worthy of the death penalty?

Do you know?

Pretty sure that none of that was to be applied to infants and children and there's no irrationality here. You've had the obvious explained to you and as to why society recognizes the differences between adults and children where it comes to law.

Yes, he said he would not ask to escape the death penalty. Paul was an adult and I highly doubt he'd have endorsed the stabbing of children to death.

And are those emotions justified by what the Bible says? or are they simply a knee jerk reaction to being told what is good and just?

You're not telling me anything that is "good and just". You're advocating executing children to the point of stabbing them to death.

God says put the murderer to death.

That includes children, if they murder.

No, it doesn't and you're out of excuses if you persist with this now. A child cannot be held as accountable for its actions as an adult.

See Post #358, where I have already done so.

Well no, you haven't.

Because you say so?

Because logic, reason, empathy, compassion, a functioning moral compass says so. What you advocate is evil.

There's your favorite fallacy again, the appeal to popularity.

Popularity in itself doesn't determine truth but it can often be an indicator of it. Stabbing six year old children to death rightly repulses most people, the same as rape does. Why do you suppose that is JR? Doesn't God design us to feel that way about certain things? Are we given emotions for a reason?

I don't call myself a right-wing religious fanatic for nothing, you know. :banana:

You shouldn't sell yourself short. You're a fanatic and then some...

lain:

Says the one opposing what God says.

You, like the serpent, tell murderers they will not surely die, when God commands that they be put to death.

No, I'm opposing what you say and the vileness you put forth, big difference.

Oh, and btw, will you kindly link me to the post you gave me my latest infraction for please as I can't see it in my message center? I don't recall writing anything that implied profanity and it's the second time you've given me an infraction for the same reason lately. The last time I PM'ed you for a link but got no reply and that might be something to do with bugs in the system to be fair but I'd appreciate a link this time.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur Brain
Ah ha! You're back.
All the best........

Greetings sir, hope you're well?

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

LOL

Sorry, I did not know that you have nationalistic sentiments regarding the fact of your being a fruitcake--that you do not consider your fellow fruitcakes in other countries to be your fellow fruitcakes.

The guy who calls people "Nazi Leftards" going on about other people being fruitcakes?

Oops, there goes another irony meter factory...