PDA

View Full Version : Do you agree with the Death Penalty?



Jas
30-09-2012, 09:17
In a time of crime and violence, there should be some kind of deterrent. Terrorism and serial killers seem to be running wild- all the while- dreaming of new victims as the state watches powerlessly. So should the death penalty be imposed for certain crimes?
And yet where it is done.... people point to the chances of innocent people getting killed by the state before proved innocent as well as those countries with poor human rights records where violence remains rampant.

Do you agree with the death penalty? If so why? And who would you choose to see executed?

Jas
30-09-2012, 10:05
Peppermint Paddy loves me to bits u can say.... But his idea of saving me from the Jihadis comes at the price of me accepting a neo facist bullet in the head! What choice is that for me, PP?
Huh, talk about out of the frying pan into the fire.

How wud u keep politics out of the death penalty equation?

Lost in moscow
30-09-2012, 11:23
I agree with it regardless. Though I doubt there are many innocent death penalty waiters, The death penalty isn't handed out that easily. You really have to earn it, and you still have a chance to get life without the chance to get out on parol

I agree with it cuz The prisons are filled as is.

Jas
30-09-2012, 14:26
The problem is that countries with the death penalty don't generally have a great record on human rights.

Lost in moscow
30-09-2012, 14:37
The problem is that countries with the death penalty don't generally have a great record on human rights.

There aren't many countries in the world that actually care about human rights, outside of just saying they care.

But that isnt the problem, the problem is that the educational system and not only, is horrible, so that the few kids grow up to be people who end up fcking up soooooo bad that they are sent to death because they're such a threat to society.

rusmeister
30-09-2012, 16:09
I was always against it - until a couple of years ago. It was listening to a podcast series on the subjectby Steve Robinson, a former construction worker from Arizona and one of the wiser men now living on the planet, that I was forced to change my mind on a serious and weighty topic. (Yes, ME. Actually changed my mind.)

I had thought that there could be no good Christian justification for it. Now I think there can be. Not that there ALWAYS is, and miscarriages of justice remain miscarriages, but the miscarriages do not justify the elimination of the punishment, any more than other miscarriages of justice justify elimination of the justice system.

It is an audio podcast with a written transcript right there. I recommend listening, if at all possible; we misunderstand SO much when we lose things like tone of voice, which can communicate sympathy where the naked words alone seem to communicate judgement.

http://165.225.128.33/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_1

Really, most of his podcasts are full of wisdom - from marriage to advertising to growing old, he is a wonderful listen:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder

Jas
30-09-2012, 16:58
I was always against it - until a couple of years ago. It was listening to a podcast series on the subjectby Steve Robinson, a former construction worker from Arizona and one of the wiser men now living on the planet, that I was forced to change my mind on a serious and weighty topic. (Yes, ME. Actually changed my mind.)

I had thought that there could be no good Christian justification for it. Now I think there can be. Not that there ALWAYS is, and miscarriages of justice remain miscarriages, but the miscarriages do not justify the elimination of the punishment, any more than other miscarriages of justice justify elimination of the justice system.

It is an audio podcast with a written transcript right there. I recommend listening, if at all possible; we misunderstand SO much when we lose things like tone of voice, which can communicate sympathy where the naked words alone seem to communicate judgement.

http://165.225.128.33/podcasts/stevethebuilder/capital_punishment_part_1

Really, most of his podcasts are full of wisdom - from marriage to advertising to growing old, he is a wonderful listen:
http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/stevethebuilder



So ure against abortion cos of the sanctity of human life.... but ure for executing people?
Either something is sacrosanct or it isnt...

Lost in moscow
30-09-2012, 17:01
Babies have yet to "sin", while those who acted in such a way to deserve death, have "sinned"

Jas
30-09-2012, 17:03
Babies have yet to "sin", while those who acted in such a way to deserve death, have "sinned"

What about original sin cos in Christian stuff babies are born guilty cos Eve (note how it had to be a woman who screwed up) stole an apple? In Islam, this is not the case of course- babies don't have orginal sin.

Jas
30-09-2012, 17:07
Just got called a 'loudmouth Paki whore' by someone.
Not much point in reacting to that...

Lost in moscow
30-09-2012, 17:10
What if its a boy?)

Though that would suck, all girls being scared for eternity because Eve couldn't just stay in the kitchen))

Jas
30-09-2012, 17:30
If I cud get me revenge on all the people who destroyed me and Parveen, what I wud do is in this video- one by one. And unfortunately.... what wud happen to me is also here.


No Doubt - It's My Life - YouTube

TolkoRaz
30-09-2012, 18:17
Just got called a 'loudmouth Paki whore' by someone.
Not much point in reacting to that...

You should have screamed back, 'How Much' :D

Remington
30-09-2012, 18:38
What about original sin cos in Christian stuff babies are born guilty cos Eve (note how it had to be a woman who screwed up) stole an apple? In Islam, this is not the case of course- babies don't have orginal sin.

Catholic and Orthodox believes that. Protestants do not believe babies are born with sin. Child first sin is knowing the difference between being good and bad such as lying or not listen to their parents.

TolkoRaz
30-09-2012, 19:02
I am amazed to read that some religions preach that babies are born as sinners! :eek:

What happened to 'innocent 'til proved guilty'? :confused:

rubyrussia
30-09-2012, 19:07
Catholic and Orthodox believes that. Protestants do not believe babies are born with sin. Child first sin is knowing the difference between being good and bad such as lying or not listen to their parents.

Hi Remington, I'm not sure you're right on this one. Most protestants believe children are born fallen, which means sinners.

natlee
30-09-2012, 19:11
Just got called a 'loudmouth Paki whore' by someone.
Not much point in reacting to that... On here? Report them!

peppermintpaddy
30-09-2012, 19:33
Peppermint Paddy loves me to bits u can say.... But his idea of saving me from the Jihadis comes at the price of me accepting a neo facist bullet in the head! What choice is that for me, PP?
Huh, talk about out of the frying pan into the fire.

How wud u keep politics out of the death penalty equation?

Its true about the love thang.........I havent a clue what youre talking about otherwise......

death penalty-wrong IMO.....let me tell you a story....child killer Ian Brady ,has been in jail in england since 1964....he was tried suicide numerous times...has been on hunger strike for 10 years (?) now...the authorities force feed him....every day he lives he is in hell...he wants to die so badly,yet he can't.....I hope he lives 'til hes 100....a more fitting punishment for a child killer than putting him out of his misery dont you think?


PLUS....despite what rus sez.....one innocent life taken is not worth 1000 guilty ones....

Nobbynumbnuts
30-09-2012, 20:07
On here? Report them!

I agree.

robertmf
30-09-2012, 20:43
Hi Remington, I'm not sure you're right on this one. Most protestants believe children are born fallen, which means sinners.

Protestant denominations believe every child is born without sin. Tabula rasa.

The baggage of sins accumulates only as life goes on. The camel going through the eye of the needle, etc. in Mark.

rubyrussia
30-09-2012, 20:54
Protestant denominations believe every child is born without sin. Tabula rasa.

The baggage of sins accumulates only as life goes on. The camel going through the eye of the needle, etc. in Mark.



Hi Robert, the camel and needle Biblical reference has absolutely nothing to do with children and the issue of sin. The reference was made concerning rich men and "The Kingdom of God."

The concept of sin accumulating isn't mentioned in the Bible. What happens when you sin up to some certain point? :)

I grew up in a Protestant church and I am from Texas, one of the most conservative and protestant states in the USA. I've never once heard children being born not a sinner. In fact, every protestant I've ever met told me that life begins at conception and that we are born sinners through our inheritance of Adam and Eve.

Angels were created with choice just like men. Some decided not to follow (thus becoming demons). Their choice to sin or not is not an inherited situation like it is with people.

TolkoRaz
30-09-2012, 21:01
Really? That is terrible! :(

Surely that means a baby, if it dies when very young, will go to Hell because it has not had a chance to redeem itself and no longer be a Sinner?

Remington
30-09-2012, 21:04
Hi Remington, I'm not sure you're right on this one. Most protestants believe children are born fallen, which means sinners.

The concept of sin:

1 John 3:4 "Everyone who sins breaks the law"

James 1:15 "Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death."

It's impossible for infants to be born with sin because they have not broken God's laws and nowhere does the scripture mention that sin is inherited.

My church is non-denominational, Christian Church, and we do not believe in infant baptism because infants do not have faith. Most protestant churches in the States do not believe in infant baptism. It's more of a symbolic acts for parents to raise their child in Christian faith until the child is old enough to confess their faith.

Most Christians belong to denominations that practise infant baptism. Denominations that practise infant baptism include the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, Oriental Orthodoxy, Armenian Apostolic Church, Assyrian Church of the East, the Anglican churches, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, some Church of the Nazarene, the Reformed Church in America, the United Church of Canada, the United Church of Christ (UCC), and the Continental Reformed.

Groups within the Protestant tradition that reject infant baptism include the Baptists, Apostolic Christians, Disciples of Christ and the Churches of Christ, most Pentecostals, Mennonites, Amish, Plymouth Brethren, Seventh-day Adventists, most non-denominational churches, and other Arminian denominations. Infant baptism is also excluded by Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ), Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, and Latter Day Saints.

Infant baptism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway this is getting off topic here.

rubyrussia
30-09-2012, 21:15
Anyway this is getting off topic here.

I can't think of many expat.ru threads that end on topic. Who cares! ;-)

Anyway, once again, the Biblical references you've mentioned don't support or deal with the issue at hand. I mean it is at least the same general topic though. I mean I could say the wages of sin, is death... does that help boost my my point? Not really.

I'm sure Rusmeister will weigh in here. With what you've wrote, if children weren't born sinners, in theory they could never sin and well they should live forever, isn't that right? Being born a sinner is in all of the Christian denominations that I am aware of. If I have some time, I'll look on the internet for various denominations stance on this issue. I lived 21 years in Texas. This is the first time, I've heard that protestants believe that children aren't born sinners.

Infant baptism wasn't practiced where I went to church too. I'm not sure why you are mentioning this.

rubyrussia
30-09-2012, 21:36
I'm not even arguing here what is truth but rather what is a common core belief among protestants because I am NOT protestant.

I can tell you there is a seminary Texas called DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) which along with Mooty Bible Institute are highly respected among protestant circles. I found their Doctrinal statement here: http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

Check out Article IV

And of course, a more telling verse that many protestants use in doctinal statements concerning man's predicament ;):


Psalm 51:5
New International Version (NIV)
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

bydand
30-09-2012, 21:40
:AngelPray: If children are born sinners, its a "nothing sin". :rofl:

rubyrussia
30-09-2012, 21:40
Going back to the topic per Remington's request. I support the death penalty. We talked about this same exact topic two weeks ago, didn't we?

What is a "nothing sin?" That's a new one for me. :D

bydand
30-09-2012, 22:09
What is a "nothing sin?" That's a new one for me. :D

Its like one of Jas's "nothing crimes".:jester:

rusmeister
30-09-2012, 22:30
Catholic and Orthodox believes that. Protestants do not believe babies are born with sin. Child first sin is knowing the difference between being good and bad such as lying or not listen to their parents.

This is not accurate, either. Orthodox don't have the doctrine of Original Sin, an exclusively Catholic doctrine. We speak of ancestral sin, which had real effects, just like fetal alcohol syndrome. The child is NOT guilty, but still suffers effects from the parents' sin. So it is with us.

rusmeister
30-09-2012, 22:43
Its true about the love thang.........I havent a clue what youre talking about otherwise......

death penalty-wrong IMO.....let me tell you a story....child killer Ian Brady ,has been in jail in england since 1964....he was tried suicide numerous times...has been on hunger strike for 10 years (?) now...the authorities force feed him....every day he lives he is in hell...he wants to die so badly,yet he can't.....I hope he lives 'til hes 100....a more fitting punishment for a child killer than putting him out of his misery dont you think?


PLUS....despite what rus sez.....one innocent life taken is not worth 1000 guilty ones....
PP, you haven't even BEGUN to consider what I say, so you can't say "despite", except in the sense of "to spite".

Try listening to the podcasts?
I thought not.

rusmeister
30-09-2012, 22:50
So ure against abortion cos of the sanctity of human life.... but ure for executing people?
Either something is sacrosanct or it isnt...
Another one that hasn't listened to what I DID say.
"You're" is spelled "Y-o-u-'-r-e", and "because" is spelled "b-e-c-a-u-s-e". It is a simple thing to learn, it is the English convention, and refusing to learn it makes what you say look ignorant and stupid, even if it isn't. I highly recommend you learn standard English, if you want to not only communicate your own thoughts, but also to have any hope of convincing others.



Babies have yet to "sin", while those who acted in such a way to deserve death, have "sinned"

Remove the quotation marks, define "sin" as "act selfishly to the detriment of self or others", and it is absolutely, unarguably true, which is what I assert.

rusmeister
30-09-2012, 22:58
I'm not even arguing here what is truth but rather what is a common core belief among protestants because I am NOT protestant.

I can tell you there is a seminary Texas called DTS (Dallas Theological Seminary) which along with Mooty Bible Institute are highly respected among protestant circles. I found their Doctrinal statement here: http://www.dts.edu/about/doctrinalstatement/

Check out Article IV

And of course, a more telling verse that many protestants use in doctinal statements concerning man's predicament ;):


Psalm 51:5
New International Version (NIV)
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

I would think it would be the "Moody" Bible Institute (after Dwight L. Moody)

We read Psalm 51 (50 in the count in Eastern translations) religiously, every single Liturgy, and ideally, every day in prayer. It is one of the greatest Psalms (if the superlative can be applied to any of them).

I am really curious - if you are not Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, what ARE you? (independent, or "Bible and me" positions are by definition Protestant).

robertmf
30-09-2012, 23:01
Psalm 51:5
New International Version (NIV)
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

This (5) "I" is nonsensical in that there is no conscious self-awareness at birth; certainly not in the womb.

IMhO Southern Baptists are a bit different than the mainstream.

rusmeister
30-09-2012, 23:11
I can't think of many expat.ru threads that end on topic. Who cares! ;-)

Anyway, once again, the Biblical references you've mentioned don't support or deal with the issue at hand. I mean it is at least the same general topic though. I mean I could say the wages of sin, is death... does that help boost my my point? Not really.

I'm sure Rusmeister will weigh in here. With what you've wrote, if children weren't born sinners, in theory they could never sin and well they should live forever, isn't that right? Being born a sinner is in all of the Christian denominations that I am aware of. If I have some time, I'll look on the internet for various denominations stance on this issue. I lived 21 years in Texas. This is the first time, I've heard that protestants believe that children aren't born sinners.

Infant baptism wasn't practiced where I went to church too. I'm not sure why you are mentioning this.

Generally children that die before or after birth ( including miscarriage or killed by abortion) are considered to be among the angels. Being actual created persons, but never having had a chance to choose self over others, they are sinless. The effects of ancestral sin had no time to take effect; they never damned themselves by choosing themselves, so to speak. Again, I'm a layman; an educated priest will give better and more thorough answers - there is SO much to learn, and I know my own understandings are relatively superficial.

Infant baptism and communion are absolutely practiced, and the principle is that salvation, and being a member of the family, are not dependent on intellectual ability. We believe, for example, that retards are no less worthy of salvation than we are, and probably more. Thus, sponsors and godparents...

rusmeister
30-09-2012, 23:14
This (5) "I" is nonsensical in that there is no conscious self-awareness at birth; certainly not in the womb.

IMhO Southern Baptists are a bit different than the mainstream.



Beware of placing too much stock in the English translation and your off-the-cuff understanding of it!
If alcoholism affects the genes, then the effects will be there, even when no conscious will has been wielded. Ditto on sin.

rubyrussia
30-09-2012, 23:20
I would think it would be the "Moody" Bible Institute (after Dwight L. Moody)

Yes! Please forgive the wrong letter! I meant no disrespect. I think they have advanced intelligent thinking for their Protestant counterparts.


We read Psalm 51 (50 in the count in Eastern translations) religiously, every single Liturgy, and ideally, every day in prayer. It is one of the greatest Psalms (if the superlative can be applied to any of them).

Is there a Psalm that wasn't included or a Psalm that was made into 2 in the western translations? Why the different number? I've noticed that before.



I am really curious - if you are not Protestant, Orthodox or Catholic, what ARE you? (independent, or "Bible and me" positions are by definition Protestant).

"Bible and me" although a bit condescending, you're close. In my case it would be better described as "Bible and us" at our church. This is how I was raised. It was a non-denominational, Protestant church. We studied the Bible like a textbook and even had some linguistic training for Ancient Greek and Hebrew. At the age of 6, I knew the names of all the books of the Bible from beginning to end.

Now, I am a member of a church kind of like Anonymous, the Internet activist group, in the sense of anonymity but we obviously don't do illegal or even controversial things.

robertmf
30-09-2012, 23:24
Beware of placing too much stock in the English translation and your off-the-cuff understanding of it!
If alcoholism affects the genes, then the effects will be there, even when no conscious will has been wielded. Ditto on sin.

..umm.. the effects would only be there for an outside observer, like a doctor; the fetus/infant "I" would not be conscious of any syndrome.

rubyrussia
30-09-2012, 23:33
Beware of placing too much stock in the English translation

Yes, better read it in the original Greek and Hebrew (+ Aramaic)

rusmeister
01-10-2012, 00:14
Yes! Please forgive the wrong letter! I meant no disrespect. I think they have advanced intelligent thinking for their Protestant counterparts.


Is there a Psalm that wasn't included or a Psalm that was made into 2 in the western translations? Why the different number? I've noticed that before.



"Bible and me" although a bit condescending, you're close. In my case it would be better described as "Bible and us" at our church. This is how I was raised. It was a non-denominational, Protestant church. We studied the Bible like a textbook and even had some linguistic training for Ancient Greek and Hebrew. At the age of 6, I knew the names of all the books of the Bible from beginning to end.

Now, I am a member of a church kind of like Anonymous, the Internet activist group, in the sense of anonymity but we obviously don't do illegal or even controversial things.

You are very charitable in how you refer to the shenanigans of your iPad; I don't seem able to rise up to that.

Wheaton College is, as far as I know, the cream of the crop in intelligent Protestant /Evangelical thought - though I won't bother to criticize Moody there...

I doubt we'd get far in arguing/disagreement, as I see the core of such disagreement in the reliance of the individual on the limitations of his/her own knowledge in understandings. I have become convinced of the futility of that, particularly in trying to form correctly an incredibly complex theological system (speaking only about what we can possibly know), and the totality of division, despite what is often, but not always, agreed upon, between believers who adopt Sola Scriptura, convinces me of its ultimate failure. I personally came from a Sola Scriptura background before rejecting faith for nearly twenty years, and it was my adult wanderings, my encounters with foreign languages and cultures that taught me the dangers of imposing our own cultural understandings, let alone the problems of understanding ancent cultures through a text alone. It is not so difficult to learn to express our own thought in a foreign language. It is another thing to grasp the foreign thought, and on anything serious and deep, we must have an in-depth understanding of the culture as well for effective interpreting, let alone paradosis. But it's probably only useful to saynthat as an eplanation of why I cannot accept Ola Scriptura, or other Solas.

I'd teally urge you to listen to Steve the Builder. He's not "selling Orthodoxy" there, and the considerations are ones that most Christians can quickly grasp, I think.

Benedikt
01-10-2012, 07:59
Do you agree with the death penalty? If so why? And who would you choose to see executed?[/QUOTE]


the death penally does not make a safer or unsafer country. it does not deter crime not even the most horrible ones.
it is also easy to sit on the keyboard and tap away as long as we are not involved our selves or it affected our loved ones.
many of us shout against the death penalty, it is barbarous, stone age. but will be the first one to scream, string him up or fry him if a crime was committed to people close to us. such is humankind. including me.

rusmeister
01-10-2012, 08:30
Do you agree with the death penalty? If so why? And who would you choose to see executed?


the death penally does not make a safer or unsafer country. it does not deter crime not even the most horrible ones.
it is also easy to sit on the keyboard and tap away as long as we are not involved our selves or it affected our loved ones.
many of us shout against the death penalty, it is barbarous, stone age. but will be the first one to scream, string him up or fry him if a crime was committed to people close to us. such is humankind. including me.[/QUOTE]

I think it's good to know, though, that that is not merely an emotional reaction with no moral justification. Having a clear understanding of why people are wrong to desire vengeance but right to think that he still ought to die sooner rather than later is better than just having the emotional reaction. That podcast really goes places the media doesn't take you.

Jas
01-10-2012, 09:11
How do u stop racism and class prejudice affecting the death penalty, that's what I wud want to know.
Am I personally against it?
No, I am for it in certain situations- but I think there must be guarantees that it is not misued and mistakes are not made.

How many innocent people in America went to the electric chair.... only to be proved later as innocent?

What's better, 9 guilty personages go free- or one innocent persoange gets executed?

rubyrussia
01-10-2012, 09:36
You are very charitable in how you refer to the shenanigans of your iPad; I don't seem able to rise up to that.

Wheaton College is, as far as I know, the cream of the crop in intelligent Protestant /Evangelical thought - though I won't bother to criticize Moody there...

I doubt we'd get far in arguing/disagreement, as I see the core of such disagreement in the reliance of the individual on the limitations of his/her own knowledge in understandings. I have become convinced of the futility of that, particularly in trying to form correctly an incredibly complex theological system (speaking only about what we can possibly know), and the totality of division, despite what is often, but not always, agreed upon, between believers who adopt Sola Scriptura, convinces me of its ultimate failure. I personally came from a Sola Scriptura background before rejecting faith for nearly twenty years, and it was my adult wanderings, my encounters with foreign languages and cultures that taught me the dangers of imposing our own cultural understandings, let alone the problems of understanding ancent cultures through a text alone. It is not so difficult to learn to express our own thought in a foreign language. It is another thing to grasp the foreign thought, and on anything serious and deep, we must have an in-depth understanding of the culture as well for effective interpreting, let alone paradosis. But it's probably only useful to saynthat as an eplanation of why I cannot accept Ola Scriptura, or other Solas.

I'd teally urge you to listen to Steve the Builder. He's not "selling Orthodoxy" there, and the considerations are ones that most Christians can quickly grasp, I think.

I‘ll look into it. First I‘m going to watch your chair video.

Also, it‘s interesting that you mentioned culture. i don‘tt think it‘s realistic to seperate culture from religion. Hence the Orthodox church.

Benedikt
02-10-2012, 12:26
This (5) "I" is nonsensical in that there is no conscious self-awareness at birth; certainly not in the womb.

IMhO Southern Baptists are a bit different than the mainstream.




Psalm 51:5
New International Version (NIV)
5 Surely I was sinful at birth,
sinful from the time my mother conceived me.

I think this psalm is nonsense. Did not HE say :

- lasset die Kinder zu mir kommen den ihnen ist das Himmelreich-

translated from PROMT that way

-Allow the children come to me to them is the kingdom of heaven-.

that is how we learned it in the catholic religious education. And how can you get to heaven if you are full of sin? are the baptists want to make us feel ( religious wise) guilty for having kids or what?

Remington
02-10-2012, 13:23
Being born a sinner is in all of the Christian denominations that I am aware of. If I have some time, I'll look on the internet for various denominations stance on this issue. I lived 21 years in Texas. This is the first time, I've heard that protestants believe that children aren't born sinners.

Sorry that I didn't reply sooner since I was out of town.

Do you really know what Psalm 5:51 was about without taking this out of context? This scripture has no reference to Adam, Adam's sin or David inherited the guilt of Adam's sin. This scripture described the guilt of his mother who was guilty of sin and iniquity when she conceived him and brought him into the world. The first part of the scripture, in Hebrew parallelism, is explained by the last part of the scripture.

Parallel language which is found in Acts 2:8, People were born in a native language and did they speak the language because they were born with it? No. They learned the language from people around them spoke it so the child learned it. So, David was not guilty of sin from birth, he was born into sinful environment and into sinful influences. Soon he learned to sin like one learns the language.

Mankind inherited the consequences of Adam's sin such as pain, sickness and death. We do not inherit the 'guilt' of Adam's sin. If a man commits a murder, we do not put his son on trial for the father's murder. The guilty is only responsible for his own sin.

Take a look at Ezekiel 18:20 "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child."

Here's another interesting subject.. child sacrifices to false idols. If the child wasn't innocent then why did they have child sacrifices? Jeremiah 19:4-5; Psalm 106:37-38.

If you believe that child is born with sin then what about Jesus' birth? We know he is without sin otherwise he cannot be God's son. A sin is a sign of rebellious acts against God.

Remington
02-10-2012, 13:33
that is how we learned it in the catholic religious education. And how can you get to heaven if you are full of sin? are the baptists want to make us feel ( religious wise) guilty for having kids or what?

Southern Baptist does not believe in original sin.

Here's the Southern Baptist articles of faith:

Article Two: The Sinfulness of Man

We affirm that, because of the fall of Adam, every person inherits a nature and environment inclined toward sin and that every person who is capable of moral action will sin. Each person’s sin alone brings the wrath of a holy God, broken fellowship with Him, ever-worsening selfishness and destructiveness, death, and condemnation to an eternity in hell.

We deny that Adam’s sin resulted in the incapacitation of any person’s free will or rendered any person guilty before he has personally sinned. While no sinner is remotely capable of achieving salvation through his own effort, we deny that any sinner is saved apart from a free response to the Holy Spirit’s drawing through the Gospel.

http://sbctoday.com/2012/05/30/an-introduction-to-%E2%80%9Ca-statement-of-the-traditional-southern-baptist-understanding-of-god%E2%80%99s-plan-of-salvation%E2%80%9D/

rusmeister
02-10-2012, 17:37
..umm.. the effects would only be there for an outside observer, like a doctor; the fetus/infant "I" would not be conscious of any syndrome.


No, the effects are there even if NOBODY observes them. All it means it that the poor mother will not know what the child suffers from.

Trees DO make a sound in the woods when they fall, even though no one is there to hear it. By imagining the situation, you are smuggling yourself in to be present in any event and so, affirming the reality of the event. If effects are known to happen in a routine event, then a failure to perceive them does not mean they do not exist. It only means failure of perception.

rusmeister
02-10-2012, 17:46
Yes, better read it in the original Greek and Hebrew (+ Aramaic)

True, but a dependence on that would result in a gnostic faith, where only the intellectuals who could read those languages could be saved. Thus the need for the actual physical presence of the Church.

robertmf
02-10-2012, 17:48
No, the effects are there even if NOBODY observes them. All it means it that the poor mother will not know what the child suffers from.

Trees DO make a sound in the woods when they fall, even though no one is there to hear it. By imagining the situation, you are smuggling yourself in to be present in any event and so, affirming the reality of the event. If effects are known to happen in a routine event, then a failure to perceive them does not mean they do not exist. It only means failure of perception.

Einstein would agree with you ... quantum mechanics, not.

In Search of Schrödinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality: John Gribbin: 9780553341034: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51jP5WC9brL.@@AMEPARAM@@51jP5WC9brL

rusmeister
02-10-2012, 17:56
Sorry that I didn't reply sooner since I was out of town.

Do you really know what Psalm 5:51 was about without taking this out of context? This scripture has no reference to Adam, Adam's sin or David inherited the guilt of Adam's sin. This scripture described the guilt of his mother who was guilty of sin and iniquity when she conceived him and brought him into the world. The first part of the scripture, in Hebrew parallelism, is explained by the last part of the scripture.

Parallel language which is found in Acts 2:8, People were born in a native language and did they speak the language because they were born with it? No. They learned the language from people around them spoke it so the child learned it. So, David was not guilty of sin from birth, he was born into sinful environment and into sinful influences. Soon he learned to sin like one learns the language.

Mankind inherited the consequences of Adam's sin such as pain, sickness and death. We do not inherit the 'guilt' of Adam's sin. If a man commits a murder, we do not put his son on trial for the father's murder. The guilty is only responsible for his own sin.

Take a look at Ezekiel 18:20 "The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child."

Here's another interesting subject.. child sacrifices to false idols. If the child wasn't innocent then why did they have child sacrifices? Jeremiah 19:4-5; Psalm 106:37-38.

If you believe that child is born with sin then what about Jesus' birth? We know he is without sin otherwise he cannot be God's son. A sin is a sign of rebellious acts against God.

This is why I don't play solo theologian without being able to refer to the Church, which I acknowledge has the power to correct me when I am wrong.

I think there's a lot you say that is right, that we would agree with. But..

You're talking in terms of "guilt". The idea is basically Catholic theology which the so-called Reformers, having no other frame of reference, retained. It is the paradigm of crime and punishment.

The Orthodox paradigm - that of illness and healing, resolves the need for complex legal defences against an angry God who is ready to throw us into hell because we made the wrong legal choice, which is not the God I believe in. As illness, sin can decidedly be something that affects a child, who remains guiltless of acts of personal rebellion, but is still living with the consequences of sin, above all the natural tendency to lean towards sin, to choose self and selfishness rather than good and God, and so God, far from vindictively throwing us into hell, is (insomuch as the word can be used) desperately trying to save us from the consequences of sin, the sin of our ancestors on us and our own sins, those we know of and those we don't.

rusmeister
03-10-2012, 18:05
Einstein would agree with you ... quantum mechanics, not.

In Search of Schrödinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality: John Gribbin: 9780553341034: Amazon.com: Books (http://www.amazon.com/In-Search-Schr%C3%B6dingers-Cat-Quantum/dp/0553342533/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1349185775&sr=8-1&keywords=schroedingers+cat)



You mean John Gribben would not agree with me. That's OK, I think many scientists err due to a general lack of philosophy. When it comes to philosophy, I find that they are generally worse than a great many farmers and country "rubes", because they tend to think that science can answer everything. When even Stephen Hawking falls into that trap, I need no further proof of that.

It's not their experimental methods I question. It is their philosophy.