Dr. Forbush Thinks

« When Capitalism Fails | HomePage | Why Waste Your Time? »

31/03/2005

The Culture of Life Revisited

Comments

Doubtless innocent people have been put to death, as innocent people have spent life in prison to be raped, but who precisely was innocent, and executed, and later exonerated by DNA evidence? Just curious.

Your definition of "crazy" would include virtually all humans. A parent who would not kill a man trying to kill their child, if that was the only way to save the child is not much of a human being. A detestable human being, at least.

How should violent crimes in prison be handled? Putting the violent prisoners... in prison? How many lives will be sacrificed by prohibiting executions?

"A Christian believes in forgiveness of everyone for any sin. Jesus tells us this." Just out of curiosity, what's the verse?

"If we put him to death we are saying that our society can not forgive him." Society does not have personhood, society does not have a soul, society shall never have a chance at eternal life. What strange theology!

"If we don't let him die when God would take him we are saying we know better than God when his chance to turn back to God should be over." Er... then why support medicine? What strange fatalism!

"If we don't let him die when God would take him we are saying we know better than God when his chance to turn back to God should be over." What are "God-taken" deaths and what are not? What means does God never, ever use? What can he not possibly use?

"But, if we are killing him in some revenge motive for the victim how can we say that we as a society is above what the killer did." If we are imprisoning him in some revenge motive for the kidnapped/imprisoned victim, how can we say that we as a society are above what the killer did? Same logically flaw in both questions.

Posted by: Dan | 31/03/2005

Dan:

You asked:
on forgiveness - "Just out of curiosity, what's the verse?"

Begin with the Lords prayer: maybe Mathew chapter 6.

What about when Jesus is being questioned about how often you should forgive someone. Is it seven times? And Jesus answers seven times seventy. It's also in Matthew around chapter 18.

Are you purposely being ignorant or haven't you read these?

You also wrote:
"Er... then why support medicine?"

So, you are saying that medicine and the electric chair are equal? That seems more bizzare to me. Religions and Christians Religions tend to look favorably on medicine and less favorably on murder.

You also wrote:
"What are "God-taken" deaths and what are not?"

You must really be tired asking this. If someone dies by the the hand of the state and they would have lived had the state not intervened then the life has been taken by the state. If the person is allowed to live until an acident or old age takes his life then God has taken his life. To say that putting a person to death is allowing God to take his life really stretches the idea of giving responsibility to God.

Finally, putting the murderer in prison allows him to continue his earthly relationship with God until God determines that he has either turned toward God or refused to to God's satisfaction. No human can make that decision. Once he is put to death he has that possibility taken away from him.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 31/03/2005

You wrote:
"Doubtless innocent people have been put to death, as innocent people have spent life in prison to be raped, but who precisely was innocent, and executed, and later exonerated by DNA evidence? Just curious."

What I was saying was refering to the seventeen people on death row that were proven inocent by DNA evidence in Illinios. These cases caused the conservative Governor to stop and reexamine all death row cases. We can assume that because these people were proven inocent statistically many other inocent people were put to death because they didn't have the benefit of DNA evidence to prove their cases.

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 31/03/2005

I'm sure innocent people have been put to death. I just assumed that when you said "As DNA evidence has shown there have been innocent people put to death by the state." you meant "As DNA evidence has shown there have been innocent people put to death by the state."

Instead... what?? DNA evidence shows a statistical likelihood? I think that likelihood was established long, long ago. It's a probability inherent in any complicated system - false positives and false negatives.

Posted by: Dan | 31/03/2005

It is quite interesting to read about the difficulty of proving that a innocent man was executed. For example, the Virginia case of a man, Roger Coleman, is being blocked at every opportunity. The government does not want the case investigated any further, even though evidence seems to exist. A new book is out:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20050305/BKHURR05/TPEntertainment/Books

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 31/03/2005

Again, I'm sure innocents have been executed. As I'm sure others have suffered worse from lifetime imprisonment without committing a crime. It's just unfortunate when real facts like that are undermined by people who make unsubstantiated claims, like DNA evidence has exenorated an innocent victim of state execution.

Posted by: Dan | 31/03/2005

I'm not being purposefully ignorant. I'm wondering if you could support your assertion. I see that you haven't.

Matthew 18:21-22

Then Peter approaching asked him, "Lord, if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times?"
Jesus answered, "I say to you, not seven times but seventy-seven times.

That's quite the qualification -- "against me." It is silent on sins against God, or Heaven, for example. Again, I'm curious.

Thank you for your definition of God-taken. Sometimes you appear to be a strong fatalist, so I was just checking on what you meant.

Another hypothetical: what about a mother refusing to nurse a suckling infant? Would that child's be God-taken? Or merely murdered? Or something else?

Your last paragraph interests me. You say, "putting the murderer in prison allows him to continue his earthly relationship with God until God determines that he has either turned toward God or refused to to God's satisfaction. No human can make that decision." Do you support the use of religious rhetoric in establishing state policy? Or is it just for rhetorical effect or philosophical justification?

Posted by: Dan | 31/03/2005

Dan:
You wrote:
"Do you support the use of religious rhetoric in establishing state policy?"

Obviously you need to convince all sorts. If they are religious you use religious arguments. If they are secular then you use secular argument. I feel deja vu all over again, because I have told you this before...

And, I am totally confused as to your understanding of Jesus' teachings on forgiveness. Somehow you believe that you don't want to or need to forgive sinners? How do you arive at this?

Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 31/03/2005

Thanks for your first paragraph. It was just the answer I was looking for. :)

I'm sorry if you're confused on my view on Christ's teachings of forgiveness. I never stated my views. You made a specific claim, and I was wondering if you could support it. That's how I learn.

Posted by: Dan | 31/03/2005