chrisrb

Here's what you said: --- I believe LDS doctrine, and I also believe in the death penalty. Therefore, the argument is flawed. --- Your argument was that you were right because you believe yourself to be right. That's a pretty ego-centric standard. According to your own words, there for all to see, you think your beliefs are all that's necessary to prove the truth or falseness of an argument. Again, that's quite an ego ... Your beliefs or opinions, by themselves, do NOT define whether or not an argument is sound ("I believe ... I believe ... therefore the argument is false."). My argument was unsound becuase it contained a faulty premise ... not because the_jason believes this or that. There's only One who's beliefs by themselves are perfectly reliable. Who's that? (Hint: it's not you).

You mean arguments are true or false based purely on your own individual personal beliefs? That's quite an ego. You must an amazing guy, the universal judge and "decider" of truth and falsehood, whose beliefs are never wrong, and upon which all other people can always securely rely. Wait a minute ... isn't that God? I'm confused ... are you a human being, with at least occasionally faulty perceptions and beliefs, or are you God, who is never wrong about anything? Please clarify. Chrisrb- quit baiting. You posted this topic at the MAD boards and got your head handed to you. Knock off the snark and post something substantive or find another playground. Honos --- By the way ... I think there is, however, a legitimate flaw in my argument. Taking innocent life cannot be an unforgivable sin if done by accident, because sinful motivation is a requirement for all sin, and accidents do not involve sinful motivation. If choices made without negative intent could result in negative spiritual consequences, it would mean that God was not just, but capricious ... that no law of "karma" existed (the universal "fairness" doctrine). If both good and bad motivations could result in bad (or good) reviews by God, then it wouldn't really matter whether one made good or bad choices, essentially destroying the notion of choice of agency (a Godly principle which God Himself cannot violate, by definition). So, it appears I was wrong. The argument I proposed had a faulty premise (i.e. the taking of innocent life is NOT always an unforgivable sin), and therefore a faulty conclusion. Apparently, it is not logically necessary, if one believes LDS doctrine, to oppose the death penalty. I stand corrected.

=== How can you be sure you have the actual murderer so that "the murderer can be killed" as you say God commands? Did you read the argument above? The whole point is that innocent people are convicted of capital crimes and put to death all the time (new DNA analysis techniques demonstrate have now demonstrated the alarming frequency of this government sponsored killing of innocent people, murdered by mistake by the state) ... that since LDS doctrine clearly says that taking innocent life is an unforgivable sin, the practice of capital punishment necessarily leads to the commission of unforgivable sins ... and since common sense dictates that committing unforgivable sins (as inevitably must happen as direct result wherever capital punishment is practiced) must be avoided at all costs, the death penalty must not be supported by those who believe the LDS of unforgivable sin, as all orthodox Mormons should. If we are not to shop on Sundays because doing so encourages others to sin ... how in the world is it okay for us to encourage others to commit unforgivable sins by supporting or even participating in (as, say, the prosecuting attorney does) the process of capital punishment? Isn't that just a wee bit inconsistent?

1. The taking of innocent life is an unforgivable sin. (Premise: LDS doctrine.) 2. Any Earthly system of justice is prone to error and wrongful convictions, and since all death penalty cases are decided by Earthly systems of justice, the death penalty will sometimes be wrongfully applied to innocent people. (Modus ponens.) 3. Therefore, the death penalty will inevitably result in the commission of unforgivable sins. (Hypothetical syllogism.) 4. Committing unforgivable sins should be avoided at all costs. (Premise: common sense.) 5. Therefore, the death penalty should be avoided at all costs. (Modus ponens.) --- Those who believe LDS doctrine must, therefore, oppose the death penalty. (Q.E.D.) ===== Can anyone find a flaw in the argument above? I cannot.

Why did our government lie about her death?

People, Do you know Alyssa's story? Alyssa Peterson was an an active Mormon (former missionary to Holland) who three years ago was serving in the U.S. military as an arabic language specialist and interrogator in Iraq. Alyssa was killed in "firearm accident," three years ago in Iraq, according to the U.S. government. Apparently, this was another lie. The truth is that Alyssa committed suicide -- in a battle between her religious conscience and her government. Unbelievably, her own government was forcing her to torture the people she was interrogating, and it was too much for Alyssa. It seems the only way she could think of to resolve the conflict between what her government was requiring of her, and what her religious conscience required of her, was to kill herself. --- Original story (may require subscription): http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/se...t_id=1003345862 Reprint: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1102-05.htm --- Something is very, very wrong. Is her church wrong? Or is her government wrong? Which is it? Church members of good conscience must ask themselves these very uncomfortable questions, and answer them, before Tuesday's election. On November 7, Americans will decide what's SO WRONG with this picture that a good and decent American like Alyssa felt she had no other choice but to take her own life rather than live with the orders she'd been given to torture people in the name of the United Stated of America. May we make the right choice this Tuesday ... and may God have mercy on us. Thank you. Pass it on. ===