No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[ok doser]

:think:



There's a far better chance of the relationship working out when A) there's a foundational commitment, marriage, in place, and B) when there's a deterrent in place against breaking that foundational commitment.



Sure. And that's caused by the government simply having "no-fault" divorces as a way out.

It's currently too easy for a married couple to say "I give up on trying to maintain this relationship," instead of "Our relationship is failing, is there anything I can do to strengthen it."



This is both begging the question and special pleading. Begging the question, because you're assuming that they aren't harming themselves or their children (something you need to prove), and special pleading, because you're ignoring all the non-married couples with and without children who do not have stable relationships and/or ARE harming themselves and their children.

Studies have shown that children who grow up without both parents in the home and/or in a married relationship are worse off then children who grow up with both parents in the home and married.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/when-it-comes-to-child-well-being-is-one-parent-the-same-as-two



That's what they're doing, whether that's their intent or not.



God said:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:24&version=NKJV

By doing otherwise, couples disobey God, whether they acknowledge Him or not.



As I said above, sure, people can be in committed relationships.

But there's no foundation for it.

It's like trying to build a house upon sand, rather than rock.

And I'm sure you remember what Jesus said about that:

[JESUS]“Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.“But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand:and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”[/JESUS] - Matthew 7:24-27 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew7:24-27&version=NKJV



By making the argument that men and women don't need to get married to raise a family, you inherently make marriage out as being unnecessary.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



The evidence says otherwise.

Two modern countries (even with corruption in their enforcement of laws) have the death penalty for adultery, and their marriage rates have not fallen to zero.

OUR country, on the other hand, has all but abolished the death penalty for adultery, and our divorce rates have skyrocketed, our marriage rates have gone down, and it's caused more murders by enraged spouses.



Argumentum ad populum.



Saying it doesn't make it so, Arthur. And in fact, the evidence shows the opposite of your claim, that marriages are longer lasting, and that there is hardly any adultery, and that there is hardly any divorce, and that the marriage rate has not dropped to nearly zero.

i was starting to respond to artie's post when i noticed yours - you hit all my high points :thumb:

 

[ok doser]

To be honest, I think a better question is "When did we begin to abolish the death penalty for adultery, and did it have any effect on marriage and divorce rates, and murder rates.

A prediction: If being convicted of adultery results in execution, then the law is a deterrent against adultery, and thus there would hardly be any adultery, so by removing that deterrent, adultery should become more and more common. Therefore, the data should show that adultery rates climb after abolishing laws against and punishments for adultery.

Another prediction based on my position: The divorce rate would go up after "no-fault divorce" is instituted.

WoO and artie are arguing as if this potential change to the law happened in a vacuum, as if, overnight, the law was changed to criminalize adultery

that's not what I see as possible - i see a wholesale change in values, a respect for marriage, a cultural rejection of adultery and divorce (and many many other things), an enforced control of Hollywood - in many ways a return to the values of the thirties and forties, the values of that generation who knew sacrifice and valued morality

 

[ok doser]

You're ignoring the fact that in countries like these the laws favour men far above women. Sure, there are men who have been executed but what percentage in relation to women?

google it and tell us

 

[JudgeRightly]

Are you kidding me? You think people are making stuff up about how women are treat in these places and what rights they have?

No, I never said that. I just think you should support your argument with evidence, rather than just making claims.

Hence "onus probandi."

The burden of proof is on you to support your argument, not me.

Give me a break and do some googling.

How about you support your own argument, rather than telling your opponent to support your own argument.

"Abuse of one law"?

Abuse of "adulterers/esses will be put to death."

No, just barbarism.

Which is a result of rejecting God.

Are you honestly so ignorant as to think that women in these countries have anything approaching the same rights as men?

Why do you assume I am? I never said they did. My argument is that EVEN WITH that being the case, it doesn't make their law against adultery wrong (because correlation does not equal causation).

Again, what does that have to do with whether the laws against adultery are right or wrong?

Seriously? This is news to you? How else do you suppose a thirteen year old girl gets stoned to death JR??!

Straw man.

See

Hey, don't change my words JR, I said that there's no way a child would be stoned to death for adultery in America and that's true, so no incredulity at all. I also didn't say that any rapist would not be brought to account either. Too many get away with it. So again, don't change my words.

I didn't change your words. I used your quote as a format to make a point using my own.

Outside of religious zealotry

So calling God a "religious zealot"?

That's real smart.

there's no reason why it should be a capital crime.

Appeal to incredulity.

The main reason is that God said it should be a capital crime.

It's not like you're objective enough to see reasoning outside of that anyway is there? Or is there?

This is an ad hominem.

Ah, was waiting for that. If people don't marry then catch them in the act and then force them to marry instead.

Correct.

Because a married couple with or without kids is FAR more stable than any other relationship type.

Because the government has a vested interest in promoting the stability of it's citizens.

A veritable recipe for healthy relationships, stable and happy families across the board.

Straw man. See my previous posts where I corrected this straw man.

:cloud9:

:blabla:

Honestly, your arguments are reminiscent of some episodes of The twilight zone and the outer limits...

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

There's no logic to it.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

A: No death penalty for a marriage that breaks up with infidelity as part

Because there was no conviction of adultery in court, only a request to divorce from the spouse based on grounds of sexual immorality.

B: Death penalty for a marriage that breaks up with infidelity as part

Because there was a conviction of adultery in court, with the charge brought either by the spouse or by a third party.

See, not illogical.

As a sort of comparison (if you can distinguish the meaning) it's like going for a job where the criteria is exactly the same for each but one offers a competitive salary and bonuses whereas the other offers minimum wage and the sack within two months if you refuse to work overtime.

Which one offers the incentive? Just to clarify in case it wasn't obvious, the above example isn't saying that adultery is a "perk".

Argument based on a false premise.

An honest and committed relationship doesn't involve or require either coercion or threats from an outside source regardless.

No, but those who are not honest and/or have a hard time committing do require a deterrent against breaking their commitment to their spouse.

In a perfect world, I agree, such a law would be unnecessary.

But we don't live in a perfect world.

And what I'm advocating is not a perfect world. It's an optimal one considering that the world is imperfect.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Love does not require violence to discipline children.

Who said anything about violence?

Do you think that spanking, something God tells parents to do, is violence?

Children aren't evil,

Who said they were?

and trying to beat evil out of them is sadistic.

Rather, if a child is doing wrong:

Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, As do stripes the inner depths of the heart. - Proverbs 20:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs20:30&version=NKJV

He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him promptly. - Proverbs 13:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs13:24&version=NKJV

Do not withhold correction from a child, For if you beat him with a rod, he will not die.You shall beat him with a rod, And deliver his soul from hell. - Proverbs 23:13-14 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs23:13-14&version=NKJV

And there are plenty more verses.

You don't know what you're talking about.

God does:

Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, As do stripes the inner depths of the heart. - Proverbs 20:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs20:30&version=NKJV

So how do you feel about wife spanking?

I have nothing against a husband and wife getting kinky in their own bed.

My position on wife spanking
While I do not support all the methods prescribed by Christian Domestic Discipline (CDD) movement (a group that advocates for wife spanking and other physical discipline toward wives) I do not think wife spanking by itself is sinful. I do not practice this myself at this time with my wife. But I do know some godly Christian couples that use this in their marriage with the wife’s consent. I have written an entire article on this subject that you can read “Does the Bible allow a husband to spank his wife?

biblicalgenderroles. com​

Never heard of it, so I have no opinion on it. Yet.

 

[Arthur Brain]

This is, basically, an appeal to emotion.

The fact is, emotions change over time.

The marriage vows and the government enforcing those vows ensure that the family is as stable as possible.

In other words, "sincerity" is not an absolute.

Hence the need for a third party, namely, the government, to enforce the commitment.

Wow, welcome to 1984...

How much is love regarded by the government in that novel JR? You need "Big Brother" to watch you and keep you in line?

The deterrent is for the wicked. Not for the innocent. You keep making that error.

If one stays committed, then the law isn't for them.

Oh, the "wicked", such a convenient way to label people who don't have the same steadfast beliefs as you isn't it?

If they commit, and then go back on their word, the law is for that person.

The law isn't there to make people righteous. It's to condemn wrongdoing.

Well, condemning a thirteen year old girl to death by stoning is vile and wicked so there's that. Oh, let me guess, "appeal to emotion" again?

God said:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. - Genesis 2:24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis2:24&version=NKJV

The word used translated as "be joined" in the NKJV is the word dabaq, which means:

Strong's h1692 - Lexical: דָּבַק - Transliteration: dabaq - Part of Speech: Verb - Phonetic Spelling: daw-bak' - Definition: cling. - Origin: A primitive root; properly, to impinge, i.e. Cling or adhere; figuratively, to catch by pursuit. - Usage: abide fast, cleave (fast together), follow close (hard after), be joined (together), keep (fast), overtake, pursue hard, stick, take. - Translated as (count): cleaves (6), cleave (5), cleaved (4), and cleave (2), And cleaved (2), and followed hard (2), and to cleave (2), shall keep (2), abide (1), And followed hard on (1), and overtook (1), and pursued hard (1), and shall cleave (1), and they overtook (1), and they shall cleave (1), and to stick (1), are joined together (1), cleave fast together (1), cleave you (1), followed hard (1), follows hard (1), For he cleaved (1), has cleaved (1), have I caused to cleave (1), he cleaved (1), I have stuck (1), overtake me (1), overtook them (1), shall cleave (1), shall follow close (1), shall stick (1), so she kept fast (1), that you may cleave (1), there shall cleave (1), They are joined (1), to him shall you cleave (1), you shall keep fast (1).

So yes, a husband and wife are expected to "pack things in during a tough patch."

You obviously missed the sarcasm. My obvious implication is that most couples don't pack things in after a rough patch...

:AMR:

Who are you, one who claims to be a Christian, to challenge God on that?

I don't claim to be any such label as laid out plenty times previous and if you can't pick up on stuff like the above then don't bother trying to label me either.

House built upon a rock vs house built upon sand, respectively.

Plenty "non Christian" houses I know that are built on better foundation than those that claim to be.

Moving the goalposts.

I said "the most stable." Not "guaranteed stability."

Or they're in the same place and it's just easier to score a goal against you. Marriage itself does not guarantee stability at all and enforced ones certainly don't.

Rather, it's stating truth found in the Bible.

God says that if someone is not for Him, then they are against Him.

Hmm, given the amount of childish argumentation on here even among those who claim to believe then that's kinda funny in some respects. Who has the "right belief" JR? How many people scold those who have a differing denominational belief on here?

lain:

Agreed.

And since God knows better than you, and Jesus is God, and Jesus said:

[JESUS]He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters abroad.[/JESUS] - Matthew 12:30 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew12:30&version=NKJV

AND

But Jesus said to him, [JESUS]“Do not forbid him, for he who is not against us is on our side.”[/JESUS] - Luke 9:50 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke9:50&version=NKJV

[JESUS]For he who is not against us is on our side.[/JESUS] - Mark 9:40 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark9:40&version=NKJV

Then you should agree that there are only people who reject God or who are on His side.

Um, no. We do not agree. You are the modern day equivalent of those who brought the woman to Jesus frankly.

The Bible says a man should give a woman a certificate of divorce when he divorces her.

That inherently implies that there should be some regulation in marriage.

Oh, and who regulates this certificate and where is it "printed" out?

Why do you think that I think such is necessary?

Because I don't. Which makes this portion of your argument a straw man.

Oh, well, you seem for all proper procedure and all...

Which is to deter those who would commit adultery.

The law is not made for the righteous, but for the wicked.

Just like a lawful threat of execution is to deter those who would commit murder from doing so.

Oh, so you think that a load of people who actually make the commitment to get married have the intent to commit adultery somewhere down the line? How pompous do you even realize you're being at this point?

Why would it?

Let's put it another way:

Why would a law making murder a capital crime make loving one's neighbor less sincere?

Because genuine love and commitment requires no coercion or penalty. Your comparison is planets off...

And yet you constantly defend NOT getting married, which by definition, is the OPPOSITE of getting married, which puts you in opposition to God, who says that a man should cling to HIS WIFE.

I'm not going to condemn people not getting married and call them "the wicked" or anything as you're so prone to do.

The law against adultery is not "religious" in nature. It's based in absolute morality. It is absolutely wrong to cheat on your spouse.

Nobody's actually condoning it here but there's understandable reasons as to why it happens and if all your answer amounts to is religious rhetoric then there's no real reason to take your zealousness seriously either.

A "religious" law would be "do not eat meat sacrificed to idols, because it's unclean."

lain:

So, in other words, you are in opposition to God, who says "put the adulterer and adulteress to death."

Good to know.

Oh, and guess what, He demanded that Israel, to whom He gave that law, enforce it against foreigners (non-citizens) in their land.

No, I'm in opposition to hardcore fundamentalism that has so much in common with the legalists of the time and absolutely zero to do with the tenets outlined in say...Galatians. There's no love, compassion, understanding or empathy for anybody that I've seen with your arguments on here. You just write other people off as "wicked". It's sickening.

"Appeal to common sense" is a logical fallacy, as you've been told before.

Oh please. It's like your "get rid of speed limits" stuff again. No road safety committee would sanction such outright asininity in years because of the obvious deaths and injuries that would result in such stupidity. You know it, you know the reasons why but you'll still persist in it won't you?

Sorry, but logic says that if there are two countries that have adultery as a capital crime, and they both do not have marriage rates falling to near zero, then implementing such a law in another country should not inherently see it's marriage rate fall to near zero.

You've got nothing to be sorry about as your argument never held water in the first place, as thoroughly outlined before. Using countries that have scant regard for human rights overall, let alone women's was never gonna pass the cut.

And so here we are, me and doser addressing your arguments, which you have refused to progress from.

Care to advance the conversation beyond what you've tried to assert repeatedly?

Pfffft, doser's on ignore and you've been addressed enough as it is already.

At the very least, it won't plummet to near zero, as you and Wiz keep asserting.

Sure, everyone would be just lining up to get married...

Doesn't make the position any more valid.

It's an appeal to the majority, which is a logical fallacy.

Meaning the position is inherently invalid in this discussion of what is right and wrong.

It's not an "appeal" to anything. The marriage rate would plummet if such a law was implemented in today's society. It's obvious. If you can't take yourself outside of your own bias to see the obvious then it's nobody else's problem.

Again, appeal to incredulity, and appeal to ridicule.

Hardly, there's simply no way your "ideal" would come about. There's laws protecting human rights in the West and so such laws would not come about. Simple as.

:blabla:

Maybe you should have started and finished with that.

lain:

 

[The Barbarian]

So, in other words, you are in opposition to God, who says "put the adulterer and adulteress to death."

Good to know.

Hmmmm...


John 8:3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, 4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?

6 And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. 9 But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?

11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

 

[Clete]

Hmmmm...


John 8:3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, 4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?

6 And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. 9 But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?

11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

How many times does the same argument have to be refuted?

:bang:

 

[JudgeRightly]

How many times does the same argument have to be refuted?

:bang:

Seems like all that those who oppose the death penalty (especially for adultery) can do is make logical fallacies.

 

[Town Heretic]

Seems like all that those who oppose the death penalty (especially for adultery) can do is make logical fallacies.

"Seems,"...the devil is always in the details.

 

[ok doser]

Seems like all that those who oppose the death penalty (especially for adultery) can do is make logical fallacies.

In barbie's case it's trolling, pure and simple

 

[The Barbarian]

How many times does the same argument have to be refuted?

:bang:

I've never seen anyone successfully refute Jesus's argument. What have you got?

 

[The Barbarian]

"Seems,"...the devil is always in the details.

I have a feeling some people wish Jesus hadn't talked so much.

 

[ok doser]

[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] [MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION]

See what I mean?

 

[JudgeRightly]

I've never seen anyone successfully refute Jesus's argument. What have you got?

:troll:

You know that's not what Clete said.

 

[ok doser]

:troll:

You know that's not what Clete said.

Of course he does - he's trying to provoke a response from clete

 

[Clete]

I've never seen anyone successfully refute Jesus's argument. What have you got?

It isn't Jesus that needs refuting, it's your removal of this episode from it's context that needs it.

Except that it's already been done so many times that I think I'll barf if I repeat it again.

You can read the thread if you're actually interested, which I know you're not.

Or you can read the following article, again, if you're actually interested. You won't read it either but, for those who might, or in case you surprise me...

https://kgov.com/god-and-death-penalty-what-does-the-bible-say-about-capital-punishment

 

[annabenedetti]

Who said anything about violence?

You did.

Blows that hurt cleanse away evil

The best way to discipline someone is to make it hurt.

You go on to rule out timeouts, because they're not "physically painful."

How do you inflict pain physical pain on children without using violence?

​

Do you think that spanking, something God tells parents to do, is violence?

The Bible doesn't say "spank" though, does it? You specifically cited a verse that says "blows that hurt."

It's quite possible to discipline firmly without resorting to "blows that hurt."

All you're teaching the child is that it's okay to hit someone as long as the one doing the hitting is in charge.

Who said they were?

You did.

Blows that hurt cleanse away evil

Rather, if a child is doing wrong:

Blows that hurt cleanse away evil

I have nothing against a husband and wife getting kinky in their own bed.

Never heard of it, so I have no opinion on it. Yet.

This isn't about kinky, it's about creepy.

When it comes to being 'the patriarch' apparently some see little difference between children and women, reminiscent of your comparing kids' timeouts to prison "timeouts."

However, the Bible makes it clear in passages like Ephesians 5:22-33 and I Peter 3:1-7 that marriage is not a “partnership” but rather a patriarchy. It does not get any clearer than “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” (Ephesians 5:23). And the fact is that the Bible is clear that as Christ is the head of the Church so too God the owner of humanity has put male human beings in charge of female human beings in marriage. It really is that simple.

Interesting that the guy notes he completely rewrote the page from the 2016 version, so I went to the wayback machine to compare them. Here's the email that didn't make it to the revision:

Kathy’s story “My husband spanked me and then grounded me because I wanted a break after having 6 children in the first 5 years of our marriage. Do I have Biblical grounds to divorce him for treating me like a child instead of his wife? I’m a 26 year old female and married 5 years ago to a wonderful Christian man- the problem is we have 6 children under the age of 5 which as you can imagine is quite tiresome as I’m at home looking after them all day and then I need to prepare for my husband’s return from work and by the time I’ve finished settling the kids and cleaning up after dinner I’m just totally exhausted. My husband seems to think I should be sexually available to him whenever he touches me but for the past few months I’m just so tired- so tired in fact I went to my doctor and got a prescription for birth control pills to prevent another pregnancy- I didn’t tell my husband because I know he feels it’s his choice whether I am pregnant or not. He had begun to get suspicious as to why I’m not pregnant again as we never had a problem before and our youngest is now 6 months old and we usually have three months between delivery and subsequent pregnancies, I had begun to avoid him sexually and there was a pretty tense atmosphere between us until it all exploded after a Sunday service a few weeks back when my parents in Law took the kids for the afternoon and my husband said he wanted us to spend time together alone which I dreaded. Anyway to cut a long story short he took me home and started to quote scripture about how I was being disrespectful and disobedient, he said in his 37 years on earth he never witnessed a woman treating her husband with the disregard I was treating him except on one occasion when his mother back answered his father, he then told me having spoken to his father about our situation and after much prayer he felt it was time to pull me back into line, he then proceeded to spank my behind with his hand while I screamed and begged him not to- he stopped and I thought it was over but he then removed his belt and gave me 20 more lashes which he said were for the birth control pills he had found. He then told me how much he loved me and wanted to save our marriage but for the moment he has forbade me to leave the house unless accompanied by one of his parents. Do I have grounds for divorce because of what he has done to me? I am still young enough to start again but don’t want to live with the fear of being seen as ungodly for seeking divorce or should I let him seek divorce based on irreconcilable differences, I have been much kinder to him since he disciplined me out of fear of it happening again which he has warned me it will if I step out of line and I don’t think he has any right to spank or whip me- he is not my father.”

 

[annabenedetti]

Of course he does - he's trying to provoke a response from clete

And you're trying to provoke a response from the mod towards Barbarian.

 

[ok doser]

And you're trying to provoke a response from the mod towards Barbarian.

No :duh:


Trolls like barbie should be banned