Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No, they deserve to be put in jail, but not have their hand cut off. That would be barbaric.
then what come out and steal again???????????
to go in jail the people pay tax its not fair on the people they have to pay for a criminal
makes no sence
cutting the hands of 1 criminal is a lesson to all criminals
Originally posted by muslimscholar
then what come out and steal again???????????
to go in jail the people pay tax its not fair on the people they have to pay for a criminal
makes no sence
cutting the hands of 1 criminal is a lesson to all criminals
Well, I don't believe in how jails are run in the US. I think the prisoners should work 7 days a week, and if they don't work, they don't eat. Cutting off a person's hand does not allow the person to change, and become a good person, they are marked forever. People can change.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Well, I don't believe in how jails are run in the US. I think the prisoners should work 7 days a week, and if they don't work, they don't eat. Cutting off a person's hand does not allow the person to change, and become a good person, they are marked forever. People can change.
they should work 7 days a week before they go to jail some people change not all and i can bear witness to that
cutting the hand of a person changes him and sets an example to thousands of other people
Originally posted by muslimscholar
they should work 7 days a week before they go to jail some people change not all and i can bear witness to that
cutting the hand of a person changes him and sets an example to thousands of other people
I am just against physically harming a person.
What if it is found later that the person did not commit the crime? Also, fear is an evil path, and to use fear to lead, only leads to failure.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am just against physically harming a person.What if it is found later that the person did not commit the crime? Also, fear is an evil path, and to use fear to lead, only leads to failure.
fear prevents evil
if you feared your hands are going to be cut off then you wouldent steal would you????????????
Originally posted by muslimscholar
fear prevents evil
if you feared your hands are going to be cut off then you wouldent steal would you????????????
Fear does not prevent evil; fear leads to evil.
I would not steal regardless. I do not want what is not mine.
How would you feel if someone, who does not like you, told everyone that you are a thief? Would it be ok for you to loose your hand for something you did not do?
Originally posted by muslimscholar
then what come out and steal again???????????
to go in jail the people pay tax its not fair on the people they have to pay for a criminal
makes no sence
cutting the hands of 1 criminal is a lesson to all criminals
Yes... because cutting a persons hands of doesn't cost any money... does it? (going if it was done today) Hell, if I got my hand/hands cut off through healthcare bills, retraining to I might have a job that doesn't require both hands, a possible disability pension... well, that is just some of the government assistance I would be entitled to.
And if that logic worked in the past when hands were cut off, well there wouldn't have been any criminals - but surprise surprise there were still theifs and murderers and everything in between. And the people who lost their hands, well, history shows they rarely went on to good things. They would have been less capable of working honestly, their missing hand would essentially be a big "Hey look, I'm a crim" sign, meaning few would employ them, they would possibly face infection and death from the wound...
And theoretically todays legal system has an aspect of "do the crime, pay the time" and then get another shot at life. Plenty waste it, not all, and thus shouldn't have their hands cut off. The reason such punishments are mostly gone is because a. they weren't effective and b. they would be considered inhumane - as in cruel and unusual punishment.
Fear does not prevent evil; fear leads to evil.
Hmmm. The Star Wars I sense in you, realise you do that fear leads to the Dark Side. Hmmm yes.
Sorry, couldn't help myself. Fear can be a useful tool, and once again the possible punishments that can be handed out for crimes are intended to have a deterrent factor, which would likely be fear based. But yes, there is something in what you are saying, but fear can be useful.
This was a documentary drama...not what I was expecting. Wasn't very sold on the whole show presentation. Interesting...but not really the impact I was expecting.
The one hour with Ted Koppel was much better. Jacobvici is not a scientist he declares himself a film maker and journalist....I personaly think he is the Michael Moore of Religion.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Well, I don't know what program you were watching...but this program was about Jesus (which is the foundation of a religion) and how it would affect this specific religion with this so-called "new discovery"
The program does not significantly address how the discovery will affect Christianity. The website for the program however, addresses the theological considerations stating:
Resurrection: It is a matter of Christian faith that Jesus of Nazareth was resurrected from the dead three days after his crucifixion circa 30 C.E. This is a central tenet of Christian theology, repeated in all four Gospels. The Lost Tomb of Jesus does not challenge this belief. In the Gospel of Matthew (28:12) it states that a rumor was circulating in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. This story holds that Jesus' body was moved by his disciples from the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, where he was temporarily buried. Ostensibly, his remains were taken to a permanent family tomb. Though Matthew calls this rumor a lie circulated by the high priests, it appears in his Gospel as one of the stories surrounding Jesus’ disappearance from the initial tomb where he was buried. Even if Jesus' body was moved from one tomb to another, however, that does not mean that he could not have been resurrected from the second tomb. Belief in the resurrection is based not on which tomb he was buried in, but on alleged sightings of Jesus that occurred after his burial and documented in the Gospels.
Ascension: It is also a matter of Christian faith that after his resurrection, Jesus ascended to heaven. Some Christians believe that this was a spiritual ascension, i.e., his mortal remains were left behind. Other Christians believe that he ascended with his body to heaven. If Jesus’ mortal remains have been found, this would contradict the idea of a physical ascension but not the idea of a spiritual ascension. The latter is consistent with Christian theology.
For you to dismiss the discovery as "so-called," and the film-maker as the "Michael Moore of Religion" is indicative of having approached both with a closed-mind.
Originally posted by Adam_PoEFor you to dismiss the discovery as "so-called," and the film-maker as the "Michael Moore of Religion" is indicative of having approached both with a closed-mind.
No, I don't consider been a skeptic of Simcha Jacobovici as "closed-mind".
Read more about him here.
My personal opinion of the man is that he is a Zionist. Could I be wrong? Absolutely! I'm willing to accept that. But! after seen this docu-drama it feels that he has an agenda. He is neither an archeologist nor a historian...he clearly declare himself as journalist and filmaker. A journalist reports events not turns things into some propaganda film.
Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
No, I don't consider been a skeptic of Simcha Jacobovici as "closed-mind".Read more about him here.
My personal opinion of the man is that he is a Zionist. Could I be wrong? Absolutely! I'm willing to accept that. But! after seen this docu-drama it feels that he has an agenda. He is neither an archeologist nor a historian...he clearly declare himself as journalist and filmaker. A journalist reports events not turns things into some propaganda film.
Zionism is an international political movement that supports a homeland for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. That Simcha Jacobovici is a Zionist is not in question; he is the founder of the Canadian Universities Bureau of the Canadian Zionist Federation. What is in question is what his being a Zionist has to do with the validity of his work.
Moreover, the many accolades he has received is indicative of the reputability of his work. Among them:
He was named Canada's Top Documentary Filmmaker by the Ryerson Review of Journalism. He has received a certificate of Special Merit from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, a Genie Award, a Gold Medal from the International Documentary Festival of Nyon, three U.S. Cable Ace Awards, two Gemini awards, an Alfred I. Dupont-Columbia University Award, a Silver Nymph from the Monte Carlo Festival, the Best Documentary from the Jerusalem International Film Festival and the 1995 and 1996 Emmy Awards for "Outstanding Investigative Journalism."
Criticism is to be expected considering the controversial nature of his work, that deals primarily with Jewish, not Christian, history.
Originally posted by the Darkone
I was laughing so hard, the experts came on and torn him a new butt hole and well deserved. The whole project was horrible, Jacbovici was likely their where no bibical schoalrs he would gotten torn up even worse.
That might be because the "biblical scholar" was sitting with him. And there were several biblical scholars on in the second half of the program. (and the first)
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
The levels human stupidity can reach never fail to astound me.
Which is why some people waste time talking about evil and fear, when the objective should be education and understanding.
As for the Lost Tomb of Jesus, it was an interesting program. And I agree with WD, the "critical look" that came after the show was more interesting than the show. As I said at the beginning of the thread, Jacobovici has an agenda that lends an unfair bias to his work. You can watch almost any of his other documentaries (most of which focus on the old testament) to see that he tweaks history to suit his religious needs. He has questions and he only looks for the answers to those questions, and when the answer doesn't fit his desire to be vindicated he dismisses it.
In this aspect, he approaches this project with a similar attitude. However, he wants to act like he's just telling a story that needs to be told.
Looking at the documentary for what it is, you can see that the production crew does edit in a manner to suit their needs. BUT! When you watch the Koppel special, his team does the EXACT same thing. Jacobovici even presents an email from one of the guys Koppel contacted for a comment on his involvment and this email vindicated Jacobovici's use of the exact quote in the film.
There were a whole lot of non-answers and non-conclusions presented in this special. None of which really address the point. And as I said earlier in this thread: 'Nothing will happen in this documentary to validate the opinions of anyone on either side of the issue. But, nothing will happen to invalidate them either.' In my opinion, the probability of this being a fmaily tomb of the Jesus family is high. But I didn't need a tomb or bones to think that the central propoganda of christianity is bullshit.
Originally posted by Capt_Fantastic
And as I said earlier in this thread: 'Nothing will happen in this documentary to validate the opinions of anyone on either side of the issue. But, nothing will happen to invalidate them either.'
In the second half of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Critical Look," the two Christian theologians said as much. The woman on the panel went so far as to state that one should always defer to The Bible, i.e. in instances when archaeological or scientific evidence contradicts The Bible, it is always the evidence that is wrong. As I stated previously, this is indicative of having approached the documentary with a closed-mind, i.e. having already decided that the evidence is wrong before it has even been presented.