Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the how-does-it-work? dept.

Ohio will adopt a new (classic) execution protocol and resume executions on Jan. 12, 2017:

The state of Ohio plans to resume executions in 2017 with a new three-drug combination. The state will use the drugs midazolam, rocuronium bromide and potassium chloride. To make the switch the state is expected to adopt [a] new execution protocol by the end of the week. The state hasn't executed anyone since January 2014.

The new drug mix is really a return to one the state used for 10 years. "The department used a similar combination from 1999 to 2009, and last year, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the use of this specific three-drug combination," said JoEllen Smith, a spokeswoman for the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

Ohio has had trouble getting drugs to use for lethal injections in part because pharmaceutical companies don't want their medical products used for killing people. Two years ago European pharmaceutical companies blocked further sales on moral and legal grounds. Ohio has looked for other options, but all have obstacles.

For background, Wikipedia offers: Midazolam, rocuronium bromide, and potassium chloride.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Farkus888 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:58AM

    by Farkus888 (5159) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:58AM (#409906)

    I sense you are being sarcastic but you are correct. Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The words of Jesus himself. You can nearly pick any single page of the old testament and see that killing is a significant part of the religion. The new testament is predicated on God killing his own son. If you still insist on believing that the old testament doesn't count despite the words of Jesus himself have a peek at Revelations.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:09AM

    by moondrake (2658) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:09AM (#409910)

    meh...and still "do not kill" is part of the commandments. I would say the book is a bit inconsistent.

    I would prefer the original poster had argued that killing of convicts, especially if it is done in the context of a corrupted, broken and costly system as in the US, may not be the best way to deal with such people. And you would expect an "advanced" or "civilized" country to find better ways to deal with criminals. On the other hand, it seems to me that the US has a jail problem as well...

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Farkus888 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:25AM

      by Farkus888 (5159) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:25AM (#409915)

      Certainly inconsistent. There are 5 or 6 passages about being nice. They stick out like a sore thumb.

      The misunderstanding of Christianity gets under my skin. Stop and think about the things in it and you would never use it to defend your positions. The real issue with the death penalty is that is a human being. You cannot truly be 100% certain as a society that they did whatever crime. Every mistake makes you a murderer too. Murder is very wrong, so wrong that some people feel it is OK to commit murder because of a murder despite the logical inconsistency involved.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:13PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:13PM (#410093) Journal

        What is the value of a life? History suggests that it is one of the cheapest of commodities. I know that enough people simply waste their own lives, they must be cheap.

        Guilty or not, it is pretty obvious that the condemned has made some serious mistakes to get where he is. Darwin would probably dismiss the potential "loss" as insignificant.

        • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:34PM

          by sjames (2882) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:34PM (#410124) Journal

          Yet, I'll bet you place a very high value on your own and those of your immediate family.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:45PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:45PM (#410132) Journal

            I place greater and lesser value on the lives of various members of my family. Some members of the family are total wastes of oxygen, other members are near saints. And, my own personal valuation of any particular life has little to no bearing on the value of a life to society, to the government, or to the universe.

            • (Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:01PM

              by sjames (2882) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:01PM (#410145) Journal

              And, my own personal valuation of any particular life has little to no bearing on the value of a life to society, to the government, or to the universe.

              The same is true of the deeply flawed justice system. Perhaps it's best not to let toddlers play with guns.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:13PM (#410328)

          Then why not simply execute everyone accused of a crime?

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by TheRaven on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:27AM

      by TheRaven (270) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:27AM (#409917) Journal
      'Do not kill' is a translation. The original word is closer to murder than to kill (and so doesn't include things like killing in a war, killing for execution), but murder is defined as killing illegally and it's a bit tautological to have a rule that says 'you may not kill in such a way that is in violation of this rule'. If you look at the position of the rule (5 to 7 out of ten depending on the version) you can see how important it was considered...
      --
      sudo mod me up
      • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:32AM

        by moondrake (2658) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @11:32AM (#409935)

        agreed. Except for the "position" part. If I am going to rank seriousness of a crime depending in the order they appear in legal (or religious) text X, I predict we get some very interesting implications.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by MadTinfoilHatter on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:27AM

      by MadTinfoilHatter (4635) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:27AM (#409918)

      and still "do not kill" is part of the commandments. I would say the book is a bit inconsistent.

      Or your exegesis is just naive (if you're sincere) or extremely uncharitable if you're not. Ask just about any Christian and they'll let you know that large parts of the Old Testament was intended for the place and time that was the Israeli theocracy in the ancient Middle East. That's the reason Christians have no problems eating pork despite it being clearly forbidden in the OT. You can't just pull a quote out of context and use that as a "proof" of how bad Christianity is - unless you're just being flippant and trying to score some "Touché"-moderations.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Farkus888 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:32AM

        by Farkus888 (5159) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:32AM (#409921)

        As I already stated in this thread... Matthew 5:18 "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." The words of Jesus himself. As an obvious apologist, I hope you aren't wearing mixed fibers.

        • (Score: 2) by MadTinfoilHatter on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:23PM

          by MadTinfoilHatter (4635) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:23PM (#409951)

          And this in turn illustrates the point I made about not prying a verse out of context and single-mindedly hammer that. This is true even if it's something Jesus himself said. Since you seem to have taken a liking for Matthew, let's look at another passage from there:

          At that time Jesus went through the grain fields on the sabbath day. And His disciples were hungry, and began to pluck the heads of grain and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw, they said to Him, Behold, your disciples do that which it is not lawful to do on the sabbath day. But He said to them, Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him, how he entered into the house of God and ate the showbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the Law that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath and are blameless? But I say to you that One greater than the temple is in this place. But if you had known what this is, "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," you would not have condemned those who are not guilty.

          (Matt. 12:1-7)

          Here we also have Jesus speaking, and through the same gospel author, no less - and it clearly seems to contradict your rigid interpretation of 5:18, (which is not the same thing as contradicting itself). Someone reading the Scriptures in order to find out what they mean, lets Scripture interpret Scripture (and this hermeneutic principle extends for beyond the Bible, BTW). Of course if you're only reading to find a reason to reject it, you will - a principle that also extends far beyond the Bible.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:32PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:32PM (#409956)

            If you constantly have to do all these 'It's just metaphorical!' and 'You're taking it too literally!' mental gymnastics for passages in the bible that you don't like, maybe the bible is, at best. indecipherable garbage. Have you considered that possibility? There are countless denominations of Christianity, and many rigidly interpret certain passages that others do not. What this indicates is that what is meant to be metaphorical and what isn't is hardly obvious, so I can't believe you can play these dishonest interpretation games with a straight face.

            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:04PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:04PM (#410021)

              So if it's not blindingly obvious, such that nobody can ever interpret it two different ways, it's all crap and pointless? Gee thanks.

              You show me a book and I'll show you metaphors in it.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:54PM (#410200)

                So if it's not blindingly obvious, such that nobody can ever interpret it two different ways, it's all crap and pointless? Gee thanks.

                The problem is that the bible seems to contain a lot of barbaric and contradictory verses, which are then dishonestly disregarded by its proponents who scream things such as 'Metaphor!' even when there is no evidence that that's actually the case. I have to wonder what the point of the bible is if each Christian is just going to concoct their own fantasies about what the bible says, which often conveniently seem to confirm their existing worldview? They may as well just write their own fairy tale book.

                You show me a book and I'll show you metaphors in it.

                The problem isn't that there are metaphors, and your attempt to portray my comment this way is disingenuous. The problem is that the bible's proponents seem to deflect all criticism by claiming there are metaphors and such where none appear to exist. If the bible is a book with any truth value whatsoever, and if it was indeed inspired by the word of god, god utterly failed to communicate his message. If you're going to have rules, you have to make them clear. Thankfully our laws are not written as poorly as the bible.

                • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:47PM

                  by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @07:47PM (#410248)

                  It's a 2000-year-old religion. *You* try being around that long and unambiguous, skippy.

                  --
                  "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
              • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:32PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:32PM (#410343)

                It is supposed to be the word of god. Whilst communicating clearly to everyone might be difficult for a mortal author, it should be trivial for an omnipotent deity.

                If the Bible isn't the word of god, where is its value?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:48AM (#409924)

        Even if that were true (in the New Testament it says that Jesus did not intend to abolish all the OT rules), why is somehow alright for a supposedly almighty being to subject people--anyone, and at any time period--to truly barbaric and unethical rules? Why do you feel as if that somehow makes Christianity look better? "Oh, we only committed atrocities in the past, which was okay because the people of that time deserved it! But it's all better now." If the Christian god was portrayed as a barbaric thug then, I see no reason to think any better of that character now.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:21PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:21PM (#410108) Journal

          You're kinda missing an important point. God the Father may or may not be a barbaric thug, but christians rely on Jesus, the Son, as their saviour. I don't want to get into the whole split personality thing, with the trinity and all, but at the very least, the Son and the Father are different faces of the same personna.

          Jews and Muslims rely on Yahweh (or Allah) for whatever salvation they expect. Christians rely on a different person or personna.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:57PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:57PM (#410206)

            I don't see why that's important. God - the supposed creator of everything - is portrayed as a murderous thug in the bible. You can't pretend that the god of the bible is totally irrelevant, and Christians talk about him all the time. It's not as if the bible claims that Jesus saved everyone by destroying the evil demon king known as god.

            • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:43AM

              by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 05 2016, @02:43AM (#410472) Journal

              "I don't see why that's important."

              I can't make you see why that's important, but I can't make you see ultraviolet either. Ultraviolet exists, and there is a distinction between the Father and the Son. The Son said words to the effect, "There is no way to the Father, but through me." To lazy to look up the actual scripture right now, sorry.

      • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:12PM

        by moondrake (2658) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @12:12PM (#409949)

        Actually, I consider myself some sort of Christian, but most other Christians would probably not consider me as such.

        I would for instance tell you that the whole book (old and new) is written by good and bad people, and intended for a certain place and time, and not free from propaganda either. The comment was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the deeper point of the post was that I feel killing people for crimes in modern societies does not make sense. And I also do not think its the (morally) right thing to do.

        The ten commandments are pretty central to most branches of Christianity. If it was no longer relevant, why would they even include that part in e.g the Catholic bible? Various churches are happy enough to cherry-pick lines from OT versus to condemn certain things. Forbidding pork was simply not useful for people within the Church.

        Several parts in the NT strongly supports and endorses the "not kill/murder", I could have selected one of those. And there is a lot of emphasis on forgiving, sure. And yet, there are other passages that say we should kill certain people (take a look at Romans) for things that I do not feel are crimes. Obviously I _have_ to take things out of context if I am going to compare different parts of the bible because the book is not a story set in one context (and written by different people). As a moral compass, this is going to cause problems: which verse takes precedence. Is this consistency?

        So in summary I still think the book is inconsistent, and an be interpreted in many ways. Perhaps that was the point. But there is nothing naive or uncharitable about that.

        • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:14PM

          by art guerrilla (3082) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @01:14PM (#409966)

          "Actually, I consider myself some sort of Christian, but most other Christians would probably not consider me as such."

          and THAT is an issue right there: the mainstream of xtianity has essentially abandoned xtianity in favor of social issues and damning *everyone else* to perdition (not to mention wishing to invoke their own (you know, 'correct') version of 'sharia' law)...
          i would *think* (setting aside any issues of 'faith' and other bullshit) that following the teaching and tenets of the bible/jesus/xtianity (much like nearly ANY religion which has the same basic human morals that even atheists share) would lead one to being a more peaceful, NOT warlike person... unfortunately, there are too few xtians who appear to share that outlook; i guess they enjoy the smiting too much...
          it amazes me just how many self-professed xtians GLADLY sign up for CAESAR's army to murder on behalf of Empire...
          wtf ? ? ?
          rendering unto caesar = murdering for Empire ? ? ?
          and THOSE are 'good xtian warriors' ? ? ?
          i don't get it...

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:27PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:27PM (#410116) Journal

            Render unto Caesar that which is Ceasar's.

            Your constitution (if you're American) states that you owe years of service to your government. By law, you are a member of the Militia from age 18 until about age 40, whether you ever sign into a formal military organization. The government lays claim to your life, and the Bible says to give the government what it claims. You didn't, I presume?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:35PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @02:35PM (#410006)

        > You can't just pull a quote out of context and use that as a "proof" of how bad Christianity is

        Why not? Self-styled christians like runaway and Billy Graham's son do it all the time.
        Except they use it as "proof" of how bad Islam is. Goose and gander, amirite?

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:30PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:30PM (#410121) Journal

          I heard that. You've taken my name in vain. May you awaken tomorrow with the fleas of 1000 Muslim camels infesting your armpits.

          Now the problem with your claim about me is, I don't think I've EVER used the Bible to condemn Islam. The murderous pedophile who founded the religion at swordpoint said plenty enough to condemn his religion.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 04 2016, @04:02PM (#410050)

        You can't just pull a quote out of context and use that as a "proof" of...

        Funny, because thats exactly the thing "Christians" do to support their many anti-human positions, to support being pro-slavery and anti-freedom.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:10PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday October 04 2016, @05:10PM (#410088) Journal

      The commandment is more properly translated, "Thou shalt do no murder".

      https://winteryknight.com/2015/11/01/dennis-prager-does-the-bible-say-do-not-kill-or-do-not-murder-3/ [winteryknight.com]

      That mistranslation in the KJV has confused a lot of people. There is no "thou shalt not kill" in the Hebrew, or in the Greek. It is entirely an English thing - and it's WRONG!

      • (Score: 2) by moondrake on Wednesday October 05 2016, @10:33AM

        by moondrake (2658) on Wednesday October 05 2016, @10:33AM (#410541)

        Execution and war is just murder with a license. Manslaughter is not murder either. It is still considered wrong.

        We probably don't even know what the Jews in 500 BC considered murder and what not. It may differ from what we call murder. Oh, and its not only English. Most European languages use something closer to "kill", including Greek I think.

        Obviously any rule can have exceptions and any crime has circumstances that may or may not excuse it.

        But is this not all beside the point? There are passages in the bible that call for the killing of gays, criminals, unbelievers, etc. It does not say: You shall setup a fair court of law and consider the circumstances and perhaps, if it is really needed, humanly execute the criminal. There are also passages that say we should forgive and be peaceful etc. I guess everybody can find something in there. But the point is, it does not make for a very consistent document. If you want to abolish execution, I would not quote the bible, as (as we have seen in this thread) it is not that productive to do so....

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:23PM

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 05 2016, @01:23PM (#410574) Journal

          The Bible says a lot of things. I have pointed out that it DOES NOT say "thou shalt not kill". The Christian/Jewish/Muslim God does indeed approve of killing. Killing isn't evil, the motive behind the killing is evil or not evil. And THAT is one of the serious problems people have with evaluating the religions. God and/or Jesus care less about what you DO, than about your REASONS for doing them.

          But, that's way over some people's heads.

          Murder is both a sin and a crime, in anyone's book. The reasons for which criminals are put to death is neither a sin, nor a crime. That, despite the fact that some people are wrongly condemned.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:58PM

    by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @03:58PM (#410046) Homepage

    What's with everybody going to all the irrelevant and obscure passages?

    Luke 19:27 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.

    Red-letter text, Jesus speaking in a parable in which he's quoting the major character who's a stand-in for Jesus himself. And the whole point of the parable is that it's a miniature version of Jesus's own story, ending with Armageddon.

    You know, Armageddon? Where Jesus returns in glory on the white horse with the flaming sword, to convert or kill all non-Christians, with those who won't convert being condemned to eternal torment at his own brother's hand?

    And it's not like this is out of character for Jesus. He famously and repeatedly came not to bring peace but a sword, all those who love their families more than Jesus are doomed to Hell, and so on.

    I mean, it's right there in the opening of the Sermon on the Mount: all men who've ever merely looked admiringly upon a woman and failed to immediately gouge out their own eyes and chop off their own hands are, once again, cast into the Pit. And we're supposed to think he's a love god?

    Modern Christians are to be commended for so thoroughly revising Jesus into the product of the Enlightenment that is taught today in Sunday schools. But the Christians of history -- the Crusaders, the Conquistadors, the Inquisitors, and the rest -- are every bit as horrific as ISIS and the House of Saud. And the Christian holy texts are every bit as repugnant as those of the other two Abrahamic religions.

    Yes, yes -- apologists will come along and quote something out of context about "love." So what? Hitler kissed babies, and there's a sentence or three in the Nazi Party platform that everybody can endorse, but that's not enough for us to think that Hitler was a righteous moral model or that Nazism is a good philosophy. Just one "KILL ZEM ALL" passage from Jesus should be more than enough to make you seriously question all the nice-and-fluffy stuff you might also find -- and, honestly, there's a lot more "KILL ZEM ALL" in the Gospels than anything else. And the prequel, of course, is thoroughly blood-soaked.

    So we're supposed to take that ancient faery tale anthology seriously, especially on matters of morality...why, exactly?

    Cheers,

    b&

    P.S. Christians, if it'll let you sleep better at night...Jesus really is a fictional character. He makes his first appearance in the historical record half a millennium before the Caesars, right there in the Old Testament, especially in Zechariah but also elsewhere. Prince of Peace, Crowned with Many Crowns, the architect and high priest of YHWH's personal temple, all the important theological stuff. At the time you think he was doing his ministry, not only did nobody notice a thing...but Philo was writing about that same ancient Jesus and reinterpreting him as an instance of the Logos. A generation later, Paul was writing about Jesus in language that Philo himself could have written, only now the focus is on Jesus instead of the Logos. A couple more generations later, Mark wrote a palindromic Homeric epic biography of Jesus, and everybody afterwards either quoted or "corrected" Mark...and the rest, as they say, is history. Or, "TLDR": Jesus is no more real than any other ancient Mediterranean demigod, and that fact is as obvious to non-Christians as the fictional nature of all those other demigods is to you. b&

    --
    All but God can prove this sentence true.
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:31PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @06:31PM (#410182)

      What's with everybody going to all the irrelevant and obscure passages?

      Luke 19:27

      For somebody complaining about out-of-context quotes you nicely performed one yourself.

      If you read all of Luke 19 [biblegateway.com] you'll notice that, while you're technically correct that it's Jesus speaking, he's telling a parable and the verse in question is a quote of one of the characters in the parable. The moral of the story is don't be lazy, because if you are your boss may take it out of your ass.

      and, honestly, there's a lot more "KILL ZEM ALL" in the Gospels than anything else.

      Bullshit. The Gospels are about forgiveness. Yes, from time to time Jesus drops lines about brother turning against brother, bringing a sword, etc., by which he means that believers who try to spread their faith aren't going to have an easy time of it.

      If by "in the Gospels" you mean "in the Old Testament," i.e. the exact opposite, then yes.

      Or, "TLDR": Jesus is no more real than any other ancient Mediterranean demigod, and that fact is as obvious to non-Christians as the fictional nature of all those other demigods is to you. b&

      Well, you're at least right about the timeframe. IANAHistorian

      Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD, includes two references

      Roman historian Tacitus referred to 'Christus' and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116)

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Sources [wikipedia.org]

      In closing, you're free to believe what you want to believe. Just trying to clear up some fog here.

      “There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be.”

      ― Fulton J. Sheen

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:48PM

        by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:48PM (#410307) Homepage

        If you read all of Luke 19 you'll notice that, while you're technically correct that it's Jesus speaking, he's telling a parable and the verse in question is a quote of one of the characters in the parable.

        And if you read all of what I wrote, you'll notice that I did, indeed, write that Jesus is telling a parable in which he's quoting a character in the parable.

        The moral of the story is don't be lazy, because if you are your boss may take it out of your ass.

        Even if I grant you your incomprehensible rejection of the plain fact that the parable is of Armageddon and the "boss" is Jesus himself, even if I run with your novel and unsupportable interpretation, it's still horrific. Wise men don't encourage obedience to oppressive rulers by making hyperbolic analogies with mass murder.

        which he means that believers who try to spread their faith aren't going to have an easy time of it.

        No. It's Jesus who is bringing the sword.

        Why are you calling Jesus a liar? Don't you think that, if Jesus didn't intend to bring a sword, he'd have been smart enough to not say that that's what he was going to do?

        Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, written around 93–94 AD

        Josephus wasn't even born yet when Herod was out of office and perhaps dead. Philo was right there, writing at the very same time about how Jesus, most recently mentioned by Zechariah a few centuries earlier, was best understood as an ancient attempt of understanding the Logos.

        Again, at the exact same time as you would have us believe that Jesus was turning water into wine and walking on water and beaming back up to the Enterprise.

        Roman historian Tacitus referred to 'Christus'

        Tacitus again wasn't born until much later, and "Chrestus" is a Roman name for a slave meaning, "useful."

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Sources

        Not a single mention within a generation of the alleged time of the alleged events, not a single eyewitness account, and the only mentions by those not themselves cultists spouting propaganda are by people not even born who're describing the incomprehensible antics of the cultists.

        Indeed, if all you had were those sources, the conclusion that Jesus is no different from all the other ancient Pagan demigods is inescapable. Add in the Old Testament history, his still-theological nature in contemporary accounts, and the lack of historical grounding by the oldest propaganda writer, and the conclusion becomes painfully obvious.

        Cheers,

        b&

        --
        All but God can prove this sentence true.
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:22PM

          by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:22PM (#410336)

          Even if I grant you your incomprehensible rejection of the plain fact

          How about we tone this down a bit, dude.

          No. It's Jesus who is bringing the sword.

          Why are you calling Jesus a liar? Don't you think that, if Jesus didn't intend to bring a sword, he'd have been smart enough to not say that that's what he was going to do?

          I'm not quite sure what you're going on about here. "The sword" in the analogy is the Gospel. Him bringing a new ~religion (Christianity vs. Judaism) is what's going to cause strife. But the idea of not bothering to do so to avoid conflict would be a bit weird.

          And to nitpick, he didn't say he was *going to* bring a sword; he said he *did:*

          34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

          “‘a man against his father,
                  a daughter against her mother,
          a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
          36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.’

          (Matthew 10) [biblegateway.com]

          Not a single mention within a generation of the alleged time of the alleged events, not a single eyewitness account

          Wikipedia says Mark is thought to be 66-70 A.D. Which even if they lived really short lives would be within the same generation, if the crucifixion was somewhere around 30. So being written by an eyewitness seems plausible.

          It would be rather nice if the old dudes themselves had gotten into the whole writing thing. IIRC Mohammed wasn't literate either. And Socrates didn't write anything down.

          Or I suppose they could all have been literary inventions, yes. Bit cynical and a conspiracy theory but odder things have happened I suppose.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:32PM

            by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:32PM (#410344)

            And there's the whole theory that Matthew and Luke were based on earlier sources that haven't been found. If that Mark date was remotely accurate and they ended up finding Q it would have to be right smack in your desired window, I would think.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:37PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @09:37PM (#410346)

              D'oh, crap. Got my names mixed up. Please ignore my immediately previous post :P

              The two-source hypothesis: Most scholars agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be composed, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used it plus a second document called the Q source when composing their own gospels

              I guess I don't really understand why they wouldn't have wanted to write it down right away, though. Back then most people weren't literate, so it just wasn't something that came readily to mind? "Hey all this crazy stuff just happened...eh, I'll wait 20 or 30 years to write it down."

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:01PM

            by TrumpetPower! (590) <ben@trumpetpower.com> on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:01PM (#410368) Homepage

            I don't get it. You quote Jesus saying he came with a sword, but you say he was lying and meant to say, "religion," when he clearly said, "sword." And you follow up with the rest of the passage where Jesus says he's going to rip families asunder...and you seem to think that makes Jesus a good guy...how, exactly?

            Were he a love god preaching a religion of peace, he would be turning swords into plowshares and bringing families closer together in the bonds of love. Only war gods bring swords and rip families asunder and tell people to make blood sacrifices of his enemies at his feet.

            Wikipedia says Mark is thought to be 66-70 A.D. Which even if they lived really short lives would be within the same generation

            A generation is usually considered about two decades in modern times, maybe fifteen years in antiquity. You're looking at two to three generations just with your estimate.

            And Mark couldn't possibly have been written before 70 CE because it makes clear description of the Roman conquest of Jerusalem that year. More likely, it was substantially after that, not only long enough for the dust to have settled, but enough for it to have faded for him to have plausibly intermixed those events with the other stuff from the time of Pilate.

            Nor does Mark even pretend to be writing history. The whole thing is in classic Homeric form and style, even down to the giant palindrome.

            And, for that matter, the work is entirely anonymous and without even the pretense of provenance. Nobody knows who wrote it when or why.

            Compare, again, with Commentarii de Bello Gallico, and tell me, in all honesty, that Jesus even vaguely resembles an historical figure.

            It would be rather nice if the old dudes themselves had gotten into the whole writing thing. IIRC Mohammed wasn't literate either. And Socrates didn't write anything down.
            Or I suppose they could all have been literary inventions, yes. Bit cynical and a conspiracy theory but odder things have happened I suppose.

            Rather peculiar that the Word of God couldn't write, don't you think? Or that Allah's divine Messenger couldn't either?

            Nobody cares if Socrates was real or not; his works stand (and fall!) on their own. But gods like Jesus and Muhammad? If they weren't believed real, who would bother worshipping at their altars?

            Incidentally, all you have to do is read the end of Muhammad's story to know he's fiction, too. Just like Jesus beamed up into the sky at the end, Muhammad rode off into the sunset on a flying horse. That's what demigods do, and it's how the authors reveal that, yes, these weren't merely special men but actual divinities, which is why you should pay them special attention.

            Socrates just suicided with hemlock. Even if he's fiction, that tells you that he's somebody you can disagree with.

            ...and, of course, it's the priests (of whichever religion) who actually wield the divine authority, which is why the priests insist that you mustn't question said authority...but that's another story....

            Cheers,

            b&

            --
            All but God can prove this sentence true.
            • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:36PM

              by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday October 04 2016, @10:36PM (#410382)

              I don't get it. You quote Jesus saying he came with a sword, but you say he was lying and meant to say, "religion," when he clearly said, "sword." And you follow up with the rest of the passage where Jesus says he's going to rip families asunder...and you seem to think that makes Jesus a good guy...how, exactly?

              Were he a love god preaching a religion of peace, he would be turning swords into plowshares and bringing families closer together in the bonds of love. Only war gods bring swords and rip families asunder and tell people to make blood sacrifices of his enemies at his feet.

              This is more dialogue on our argument over what level the parable is operating on? You seem to be saying that it's a thin veneer over Jesus just outright describing his Father. I already explained that in my interpretation the sword is the idea of the Gospel. If you don't like that, fine; you don't have to be all sarcastic and incredulous about it.

              I get the whole argument that God in the Old Testament is a huge dick. Fair enough. But from the Gospels Jesus is portrayed as being more Zen about the whole thing. "I'm this guy* here on a mission, and all this has to happen, and it's going to be unpleasant, but push on through and you'll be okay in the end." If you can point out places for me where Jesus calls for or supports violence, I'd be interested in hearing them. The clearing of the temple courtyard comes to mind, but he was doing that himself and trying to get them out of the place, not wound them.

              Compare "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" and "put your sword [wikipedia.org] back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." If he enjoyed a good bloodbath, how do you explain forbidding his disciples from defending him at the Mount of Olives? Or are we going with the whole story being made up by other people again?

              Anyway some of this is just me regurgitating what they taught me growing up. I'll admit there are chunks of it that don't make sense to me either.

              --
              "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"