SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TrumpetPower! on Tuesday October 04 2016, @08:48PM
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.
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.
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 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.
Tacitus again wasn't born until much later, and "Chrestus" is a Roman name for a slave meaning, "useful."
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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?"