Boston Marathon Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Sentenced To Death

First topic message reminder :

A jury in Massachusetts has sentenced Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to death. The seven-woman, five-man jury revealed their decision on Friday evening. The 21-year-old naturalised American citizen now faces execution by lethal injection.

"This is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev —unconcerned, unrepentant and unchanged," prosecutor Nadine Pellegrin said.



http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/15/boston-marathon-bomber-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-sentenced-to-death_n_7293992.html?utm_hp_ref=uk



The only reasons I have grave reservations for the death penalty, is where an innocent is wrongly executed.
In this case, there is not a need to concern myself on that matter, as he is scum and as guilty as sin.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Really, soldiers commit to pre-emptive strikes against soldiers in opposition, where they can asleep in their trenches or quarters, how is that any different? Its not, soldiers are executing their orders, which means executing some of the opposing forces.
It is lawful killing, you may object, that is up to you, but your views are subjective, as the whole aspect on killing is subjective

Your views are also subjective. You've been talking about reasonable doubt and mitigating circumstances, but your idea of reasonable doubt and mitigating circumstances may well be very different to that of someone else.

In fairness, it's a subjective question. You can't reference the homicide statutes as they are moral expressions themselves. The question is--yea/no--do you approve of state sanctioned death?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I hope all these people who get involved in capital punishment - the judge, the jury, the executioners, etc, realise that they are also murderers.

How so?

Definition of murder as "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

It is morally unlawful. It is also premeditated and malicious.

Exactly, and could I just add that it's really uncivilized? It turns this noble idea we have of self-rule into mob vengeance that degrades everyone who is part of it, including people like me who don't support it.

Fun fact -- American federal trials in which the death penalty is a possible punishment never have people who are against the death penalty serving as jurors. Death-penalty opponents are basically barred from this.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is morally unlawful. It is also premeditated and malicious.

Exactly, and could I just add that it's really uncivilized? It turns this noble idea we have of self-rule into mob vengeance that degrades everyone who is part of it, including people like me who don't support it.

Why do people place ownership onto a word when the very word civilized is nothing more than a subjective concept?
What you fail to grasp is that we define it lawful to kill in situations, which is not mob rule.
I had no problem with taking out Bin Laden, when you weigh up the pro's and con's to this, what purpose would it have served to capture him alive?
None
It also shows very little understanding of the extreme version of the faith such proponents follow.
They view us as soft by such a weak stance we take and why they are winning the psychological battle.

Now normally I am against death penalty but in this case

pfft, what ever, he is never going to be rehabilitated, it may be kinder to execute him. there is vengeance and then there is efficiency/reality of limited resources. using them on him is a waste when you have people that could be rehabilitated that wont be due to lack of resources.

veya_victaous wrote:Now normally I am against death penalty but in this case

pfft, what ever, he is never going to be rehabilitated, it may be kinder to execute him. there is vengeance and then there is efficiency/reality of limited resources. using them on him is a waste when you have people that could be rehabilitated that wont be due to lack of resources.

Exactly and people are ignoring the religious extreme aspect here, where he showed utterly no remorse and intended to by deliberate measure murder children.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is morally unlawful. It is also premeditated and malicious.

Exactly, and could I just add that it's really uncivilized? It turns this noble idea we have of self-rule into mob vengeance that degrades everyone who is part of it, including people like me who don't support it.

Fun fact -- American federal trials in which the death penalty is a possible punishment never have people who are against the death penalty serving as jurors. Death-penalty opponents are basically barred from this.

One of the worst things about it is the way people try to pretend that it is civilised and righteous. It's all very sanitised so that those involved can sleep at night.

I don't know if you followed the Jodi Arias trials. In the trial to determine whether or not she should get the death penalty, one juror held out against it - all the rest voted in favour. The outrage directed at that one juror was extraordinary. It was suggested that she had an agenda or that she was against the death penalty. She was considered to be the "baddie" because she let Jodi Arias evade proper justice.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is morally unlawful. It is also premeditated and malicious.

Exactly, and could I just add that it's really uncivilized? It turns this noble idea we have of self-rule into mob vengeance that degrades everyone who is part of it, including people like me who don't support it.

Fun fact -- American federal trials in which the death penalty is a possible punishment never have people who are against the death penalty serving as jurors. Death-penalty opponents are basically barred from this.

One of the worst things about it is the way people try to pretend that it is civilised and righteous. It's all very sanitised so that those involved can sleep at night.

I don't know if you followed the Jodi Arias trials. In the trial to determine whether or not she should get the death penalty, one juror held out against it - all the rest voted in favour. The outrage directed at that one juror was extraordinary. It was  suggested that she had an agenda or that she was against the death penalty. She was considered to be the "baddie" because she let Jodi Arias evade proper justice.

I can't remember ever hearing about her, I'll have to check out her story.

I appreciate the fact that you seem to realize what I'm saying, by the way. I'm against the death penalty, not because I have any sympathy for the convicted -- we all learn about some cases where we come to strongly feel the convicted deserves to die, often horribly -- but for what it does to society when we engage in this morbid practice of telling a person he or she is going to die, telling them how and when it will happen, and then reconvening on the set date and time and killing them. I defy anyone to rationally explain how that fits any definition of what a civilization does.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

One of the worst things about it is the way people try to pretend that it is civilised and righteous. It's all very sanitised so that those involved can sleep at night.

I don't know if you followed the Jodi Arias trials. In the trial to determine whether or not she should get the death penalty, one juror held out against it - all the rest voted in favour. The outrage directed at that one juror was extraordinary. It was  suggested that she had an agenda or that she was against the death penalty. She was considered to be the "baddie" because she let Jodi Arias evade proper justice.

I can't remember ever hearing about her, I'll have to check out her story.

I appreciate the fact that you seem to realize what I'm saying, by the way. I'm against the death penalty, not because I have any sympathy for the convicted -- we all learn about some cases where we come to strongly feel the convicted deserves to die, often horribly -- but for what it does to society when we engage in this morbid practice of telling a person he or she is going to die, telling them how and when it will happen, and then reconvening on the set date and time and killing them. I defy anyone to rationally explain how that fits any definition of what a civilization does.

Again how do you define civilized, when it is a subjective concept?
Its simple some people deserve death, even more so based on their ideological beliefs, which you do not seem to comprehend.
Way up the costs here, is it cheaper to end the life of someone who does not deserve to live, or spend a fortune on them until they eventually die anyway?
All a life sentence is really, is a lenthy death sentence

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

One of the worst things about it is the way people try to pretend that it is civilised and righteous. It's all very sanitised so that those involved can sleep at night.

I don't know if you followed the Jodi Arias trials. In the trial to determine whether or not she should get the death penalty, one juror held out against it - all the rest voted in favour. The outrage directed at that one juror was extraordinary. It was  suggested that she had an agenda or that she was against the death penalty. She was considered to be the "baddie" because she let Jodi Arias evade proper justice.

I can't remember ever hearing about her, I'll have to check out her story.

I appreciate the fact that you seem to realize what I'm saying, by the way. I'm against the death penalty, not because I have any sympathy for the convicted -- we all learn about some cases where we come to strongly feel the convicted deserves to die, often horribly -- but for what it does to society when we engage in this morbid practice of telling a person he or she is going to die, telling them how and when it will happen, and then reconvening on the set date and time and killing them. I defy anyone to rationally explain how that fits any definition of what a civilization does.

Yes! It's not just a question of whether the condemned deserves to die or not, it's the whole thing. It's the pomp and ceremony of it - like it's some kind of grand "society event". It's the hypocrisy of treating the condemned nicely - with deference almost. It's the way nobody wants to actually kill the person directly - it's all done by buttons and switches. Even in a firing squad, they put blank bullets in some of the guns so that the people pulling the triggers can tell themselves they didn't actually kill the person.

If members of a jury were told they would have to stab that person themselves - close up, with all the blood and pain that goes with it - would they still condemn that person to death?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I can't remember ever hearing about her, I'll have to check out her story.

I appreciate the fact that you seem to realize what I'm saying, by the way. I'm against the death penalty, not because I have any sympathy for the convicted -- we all learn about some cases where we come to strongly feel the convicted deserves to die, often horribly -- but for what it does to society when we engage in this morbid practice of telling a person he or she is going to die, telling them how and when it will happen, and then reconvening on the set date and time and killing them. I defy anyone to rationally explain how that fits any definition of what a civilization does.

If members of a jury were told they would have to stab that person themselves - close up, with all the blood and pain that goes with it - would they still condemn that person to death?

I would have no reservations to condemn them to death.
We are all mortal at the end of the day and a life sentence is still a death sentence also, one that is long drawn out, as they have no hope of being set free.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

If members of a jury were told they would have to stab that person themselves - close up, with all the blood and pain that goes with it - would they still condemn that person to death?

I would have no reservations to condemn them to death.
We are all mortal at the end of the day and a life sentence is still a death sentence also, one that is long drawn out, as they have no hope of being set free.

You would be prepared to stand in front of that person, who would be defenceless at that moment, and stab them to death?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

I would have no reservations to condemn them to death.
We are all mortal at the end of the day and a life sentence is still a death sentence also, one that is long drawn out, as they have no hope of being set free.

You would be prepared to stand in front of that person, who would be defenceless at that moment, and stab them to death?

Yep, it would only take one cut of the wrist, no need to stab at all.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You would be prepared to stand in front of that person, who would be defenceless at that moment, and stab them to death?

Yep, it would only take one cut of the wrist, no need to stab at all.

So you don't get blood on your nice shirt you mean?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Yep, it would only take one cut of the wrist, no need to stab at all.

So you don't get blood on your nice shirt you mean?

Eh?
Again it is much easier to just slit the wrist.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So you don't get blood on your nice shirt you mean?

Eh?
Again it is much easier to just slit the wrist.

Not if their hands are tied behind their back.

Even if they weren't, it wouldn't be easier at all.

Why do you want it to be easy anyway?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Eh?
Again it is much easier to just slit the wrist.

Not if their hands are tied behind their back.

Even if they weren't, it wouldn't be easier at all.

Why do you want it to be easy anyway?

Of course it would be easy, if the hands are clasped into a chair.
So yes it would be very easy.
If I can make something easier to do, then it makes sense to do so.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Not if their hands are tied behind their back.

Even if they weren't, it wouldn't be easier at all.

Why do you want it to be easy anyway?

Of course it would be easy, if the hands are clasped into a chair.
So yes it would be very easy.
If I can make something easier to do, then it makes sense to do so.

You do know that wouldn't kill them straightaway?

You mean you want it to be easy on yourself. That's what I mean about the death penalty. Those who are involved in it want to make it easy on themselves - hypocrites.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


Of course it would be easy, if the hands are clasped into a chair.
So yes it would be very easy.
If I can make something easier to do, then it makes sense to do so.

You do know that wouldn't kill them straightaway?

Yes, I am well aware of that

You mean you want it to be easy on yourself. That's what I mean about the death penalty. Those who are involved in it want to make it easy on themselves - hypocrites.

Not really, I am making easier all round for everyone involved.
You may not see it that way, but I certainly do.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

You do know that wouldn't kill them straightaway?

Yes, I am well aware of that

You mean you want it to be easy on yourself. That's what I mean about the death penalty. Those who are involved in it want to make it easy on themselves - hypocrites.

Not really, I am making easier all round for everyone involved.
You may not see it that way, but I certainly do.

Why do you want to make it easy for everyone involved?

I've read stuff about botched executions and about how "upset" the witnesses were. So they were perfectly OK with watching someone being killed as long as it was "clean" and "efficient". That's just pathetic IMO.

John Ellis, the person who hanged Edith Thompson, was apparently terribly upset because she didn't go quietly, and it was rather messy. That really must have spoilt his lunch that day.

good to see boston can sentence terrorists to death
rather than giving them a standing ovation and finance

The Devil, You Know wrote:good to see boston can sentence terrorists to death
rather than giving them a standing ovation and  finance

Good point - very good point.

Devil wrote:Again how do you define civilized, when it is a subjective concept?

When you get down to basics, you can't.  All of punishment is no more than revenge.  Too much effort is wasted trying to justify punishment as one thing or another: deterrence, rehabilitation, and maybe incapacitation/removal.  Perhaps these writers dignify the effort. but none of the theories work in actuality, to explain punishment.  What they do is mollify us.

Yet we still practice punishment.  Why?  Revenge.

The real question is, why do we need revenge?  Apparently it has to do with solidifying our social network.  That is why ostracism is often equated to death.  To exile someone is also done to solidify our society. Both exile and death are an expression of the togetherness derived from telling another, we don't want you!

Civility is subjective, but so is all moral thought.  One of the things that has happened since Christ is the advancement of Christian charity...or, in a word, humanism.  Remember "turn the other cheek"?  It is a direct philosophical challenge to the idea of revenge.

Original Quill wrote:

Devil wrote:Again how do you define civilized, when it is a subjective concept?

Civility is subjective, but so is all moral thought.  One of the things that has happened since Christ is the advancement of Christian charity...or, in a word, humanism.  Remember "turn the other cheek"?  It is a direct philosophical challenge to the idea of revenge.

Well there is a self defeating argument if ever I saw one.
Jesus failed in his mission of being the messiah, as he ended up dying on the cross, so turning the other cheek did him no favours what so ever. Even more to the point he basically condemned and told his apostles they would also die, in other words telling them they were sentenced to death.
Turn the other cheek rarely works or takes into consideration when children are murdered and hence why it becomes a different ball park altogether

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


Civility is subjective, but so is all moral thought.  One of the things that has happened since Christ is the advancement of Christian charity...or, in a word, humanism.  Remember "turn the other cheek"?  It is a direct philosophical challenge to the idea of revenge.

Well there is a self defeating argument if ever I saw one.
Jesus failed in his mission of being the messiah, as he ended up dying on the cross, so turning the other cheek did him no favours what so ever. Even more to the point he basically condemned and told his apostles they would also die, in other words telling them they were sentenced to death.

Jesus never had a mission of being a messiah, which is to say the promised deliverer of a nation.  That was Paul's mission.  Jesus only claimed he was king of the Jews.

Devil wrote:Turn the other cheek rarely works or takes into consideration when children are murdered and hence why it becomes a different ball park altogether

I tend to agree.  Nevertheless, it was a counterpoint to revenge, which is all I intended to say.

Original Quill wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


Well there is a self defeating argument if ever I saw one.
Jesus failed in his mission of being the messiah, as he ended up dying on the cross, so turning the other cheek did him no favours what so ever. Even more to the point he basically condemned and told his apostles they would also die, in other words telling them they were sentenced to death.

Jesus never had a mission of being a messiah.  That was Paul's mission.  Jesus claimed he was king of the Jews.

Devil wrote:Turn the other cheek rarely works or takes into consideration when children are murdered and hence why it becomes a different ball park altogether

I tend to agree.  Nevertheless, it was a counterpoint to revenge, which is all I intended to say.

Incorrect, Jesus claimed to be the messiah. He failed at being the messiah, as he failed to free the Jews.
Paul's mission was to claim he was the son of the God. This is backed up by the fact of the of the Jewish Christians that saw him as the messiah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Christian

As your source says:

Wiki wrote:As Christianity grew and evolved, Jewish Christians became only one strand of the early Christian community,

Because he was killed, Jesus never became a part of the evolved Christian community. Jesus was always a Jew. His aspirations were lost to those who took over the movement...namely Paul and the Pauline Church.

Incidentally, most of your source is derived from the Pauline Bible. What do you expect it to say?

Oh FFS, does everything here have to turn into an argument about Christianity?

Original Quill wrote:As your source says:

Wiki wrote:As Christianity grew and evolved, Jewish Christians became only one strand of the early Christian community,

Because he was killed, Jesus never became a part of the evolved Christian community.  Jesus was always a Jew.  His aspirations were lost to those who took over the movement...namely Paul and the Pauline Church.

Incidentally, most of your source is derived from the Pauline Bible.  What do you expect it to say?

Hence why the earliest Christians saw him as the messiah.
Never claimed he was not a Jew, again you make assertions I am not making.
You also go off the bible by stating Jesus said turn the other cheek, so you really have a cheek when you are using the same source

So then, anyone watching Eurovision on Saturday?

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh FFS, does everything here have to turn into an argument about Christianity?

Not really. Didge and I have a long-standing dispute about humanism as the core of western civilization. Certainly a discussion about capital punishment would go to what is civil.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh FFS, does everything here have to turn into an argument about Christianity?

Not really.  Didge and I have a long-standing dispute about humanism as the core of western civilization.  Certainly a discussion about capital punishment would go to what is civil.

Exactly and there is much to be said for some Christian values.

Oh well, another thread wrecked by the obsession with religion.

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh well, another thread wrecked by the obsession with religion.

Its a matter of religious morals actually, ones that have no doubt help sway your aversion to the death penalty.

They are very valid to the purpose of the debate.
Nobody is asking you to comment either, so allow others to do so, of which is interest to them.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh well, another thread wrecked by the obsession with religion.

Its a matter of religious morals actually, ones that have no doubt help sway your aversion to the death penalty.

They are very valid to the purpose of the debate.
Nobody is asking you to comment either, so allow others to do so, of which is interest to them.

You're not talking about that though are you? You're bleating on about whether Jesus was the Messiah or not.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Original Quill wrote:As your source says:



Because he was killed, Jesus never became a part of the evolved Christian community.  Jesus was always a Jew.  His aspirations were lost to those who took over the movement...namely Paul and the Pauline Church.

Incidentally, most of your source is derived from the Pauline Bible.  What do you expect it to say?

Hence why the earliest Christians saw him as the messiah.

I don't think they did. The claim was that he was king of the Jews...that's what all the "begetting" is about at the start of the New Testament, to prove his relationship to David. A messiah is supposed to be more than a mere king.

Devil wrote:Never claimed he was not a Jew, again you make assertions I am not making.
You also go off the bible by stating Jesus said turn the other cheek, so you really have a cheek when you are using the same source

It was my point that Jesus was a Jew, not yours. Specifically, that he was no more than a Jew. For example, he would never have subscribed to the nonsense that came out of the Council of Nicea.

Perhaps a moderator could split this thread.

Original Quill wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


Hence why the earliest Christians saw him as the messiah.

I don't think they did.  The claim was that he was king of the Jews...that's what all the "begetting" is about at the start of the New Testament, to prove his relationship to David.  A messiah is supposed to be more than a mere king.

Devil wrote:Never claimed he was not a Jew, again you make assertions I am not making.
You also go off the bible by stating Jesus said turn the other cheek, so you really have a cheek when you are using the same source

It was my point that Jesus was a Jew, not yours.  Specifically, that he was no more than a Jew.  For example,  he would never have subscribed to the nonsense that came out of the Council of Nicea.

He was seen to be the Messiah, by his followers the first Christian Jews. If we go off what we do know of him he also claimed to be the Messiah. Based off this evidence, and the fact he was executed for claiming to be a King and the Messiah, of which the Messiah is a warrior King, then he clearly failed in his task.

Well I'll be watching Eurovision anyway.

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps a moderator could split this thread.

Perhaps you could stop spoiling the debate.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Perhaps a moderator could split this thread.

Perhaps you could stop spoiling the debate.

Perhaps you could stop spamming this thread with irrelevant stuff about Jesus.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


Perhaps you could stop spoiling the debate.

Perhaps you could stop spamming this thread with irrelevant stuff about Jesus.

Its none of your business.
Quill is a very big advocate of the moral teachings of Jesus. I find many of them very important to. As he was in fact a great teacher. I view him only as a man, a great man and a forward thinking one, but I also see flaws. The points on his morals are very relevant to this debate.
If you do not like this nobody is forcing you to read, you are just now deliberately trying to derail a discussion between Quill and myself

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Perhaps you could stop spamming this thread with irrelevant stuff about Jesus.

Its none of your business.
Quill is a very big advocate of the moral teachings of Jesus. I find many of them very important to. As he was in fact a great teacher. I view him only as a man, a great man and a forward thinking one, but I also see flaws. The points on his morals are very relevant to this debate.
If you do not like this nobody is forcing you to read, you are just now deliberately trying to derail a discussion between Quill and myself

It is my business. I'm a member of this forum, and you spamming this thread with your pet topic is out of order.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think they did.  The claim was that he was king of the Jews...that's what all the "begetting" is about at the start of the New Testament, to prove his relationship to David.  A messiah is supposed to be more than a mere king.



It was my point that Jesus was a Jew, not yours.  Specifically, that he was no more than a Jew.  For example,  he would never have subscribed to the nonsense that came out of the Council of Nicea.

He was seen to be the Messiah, by his followers the first Christian Jews. If we go off what we do know of him he also claimed to be the Messiah. Based off this evidence, and the fact he was executed for claiming to be a King and the Messiah, of which the Messiah is a warrior King, then he clearly failed in his task.

In the early stages of the movement--pre-crucifixion--Jesus may have borrowed from the Old Testament a metaphor--a king is like a messiah. But it was only Paul who took that as more than a rhetorical device. Jesus never intended that he was this magician that Paul made out, nor did he ever conceive of something as fantastical as the trinity.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:


Its none of your business.
Quill is a very big advocate of the moral teachings of Jesus. I find many of them very important to. As he was in fact a great teacher. I view him only as a man, a great man and a forward thinking one, but I also see flaws. The points on his morals are very relevant to this debate.
If you do not like this nobody is forcing you to read, you are just now deliberately trying to derail a discussion between Quill and myself

It is my business. I'm a member of this forum, and you spamming this thread with your pet topic is out of order.

Its not spam, which shows you are being over sensitive to your religion, where nobody is mocking your religion here but debating off his moral views and his acts in the claims to his life.
So if you want to whine and whinge to Ben, Eddie, Veya, Irn and Lurker be my guest, but they will rightly see you are being way over the top

Original Quill wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:



He was seen to be the Messiah, by his followers the first Christian Jews. If we go off what we do know of him he also claimed to be the Messiah. Based off this evidence, and the fact he was executed for claiming to be a King and the Messiah, of which the Messiah is a warrior King, then he clearly failed in his task.

In the early stages of the movement--pre-crucifixion--Jesus may have borrowed from the Old Testament a metaphor--a king is like a messiah.   But it was only Paul who took that as more than a rhetorical device.  Jesus never intended that he was this magician that Paul made out, nor did he ever conceive of something as fantastical as the trinity.

Off topic.

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It is my business. I'm a member of this forum, and you spamming this thread with your pet topic is out of order.

Its not spam, which shows you are being over sensitive to your religion, where nobody is mocking your religion here but debating off his moral views and his acts in the claims to his life.
So if you want to whine and whinge to Ben, Eddie, Veya, Irn and Lurker be my guest, but they will rightly see you are being way over the top

I'm not being over-sensitive, I'm just sick to death of you and others constantly steering threads towards a discussion about religion.

Feel free to share and discuss anything you're interested in, but please note that members who consistently hijack threads to steer them toward discussions of their favorite "pet" topics may be asked to leave.

So then, about this bomber being sentenced to death?

Ok, back to the subject. I was saying that all forms of punishment are forms of revenge. In psychological terms, that is reward/punishment framing. Geo. Lakoff, Moral Politics.

There are other moral systems.

Original Quill wrote:Ok, back to the subject.  I was saying that all forms of punishment are forms of revenge.  In psychological terms, that is reward/punishment framing.  Geo. Lakoff, Moral Politics.

There are other moral systems.

Thank goodness.

Of course capital punishment is about revenge. It's not about preventing that person committing another crime, and it's not about deterring others from committing serious crimes either. Even Albert Pierrepoint admitted that.

Original Quill wrote:

Lucifer Angel of Light wrote:



He was seen to be the Messiah, by his followers the first Christian Jews. If we go off what we do know of him he also claimed to be the Messiah. Based off this evidence, and the fact he was executed for claiming to be a King and the Messiah, of which the Messiah is a warrior King, then he clearly failed in his task.

In the early stages of the movement--pre-crucifixion--Jesus may have borrowed from the Old Testament a metaphor--a king is like a messiah.   But it was only Paul who took that as more than a rhetorical device.  Jesus never intended that he was this magician that Paul made out, nor did he ever conceive of something as fantastical as the trinity.

That is subjective to say he was using this as a metaphor.
Lets look at the evidence claimed, he was brought to trial by the Romans for claiming to be King.
He was condemned on this matter.
So as a metaphor has little backing of validity.
Paul made more of a point on him being the son of God and you are right on the magician part.