PI in Solomon's day 
Author Message
 PI in Solomon's day



Quote:
> > Either Solomon's temple never existed or the was it exaggerated.

> > It was 90 ft long, 30 ft wide, and 45 ft high (1 Ki 6:2)

> > About twice the cubic footage of an average 2 story house.

> > For a small structure It took 183,300 men 7 years to build it. (1
Kings
> > 5:13-16)(1 Kings 6:38)

> > Into it supposedly went 9,200,000 Ibs of Gold and 92,000,000 Ibs of
> > Silver. (1 Chron 22:14)

> > And Archaeologists can't find it anywhere...

> Scribal errors are the{*filter*}ens, aren't they? I suspect that literate
> people in that day were quasi-innumerate, much like today, and simply
> had no mental feedback saying "Wait--that's ridiculous!" when they
> got a crazy number.

Obviously not. The Bible also claims King Solomon had 1000 lovers.

(1 Ki 11:1 NRSV) King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the
daughter of Pharaoh: Moabite, Ammonite, Edomite, Sidonian, and Hittite
women,

(1 Ki 11:3 NRSV) Among his wives were seven hundred princesses and three
hundred concubines;

27,000 Aramean soldiers was killed by a wall falling on them.

(1 Ki 20:28 NRSV) ...therefore I will give all this great multitude into
your hand, and you shall know that I am the LORD."

(1 Ki 20:29 NRSV) They encamped opposite one another seven days. Then on
the seventh day the battle began; the Israelites killed one hundred
thousand Aramean foot soldiers in one day.

(1 Ki 20:30 NRSV) The rest fled into the city of Aphek; and the wall
fell on twenty-seven thousand men that were left. ...

Isaiah, one of the great prophets of the bible, is said to have walked
around {*filter*} for three years.

(Isa 20:3 NRSV) Then the LORD said, "Just as my servant Isaiah has
walked *{*filter*} and barefoot* for three years as a sign and a portent
against Egypt and Ethiopia,

The Bible is full of this kind of ridiculous stuff.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.*-*-*.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.



Thu, 07 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day
I think you may be a bit off here as the line is "thou Shal not suffer a
poisoner of wells to live" this is from the middle east not europe where people
poisoned wels to take the land. I has nothing to do with ones mind.
Quote:





> > > > > Nah.  First offence, finger.  Second offence, hand.  Third offence,
> > head.
> > > > > The road to civilization is not tolerating criminal behavior.

> > > > This is the road to totalitarianism.

> > > > "Thou shalt not kill"

> > > > It amazes me how so many christian people in the states are pro death
> > penalty
> > > > even though it's against one of the most basic principles of christian
> > ethics.

> > > Doesn't the bible also say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" and
> > > specify communinal stoning to death for such offenses as {*filter*}ery and
> > > violating the the sabbath? Christians abandoned stoning for burning at
> > > the stake.

> > It's my understanding that that directive is more properly translated as,
> > "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live."

> > Larry

> A better literal translation, but not better in meaning. The term refers
> to a poisoner of minds, a corruptor. Christians in power in formerly
> pagan Europe called them witches, and treated then the same way.
> Remember, when Saul was in trouble, he consulted the Witch of Endor. To
> punish him, God gave his throne to David.

> Jerry

> Jerry
> --
> Engineering is the art       |      Let's talk about what
> of making what you want      |      you need; you may see
> from things you can get.     |      how to do without it.
> ---------------------------------------------------------



Sat, 09 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day
Quote:

> I think you may be a bit off here as the line is "thou Shal not suffer a
> poisoner of wells to live" this is from the middle east not europe where people
> poisoned wels to take the land. I has nothing to do with ones mind.

, and I answered privately.

--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Sat, 09 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day

Quote:

> You mean people who chop off fingers, hands, and heads? Reminds me of
> the execution of Stoertebecker (famous pirate) in Hamburg. The executer
> was quite happy about chopping off the heads, so the senate was worried.
> The senate decided to have him executed, too. The second executer
> chopped of the head of the first one with a smile. One senator laid his
> own hands on the second executer and afterwards killed himself.

> Remember: there is no right way to do wrong things.

Gee, it's also wrong to keep someone locked up against their will, so
perhaps crime should go completely unpunished...? I have no pity on
people who get the death penalty - the crimes they commit to receive
such a sentence are hideous. I'm not happy that they die for their crime,
but I am truly relieved that they are permanently stopped from ever
hurting another innocent victim.

Ken



Sun, 17 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day
On Wed, 01 Sep 1999 23:35:43 -0700,

Ken> I'm not happy that they die for their crime, but I am truly relieved
Ken> that they are permanently stopped from ever hurting another innocent
Ken> victim.

Here we go again:

killing an innocent suspect is *not* just a pity for the victim, it is a big
deal for society because the real culprit is

 1) still free
 2) not known to be the perpetrator of a heinous crime
 3) not likely to be apprehended any time soon, because
 4) why reopen a case that has been closed by getting rid of the suspect?

All this probably leads to yet more innocent victims by the real criminal,
(in addition to the one wrongly convicted). Go figure.

This has even nothing whatsoever to do with being human or humane, it's just
plain logic.

Sorry for keeping this way off topic thread itself alive ... but I'm
unwilling to give it the death penalty ...

                                                                      Philip

--
The cause of the millenium bug is Homo Sapiens having 10 fingers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

+44 (0)1223 49 4639                 | Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton
+44 (0)1223 49 4468 (fax)           | Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD,  GREAT BRITAIN
PGP fingerprint: E1 03 BF 80 94 61 B6 FC  50 3D 1F 64 40 75 FB 53



Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day

Quote:

> killing an innocent suspect is *not* just a pity for the victim, it is
a big
> deal for society because the real culprit is

>  1) still free
>  2) not known to be the perpetrator of a heinous crime
>  3) not likely to be apprehended any time soon, because
>  4) why reopen a case that has been closed by getting rid of the
suspect?

> All this probably leads to yet more innocent victims by the real
criminal,
> (in addition to the one wrongly convicted). Go figure.

> This has even nothing whatsoever to do with being human or humane,
it's just
> plain logic.

Clue - it also isn't specific to the death penalty - it applies to
all punishments.

Fact - more innocents are "killed" by being wrongfully imprisoned
than by being wrongfully executed.  (Prisons are not healthy places,
lots more people are imprisoned than executed, and death penalty
cases get far more effective review than other sentences.)

Consequence - when someone focuses on the smallest part of the
problem, you know something about them or their real objection ....
Interestingly enough, you can safely make the same conclusions
when you see an argument which attributes a strawman or evil to
someone else.  The above demonstrates both characteristics.

-andy

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.



Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day

Quote:


>> killing an innocent suspect is *not* just a pity for the victim, it is
> a big
>> deal for society because the real culprit is

>> 1) still free
>> 2) not known to be the perpetrator of a heinous crime
>> 3) not likely to be apprehended any time soon, because
>> 4) why reopen a case that has been closed by getting rid of the
> suspect?

>> All this probably leads to yet more innocent victims by the real
> criminal,
>> (in addition to the one wrongly convicted). Go figure.

>> This has even nothing whatsoever to do with being human or humane,
> it's just
>> plain logic.
> Clue - it also isn't specific to the death penalty - it applies to
> all punishments.

clearly, point 4) does no apply to the death penalty, that is the whole
point.

Quote:
> Fact - more innocents are "killed" by being wrongfully imprisoned
> than by being wrongfully executed.  

Can you provide any references to back up this claim?

Quote:
> (Prisons are not healthy places,
> lots more people are imprisoned than executed, and death penalty

You seem to be arguing that it's OK to kill innocent victims 'for their own
good'.

Quote:
> cases get far more effective review than other sentences.)

'far more effective' meaning?

Quote:
> Consequence - when someone

me, I suppose?

Quote:
> focuses on the smallest part of the problem,

being?

Quote:
> you know something about them

such as?

Quote:
> or their real objection ....

being?

Quote:
> Interestingly enough, you can safely make the same conclusions
> when you see an argument which attributes a strawman or evil to
> someone else.  The above demonstrates both characteristics.

you speak in mysteries. I merely pointed out a logical error in the thought
that the death penalty results in a safer society.

In addition, but this was not in my original post, I am strongly opposed to
the death penalty on humanitarian grounds.

                                                                      Philip
--
The cause of the millenium bug is Homo Sapiens having 10 fingers
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

+44 (0)1223 49 4639                 | Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Hinxton
+44 (0)1223 49 4468 (fax)           | Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD,  GREAT BRITAIN
PGP fingerprint: E1 03 BF 80 94 61 B6 FC  50 3D 1F 64 40 75 FB 53



Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day

Quote:



> > killing an innocent suspect is *not* just a pity for the victim, it is
> a big
> > deal for society because the real culprit is

> >  1) still free
> >  2) not known to be the perpetrator of a heinous crime
> >  3) not likely to be apprehended any time soon, because
> >  4) why reopen a case that has been closed by getting rid of the
> suspect?

> > All this probably leads to yet more innocent victims by the real
> criminal,
> > (in addition to the one wrongly convicted). Go figure.

> > This has even nothing whatsoever to do with being human or humane,
> it's just
> > plain logic.

> Clue - it also isn't specific to the death penalty - it applies to
> all punishments.

> Fact - more innocents are "killed" by being wrongfully imprisoned
> than by being wrongfully executed.  (Prisons are not healthy places,
> lots more people are imprisoned than executed, and death penalty
> cases get far more effective review than other sentences.)

> Consequence - when someone focuses on the smallest part of the
> problem, you know something about them or their real objection ....
> Interestingly enough, you can safely make the same conclusions
> when you see an argument which attributes a strawman or evil to
> someone else.  The above demonstrates both characteristics.

> -andy

> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

You miss the point: imprisonment is reversable; execution is not.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day

Quote:


>> Clue - it also isn't specific to the death penalty - it applies to
>> all punishments.
>> Fact - more innocents are "killed" by being wrongfully imprisoned
>> than by being wrongfully executed.  (Prisons are not healthy places,
>You miss the point: imprisonment is reversable; execution is not.

I think you missed his point: nothing is reversible.  Forcing anyone to do
anything is punishment; death is not a special case.

I personally think we should imprison a lot fewer people -- and make more
endure{*filter*}.  It's certainly less intrusive than imprisonment.

I guess I've just given in to the debate, because I said I wouldn't post.
Oh well.

Quote:
>Jerry

--
-William "Billy" Tanksley


Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day

Quote:

> You miss the point: imprisonment is reversable; execution is not.

Death "while imprisoned" is just as irreversable as execution,
and more innocents die of the former than the latter.

BTW - I would like to hear more about "reversable" imprisonment.
Can it only be used to give someone back time wrongfully spent in
jail, or can it be used to recover time "wasted" in other ways?  Or,
perhaps was it simply a mis-statement, a hyperbolic way of saying
that being killed is worse than wasting several years in jail.

-andy

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.



Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day

Quote:

> >> 1) still free
> >> 2) not known to be the perpetrator of a heinous crime
> >> 3) not likely to be apprehended any time soon, because
> >> 4) why reopen a case that has been closed by getting rid of the
> > suspect?

> > Clue - it also isn't specific to the death penalty - it applies to
> > all punishments.

> clearly, point 4) does no apply to the death penalty, that is the
whole
> point.

Philip's evil twin pointed out, correctly, that (4) does apply to
the death penalty.  I merely pointed out that the police usually
stop looking for the guilty after a conviction, no matter what the
sentence, that (4) isn't specific to the death penalty.  Does the
new improved Philip have an interpretation of (4) that is specific
to the death penalty, that does not apply to other punishments?

Quote:
> > Fact - more innocents are "killed" by being wrongfully imprisoned
> > than by being wrongfully executed.

> Can you provide any references to back up this claim?

I'll do better - I'll show how to derive the result.

Collect the number of people executed and the number of people
who died while serving "life without parole" sentences.  Now
ask yourself whether the number of innocents in the first group
is smaller or larger than the number in the second group.

For giggles, you might want to compare the rate at which
people given a death sentence manage to prove their innocence
with the rate at which the "life without parole" people
manage the same feat.  Yes, execution often stops the process,
but other things do as well.  See if you can figure out whether
the fraction of innocents in the "executed" group is larger
or smaller than the fraction of innocents in the "rot away"
group.

For advanced credit, compute the risks and costs for innocents
sentenced to something short of life without parole.  (These
people often die in prison, and they die at a much higher rate
than people "on the outside", or even on death row, before the
final walk of course.)

When you're done, you can compute the number of innocents
convicted today who will die in prison and see that most of
them will die outside death row+the death chamber.

Quote:
> You seem to be arguing that it's OK to kill innocent victims 'for

their own good'.

Not at all.  I'm pointing out that the innocents argument doesn't
imply what you'd like it to imply, but thanks for repeating the
second fallacy (attribute strawmen or evil to others) in your
posting that I pointed out.

Quote:
> > cases get far more effective review than other sentences.)

> 'far more effective' meaning?

Meaning that if you're an innocent sentenced to death, it's
far more likely that your sentence will be "changed in time"
than it is if you're given life without parole.  You may think
that an innocent can work for his release for decades, but
in practice, no one gives a damn about the "lifers", so they
just serve their time.

Quote:
> > focuses on the smallest part of the problem,

> being?

When someone screams about death of innocents by execution, it's
either it's the "by execution" that really bothers them or something
else is going on.  (We know that because most of the innocents who
die aren't executed.)

For some reason, few admit to the "by execution" motivation but they
rarely offer an alternative explanation.  Of course, that lack doesn't
imply that there isn't an alternative, just that one doesn't come out
in discussion, but I'm still hopeful.

-andy

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.



Mon, 18 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 PI in Solomon's day

Quote:

> Gee, it's also wrong to keep someone locked up against their will, so
> perhaps crime should go completely unpunished...?

Well, people who lock other people away should stay a significant time
of their live in prison then... hm, I expect, that's true (or where do
you think prisoner's guards work? ;-).

The other question is whether you should punish crimes with something
that is considered as a major crime, too. A further question is if
people who commit crimes are "normal", i.e. you can punish them, because
they did what they did by their free will, or if they are not normal,
thus you can't punish them, because they did what they did because they
are ill. The third possible option is that they were normal when they
did the crime, but are ill now (just as Vietnam veterans often have
major psychological problems because of the things they had seen and had
to do). Locking them away (or killing them) means the society just can't
handle (or doesn't want to) these diseases. If one thinks of criminals
as people with psychologic diseases, killing them means euthanasy. If
criminals are not psychologically ill, why do you need them to lock
away? Better let them pay for their victims (e.g. the live injuries, the
pension for their widows etc.); as normal people, they would quickly see
that killing doesn't get them where they want.

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/



Wed, 20 Feb 2002 03:00:00 GMT  
 
 [ 433 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]

 Relevant Pages 
 

 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software