Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rewulf

London bridge

Recommended Posts

19 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said:

Oh blessed are the bloody liberals!:rolleyes:

Yep! These “bleeding heart” types should be locked up for a night out two, with a 20 stone murderer/sex offender on a whole life sentence! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gordon R said:

I think you will find that is.

No it isn't! How can amputation of an arm/hand be equivalent restitution for theft? Public flogging for homosexual acts? 

An eye for an eye means exactly that, not taking restitution to extremes nor should it be taken out of context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, henry d said:

No it isn't! How can amputation of an arm/hand be equivalent restitution for theft? Public flogging for homosexual acts? 

An eye for an eye means exactly that, not taking restitution to extremes nor should it be taken out of context.

Doesn’t an eye for an eye mean if you take an eye you forfeit one of your own? 
If so, doesn’t take a life mean you forfeit your own? 

Edited by Scully
Stutter!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scully said:

Doesn’t an eye for an eye mean if you take an eye you forfeit one of your own? 
If so, doesn’t take take a life mean you forfeit your own? 

Not in Henry's world!:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, henry d said:

No it isn't! How can amputation of an arm/hand be equivalent restitution for theft? Public flogging for homosexual acts? 

An eye for an eye means exactly that, not taking restitution to extremes nor should it be taken out of context.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-blinds-acid-attacker-in-eye-for-an-eye-punishment/

4 hours ago, henry d said:

That's not an eye for an eye.

That last one wasn't a statement or summation……… It was a separate punishment🥴

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/12/2019 at 17:49, KB1 said:

 

That last one wasn't a statement or summation……… It was a separate punishment🥴

Apologies, the way it read it looked like you were saying the others were an eye for an eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/12/2019 at 17:40, Scully said:

Doesn’t an eye for an eye mean if you take an eye you forfeit one of your own? 
If so, doesn’t take a life mean you forfeit your own? 

Yes it does, but it was a Mosaic law which was cultural and was not something that was over the commandments. They were there to stop the local cultural Idea of retribution being "hit them back harder" it had to fit what happened. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, henry d said:

Yes it does, but it was a Mosaic law which was cultural and was not something that was over the commandments. They were there to stop the local cultural Idea of retribution being "hit them back harder" it had to fit what happened. 

We’re talking Moses here and entering the realms of fantasy, which gets us into all manner of trouble and throws up more questions than answers, particularly when one questions it’s relevance with ones arguments regarding climate change! 
An eye for an eye means like for like, and as far as I’m concerned therefore, means take a life, forfeit your own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, henry d said:

No, it means what it meant then, anything else is a perversion of that.

You'd find an argument in an empty field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, henry d said:

No, it means what it meant then, anything else is a perversion of that.

Perversion? If you want perversion how’s about ‘Thou shalt not kill’......’but don’t thee worry if thou dost, cos after a spell some empty headed doogooders shalt release thee back into society to give thee a second bite of the cherry, and the chance to do it again’!

See that’s the trouble with fantasies Henry; all open to interpretation or perversion, dependant on ones agenda. Which is why we have so many fantasies. You can only suspend logic for so long. 

Edited by Scully

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, henry d said:

No, it means what it meant then, anything else is a perversion of that.

Rights, that's it, enough is enough, off to the ignore box for you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scully said:

Perversion? If you want perversion how’s about ‘Thou shalt not kill’......’but don’t thee worry if thou dost, cos after a spell some empty headed doogooders shalt release thee back into society to give thee a second bite of the cherry, and the chance to do it again’! Mt. 6:15

See that’s the trouble with fantasies Henry; all open to interpretation or perversion, dependant on ones agenda. Which is why we have so many fantasies. You can only suspend logic for so long. 

You read to much into Yuval`s books/philosophy as well as not understanding Theology.

3 hours ago, Penelope said:

Rights, that's it, enough is enough, off to the ignore box for you!

Many thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, henry d said:

You read to much into Yuval`s books/philosophy as well as not understanding Theology.

 

I couldn’t give a monkies about Yuval Henry; it’s a bit rich coming from you claiming I read too much into a book! 😉

I care even less about theology and certainly don’t need to gain from a book what logic and common sense dictate. 
If an eye for an eye is just that, and you believe that right and just, then it follows you have to believe a life for a life is equally right and just;  unless of course you just want to cherry pick which parts of your particular fantasy apply, like all the other fantasists do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If my daughter has an imaginary friend we try to discourage it. But then we send her to a CofE school where they are made to learn about someone else’s ancient imaginary friend. I can not believe how many people have died over the years due to this nonsense. It’s time it was outlawed! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scully said:

 😉

If an eye for an eye is just that, and you believe that right and just...

No, like I said it is a Mosaic law which was used to stop retribution snowballing into wars in the ANE 3-3500 years ago, which I believe is a good thing of itself, the conscious killing of someone is not right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Medic1281 said:

If my daughter has an imaginary friend we try to discourage it. But then we send her to a CofE school where they are made to learn about someone else’s ancient imaginary friend. I can not believe how many people have died over the years due to this nonsense. It’s time it was outlawed! 

Amen to that ..Doh ! 🤣

 

2 minutes ago, henry d said:

No, like I said it is a Mosaic law which was used to stop retribution snowballing into wars in the ANE 3-3500 years ago, which I believe is a good thing of itself, the conscious killing of someone is not right.

You havin a laugh ?

The early scriptures and Torah are absolutely written in the blood of massacres , due to trifling matters ,and face.

So all I can say is Hammurabis law to stop war , didn't work very well, especially seeing as the Israelites were very adept at slaughtering each other to the point of genocide of various tribes.

All this documented, and gloated on , in the Book.

Finally , the conscious killing of someone ,or something , happens every day, for all kinds of reasons, to simply declare it's not right,  as a catch all argument , is frankly a little bizarre .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, henry d said:

No, like I said it is a Mosaic law which was used to stop retribution snowballing into wars in the ANE 3-3500 years ago, which I believe is a good thing of itself, the conscious killing of someone is not right.

But you’re referring to Moses here Henry, who if in fact wasn’t a fictional character, reputedly received those laws from a character who definitely was! 

We’re trying to deal with real facts in a real world;  trying to confuse a fictional one with the other doesn’t get us anywhere. 
There are genuinely purely evil people out there who don’t deserve to live; they need to be put down like the mad dogs they are, and therefore the risk of them destroying another family is null and void. 
I can understand and indeed applaud those who attempt to help those in need, but I cannot understand the mentality of those who believe such people who have crossed a line, deserve to be released back into society at some point, to potentially destroy the lives of yet another family.
Once you've crossed that line then I’m afraid there can be no going back and no second chances; people deserve better than empty headed do gooders and their criminal policies. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...