Open Daily Quickfire Debates!

[DeletedUser]

Modernizing does not change the goal of most religions. Many religions have goals such as 'accept this/those God/s as your God/s' and ' get as many people as possible to worship/believe in him/them'. I don't see how modernizing would affect those goals. If anything, modernizing would help accomplish them.

 

[DeletedUser18132]

No, I don't think modernizing a religion is good at all. @Shadis It's not just about the goal, it's how you get there. For example, when the Spanish came to the West Coast/Mexico and started converting the Indians to Catholicism, that was fine and moral. But when they forced some Indians to convert even though they didn't want to, that was immoral, and so it's not just about the goal.

Changing a religion out of convenience is not right, because it's then not about what you believe in, it's what fits your schedule or wants.

 

[DeletedUser]

No, I don't think modernizing a religion is good at all. @Shadis It's not just about the goal, it's how you get there. For example, when the Spanish came to the West Coast/Mexico and started converting the Indians to Catholicism, that was fine and moral. But when they forced some Indians to convert even though they didn't want to, that was immoral, and so it's not just about the goal.

Changing a religion out of convenience is not right, because it's then not about what you believe in, it's what fits your schedule or wants.

First off, your top argument is more about free will than technology. They forced them to convert. It had nothing to do with technology, unless I'm missing it, in which case please clarify. Anyways I recently went to Sunday church with my sister and her family. The church used projectors and laser pointers and other technological things. These helped people a) focus better, b) understand better, c) I suppose see better, and d) for what it counts enjoy it better. The technology did nothing to affect the churches religious goals or motives, etc.

I'll agree with your second point.

 

[DeletedUser]

Strike four!

Do religions need to modernise to retain their status in the world, and is it acceptable to change a religion out of convenience?

Well if all kinds of Religions have survived up to this day, then I don't really see a point in modernizing them. They use their share of technology to keep things going for them. As for your second question, that depends on what will be changed....Truly the way I see it is, if you change a religion, then you create a new religion for the person or people that changed, while it still remains the same for the majority that did not want the change.....Do you get what I am getting at?

 

[DeletedUser]

Changing a religion out of convenience is not right, because it's then not about what you believe in, it's what fits your schedule or wants.

I would have to disagree and agree with you on that one, because if a person wanted to change their own religion, then it must be something that they would want to implement into their own view of their own religion. It is a half-Half convenience. 1 half because they think it would fit their schedule or whatever better, 1 half because it's what they believe.

 

[DeletedUser]

Should the death penalty be allowed? If so, what circumstances need to be met?

 

[DeletedUser]

Should the death penalty be allowed? If so, what circumstances need to be met?

Yes the Death Penalty should be allowed, if a person were to kill somebody, then that person should be killed as well(Death Penalty). The extent should be only major crimes such as, Mass Massacre, Killing.......Things that involve killing I guess, other things should just be Prison for Life. But the Death Penalty should be allowed for only those people who have tried but failed to kill people or have killed people.

 

[DeletedUser19042]

I agree with Killer of Hell.

For major crimes like mass murder a death penalty should be given. My country for instance doesn't have it. Crime is very high. I think introducing a death penalty would have a 'frightening effect' on criminals as well, and crime would lower a lot.

If we look at the example of Anders Breivik (who we all know for his massacre) only got 21 years of jail for killing a hundred people. It is the maximum penalty in his country. It is unfair. So I'm fully in favor of introducing the death penalty.

 

[DeletedUser]

The death penalty is definitely acceptable in my opinion. It should be applied in, as killer said, massacres and things involving killing. The death penalty not only serves as a punishment but serves to persuade people not to commit massacres, etc.

 

[DeletedUser]

How about with regard to sex offences, such as rape and child trafficking?

 

[DeletedUser]

If we look at the example of Anders Breivik (who we all know for his massacre) only got 21 years of jail for killing a hundred people. It is the maximum penalty in his country. It is unfair. So I'm fully in favor of introducing the death penalty.

Horrible stuff there^^

 

[DeletedUser]

How about with regard to sex offences, such as rape and child trafficking?

I would say for me, Prison for them(Prison for Life) because you wouldn't just want to kill them instantly... You would want them to have that thought on their mind for what they did...And have them rot slowly to death.

 

[DeletedUser19042]

Pedophiles should certainly get it. :supermad:

__EDIT: I agree with Killer. A very slow and painful death.

 

[DeletedUser]

How about with regard to sex offences, such as rape and child trafficking?

No, I do not believe it should apply in those instances. I rather not explain my whole opinion on rape as I feel that's unneeded, etc. And as for child trafficking, it does not involve killing. (I'm sure deaths have been involved but you know what I mean)

 

[DeletedUser]

Pedophiles should certainly get it. :supermad:

__EDIT: I agree with Killer. A very slow and painful death.

....

As for pedophiles I think that's a bit cruel for them. I find them more mentally unstable and in the case of that the punishment should definitely be reduced.

 

[DeletedUser]

Now the Death Penalty should also be conducted on those who try to harm the US or any other country internationally....You don't want those Major Computer hackers or terrorists for short, alive.

 

[DeletedUser]

....

As for pedophiles I think that's a bit cruel for them. I find them more mentally unstable and in the case of that the punishment should definitely be reduced.

Well that for me, would be an only safe option.....You don't want them in mental hospitals where they could go crazy and stuff.....Better to have them locked away and looked over behind bars.

 

[DeletedUser]

Define harm. If their actions resulted directly to the death of people then yes. If their actions caused others to kill people then no.

 

[DeletedUser19042]

....

As for pedophiles I think that's a bit cruel for them. I find them more mentally unstable and in the case of that the punishment should definitely be reduced.

They are totally not mentally unstable. They are well aware of their actions. They are the lowest kind of people and don't deserve to live. People who hurt little children just deserve it. Children who did nothing wrong. They are traumatized for the rest of their lives.

I perhaps have a very extreme opinion on that. But I won't get in debate on that subject.

 

[DeletedUser]

They are totally not mentally unstable. They are well aware of their actions. They are the lowest kind of people and don't deserve to live. People who hurt little children just deserve it. Children who did nothing wrong. They are traumatized for the rest of their lives.

I perhaps have a very extreme opinion on that. But I won't get in debate on that subject.

Agreed