OT: Saddam Hussain

[thetank]

Didn't the 'Christian God' kill many 'non-followers' according to the bible?

Only if you take it literally.

Besides which, God having the right to take life would not affect a human's right (or lack thereof) to take the life of a fellow.

[CelticGeezeer]

(E) This is probably the hardest part to argue against, if someone claims their god forces them to commit any given action, including performing capital punishment. But then again, all states involved in this particular case are secular ones. That aside, being Christian myself, I cannot accept any other religion as a justification for anything whatsoever, and Christianity does not condone murder. And the difference between murder and capital punishment is a fine line ..

Didn't the 'Christian God' kill many 'non-followers' according to the bible?

Dont all the non followers/believers burn in the fires of hell forever anyway ?

[thetank]

Again, hell isn't supposed to be a literal thing.

Hell is just a place devoid of the love of God. It was the Coca-Cola company that came up with all the fire, brimstone, tridents and the bad kind of red hot poker imagery.

(I know it wasn't, but the first two sentences are serious)

[MadYank]

Dont all the non followers/believers burn in the fires of hell forever anyway ?

Ah the scientific answer below...


Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?

"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate that they are leaving."

"I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore no souls are leaving."

"As for how many souls are entering Hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that most souls go to Hell."

"With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially." "Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, then Hell must expand proportionately as souls are added."

This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the rate at which souls  enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year, that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having that event take place, then #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."

[kinboshi]

Didn't the 'Christian God' kill many 'non-followers' according to the bible?

Only if you take it literally.

Besides which, God having the right to take life would not affect a human's right (or lack thereof) to take the life of a fellow.

God used people on earth, 'agents of God' so to speak, to carry out these killings.

(I'm a born-again atheist by the way - just to clarify my position)

[neeko]

Dont all the non followers/believers burn in the fires of hell forever anyway ?

Ah the scientific answer below...


Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or Endothermic (absorbs heat)?

"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate that they are leaving."

"I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore no souls are leaving."

"As for how many souls are entering Hell, lets look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that most souls go to Hell."

"With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially." "Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, then Hell must expand proportionately as souls are added."

This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the rate at which souls  enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year, that "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having that event take place, then #2 cannot be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and will not freeze."

[CelticGeezeer]

I detect a worrying tendency to turn serious and possibly even interesting topics into random chatter.

Scared of controversy?

Anyway, couple of replies to previous posts:

Tank: Both OT and NT matter, however OT requires more interpretation and is not to be taken literally in every aspect, some books within are prose, poems, songs &c. and should be considered as such. If you want to read something really worrying, just look at Judges - if you don't put a lot of thought into it and read it in context, I think the message could be quite disturbing.

Anyone who supports death penalty: Was just wondering, based on what you decide who deserves to be executed?

(A) Some higher, universal set of moral standards?
(B) Your own definition of morality?
(C) Whatever your Government, say the UK's decided to be the law?
(D) The UN's definition? The UNDHR? Amnesty's?
(E) Religion?

If so, concerning case (A), what would that morale be, and how could anyone decide on it?

(B) Who gives you the right to decide on morality of everyone? (Well, actually that's what I do, but I find it difficult to be so convinced of my own view on morality and justice that I could use these standards to kill anyone)

(C) So much for Sovereignty, then? In that case, surely you would also argue that we should intervene everywhere, where common UK law is contradicted? Where do you draw the line?

(D) None of these support the death penalty for similar reasons as given under (B)

(E) This is probably the hardest part to argue against, if someone claims their god forces them to commit any given action, including performing capital punishment. But then again, all states involved in this particular case are secular ones. That aside, being Christian myself, I cannot accept any other religion as a justification for anything whatsoever, and Christianity does not condone murder. And the difference between murder and capital punishment is a fine line ..


Hope I make some sort of sense, would be interesting to hear opinions on this morality issue. Oh, I'm probably going to be writing my dissertation on something related to this, so I might quote you all

  I would be interested in some replies too.

[tantrum]

what about heaven?

Is it cold out there?

[CelticGeezeer]

Is it full of executioners ?

[ACE2M]

i haven't read the thread but would just like to say i despise the fact that this was essentially done in my name even though blair says it wasn't. capital punishment is wrong in my eyes.

[hotdog]

it is a simple as this if someone thinks its ok to kill supposedly 1 hundread an summat ppl prob more like thousands of ppl then he deserves to die.saddam was a dangerous man an would of continued to cause big trouble.

he makes me so sick its unreal,why do ppl have to do worng things like he did,i jus hope the continue to combat the war on terror!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bhoywonder]

just  watched  the clip...why??  voyeurism most probably


and it has made me sick to the stomach

I was undecided upon capital punishment

now i am decidely against it!!

[Nem]

just  watched  the clip...why??  voyeurism most probably


and it has made me sick to the stomach

I was undecided upon capital punishment

now i am decidely against it!!

Hanging him was too easy on him.

[Sheriff Fatman]

Many years ago, in my GCSE English days, we had to do an essay on the issue of capital punishment.  After much research, I ultimately concluded that I was against it, primarily because of the risk of executing an innocent person and the fact that the 'deterrent' argument didn't really hold true (e.g. those States in the US with the death penalty don't see reduced crime rates compared to the ones without).  Nothing has ever really swayed me from this view.  I remember watching a documentary called '14 Days In May' which followed a death row prisoner in the two weeks to his execution and its one of the most powerful things I've ever seen on TV.  At the time there seemed to be genuine doubt about the guy's guilt (not sure if this was ever resolved) but he was still executed.

Having said that, there is little doubt about Saddam's guilt for a whole host of atrocities and I feel no remorse for him being gone.  However, the whole execution process and the ensuing media glare that surrounds it still has a 'sinister' feel to it that doesn't sit comfortably with me.

I did a bit of searching on the internet earlier and, despite the official 'restraint' in the TV coverage of the execution there is already footage around of the whole execution, recorded on a mobile phone camera by one of the witnesses.  It was not difficult to find - its already linked to on Saddam's Wikipedia entry.  I've also seen footage, several months ago, of some of the Western hostage executions (e.g. Nick Berg, Ken Bigley).  Regardless of the differing levels of 'dignity' attached to the two events (in the sense that one was an 'official' act of justice whilst the others were the most horrific examples of terrorism/barbarism imaginable), and ignoring the fact that the other footage was undoubtedly much more difficult viewing, the Saddam execution scenes still brought about the same feelings of unease within me that I am viewing a 'healthy' life being summarily brought to an end at the hands of others.  The fact that the two trigger similar emotions in me suggests that I am unable to differentiate between the two at some basic level.

Regardless of the arguments as to whether someone deserved it or not (and Saddam is about as 'deserving' as I could imagine anyone to be) I still find the whole thing to be something which sits uncomfortably with me.  Therefore, I guess my views on capital punishment have not changed over 15 years since I was first asked to think about it.

Sheriff

[bhoywonder]

I personally couldnt bring myself to watch the hostage executions



and I'm regretting watching saddam's hanging