Quote:
|
Originally Posted by nofnway
"Kinsey's methodology was criticised by some of the leading psychologists of the day, notably by Abraham Maslow. Fully 25% of Kinsey's survey group were, or had been, prison inmates, 5% were male prostitutes, and the majority were volunteers. It was claimed that he refused to consider volunteer bias as a confounding factor even when he was warned by prominent research psychologists (note that the reports claim 100% sample rates of small communities), that he provided incomplete demographic data, and that his statistical methods of analysis were inappropriate. " Wikipedia..distills that pretty well.......just topping the pile
|
Well, you had mentioned that Kinsey made up his data, this passage states simply that he was not able to get complete demographic data from subjects that he was interviewing about deviant sexual practices back in the 1950's. Hmm - I wonder why they would be hesitant in giving it him?
It really doesn't matter - I am not sure why you brought him up in the first place in a discussion about capital punishment and abortion...
Quote:
Just a brief synopsis from biblestudy.org...pretty much the way I learned it.
The commandment "thou shall not kill" ( Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17), is better understood to mean "you shall not murder," most modern translations of the Bible rendered it this way. According to the Bible not all killing, the taking of a life, is murder. Murder is the unlawfully taking of human life. The command not to murder etc, etc...
|
Interesting site - I don't know that this one person's interpretation of scripture would be considered peer reviewed and tested. Honestly my goal is not to disrespect your faith, and if you say that killing for the right reason is not a sin between you and your God, then I have to accept that.
I would point out that the above article also stated that it was ok to kill somebody for adultery as well. You concur I assume?
I happened to copy this from biblestudy.org which seems to be opposed to the above though, I would be interested in your take.
Quote:
An Eye for An Eye
or
Lex Tallionis
Jesus quoted it in the sermon on the mount because in His day it had also become misunderstood. People were applying it personally in their every day lives. Jesus said,
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, ‘Do not resist injuries ("evil" in KJV), but whoever strikes you on the right cheek turn to him the other as well’" (Matt. 5:38-29 Modern Language Version).
Was Jesus abolishing the government's right to punish evil? The Apostle Paul did not understand Jesus' words this way. In fact in Romans 13:4 Paul states that the governmental authorities are to retaliate against evil and we are to be subject to them and show appropriate respect.
But in the passage (Rom. 12:17-21) which comes before Romans 13, Paul parallels Jesus' words about not avenging ourselves. And where did Paul and Jesus get their principles? Probably from Proverbs 20:22 and 24:29. Here's what it says:
"Do not say, 'I will repay evil'; wait for the LORD and He will save you."
And again,
"Say not, 'As he did to me, so I will do him; I will repay a man according to his deeds.'"
We know that God will repay and He will avenge. "Vengeance is mine" says God. And in the end, what principle will God use to repay?? It is the principle of fairness expressed in the law of retaliation. See Col. 3:25; Matt. 7:2; Luke 6:38; and Psalms 7:16.
.
Vengeance is always dangerous. First it involves wrath, anger and hatred. When these emotions are involved, there will be a tendency to overdo it and retaliate far more than is just. We don't want to be Lamech’s children (Gen. 4:24). We want to be the children of God who forgive 70 times 7!
|
Anyway, as long as you are happy....