The EU debate - Part II

You'd have been better checking if the facts support my claim. I said from the off the numbers may not match.

It could have saved you dropping to the usual personal approach.

 

I'm glad you've finally come round to our way of thinking

 

'So many people' aren't. It's just a couple that would argue against anything I said anyway.

I tried to make it clear from the off, that it was the single issue I was talking about. It's others that tried to deviate from that.

 

Bless. Do you have to wait to see what the others say before you have an opinion?

 

Merely because you won't accept what everybody else can clearly see, that your logic is totally flawed.

You're trying to make direct comparisons between the possible behaviour of a criminal and the behaviour of a body who's morals and behaviour are supposed to be far above, the state.

 

No I'm not. That's just what you're desperately trying to spin it into.

If anything, they're indirect comparisons, but a life is a life. The wider issue is how to protect that life, and whilst a 'one life is too many' claim, make look like the moral high ground, it is an inherently flawed position.

 

Go tell somebody who wants to listen.

Your logic is totally flawed, simple as!...

 

She says as she flounces out, having reduced yet another discussion to childish abuse.

I did mention earlier on why I just mentioned the single point, as a deeper debate just isn't possible with some o here, as they just see 'winners and losers'.

I even offered the open goal of checking the data, because I hadn't, at least not to any meaningful degree, but...

 

Thou shalt not kill is a poor translation. It should be thou shalt not murder.
The "vengeance is mine" passage refers to vigilante justice, more than anything. It's not about lawful punishment.
"Judge not" is another misinterpreted passage. It's a warning about hypocrisy, not a commandment not to actually judge anyone.

There are many, many passages ordering death to those that are deemed unworthy, though.
Here are a few examples:
Deuteronomy 17:12 : Kill anyone who disobeys a priest or judge.
Exodus 22:18 : Kill witches.
Leviticus 20:13 : Kill gays.

You're also supposed to kill apostates, kids who disobey their parents, adulterers, false prophets and a whole host of others.
People who shag animals are to be killed, as are the animals themselves, for some reason.
Anyone working on the Sabbath, so I assume that's Ozzy Osbourne ****ed.

 

I think it's Matthew, but at least one passage of the bible says that you shall not swear an oath, which is ironic given they ask for an oath to be sworn on the bible in court.

I think there's something like 136 comandments, or something mad. The first set of ten differ from the later versions too.

 

613, IIRC. My favourite passages are the ones about not praying in public and being a good slave, though.
They don't get pulled out much, for some reason.

 

Then their sentences or parole release was flawed.

It still doesn't alter the fact that 1 incorrect State execution is fundamentally wrong.

The 2 issues are not mutually exclusive

 

So far the only people I can see involved in this discussion are you, me, NSIS, Paul the Plug, Tobes, Spurlock, Watford R, Armchair Blue, RememberColinLee and maybe one or two others - but the only one who seems to agree with you is Armchair Blue out of every single one else. Hardly a glowing endorsement of your views.

 

I think you were referring to all manufacturers of dairy products.

I don't know Hebrew, so I don't know if your right about Thou Shalt Not Kill; I doubt it's a poor translation though. An ambiguous one maybe, if you want to argue that.

I disagree with you about Matthew 7, 1-3 though. The message is pretty clear; that as you judge, so should you expect to be judged. Just as, in the Lord's prayer, you will be forgiven exactly to the extent which you forgive others.

 

Well it was the animal who was leading the person on - 'giving them the eye' if you will!

 

It's not an election or X factor.

If you disagree, that's fine, state your reasons and we can chat. You don't gain anything with an appeal to the gallery.

If you want to play that one, there's nearly 31,000 views of this thread that haven't agreed with you, so I'll say they trump the half dozen of you.

See how daft that one is?

 

1. He has done

2. That's another incorrect assumption. He was stating a fact.

You're **** at this

 

Here's a good link to an article by a Rabbi, who explains the translation issue with thou shalt not kill:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...s-a20120412apr12_1_commandment-killing-murder
TL; DR? There are two words, one means murder and the other kill; it's the former.

As you point out, Matthew 7 isn't about not judging others, but about not judging them unfairly.
It's a warning about hypocrisy and being blind to your own flaws and sins, not an instruction to avoid making appropriate punishments.