Ervin Burrell said:

---

Trump is a woke, deep state, MARXIST for not agreeing to allow this to be livestreamed.

---

This is either excellent satire or deserves the award for Most Mindless Use of Cliches at the 2026 F16 Poster Awards.

You might as well have called him a stoopy poopypants. It would carry just as much meaning.

HTownAg98 said:

---

It's all moot now; the live stream has been cancelled.

---

Trump steps away from live-streaming an execution. pic.twitter.com/XsBhfDrIyd

— Niall Stanage (@NiallStanage) October 15, 2026

and lefties everywhere praise their gods!

95LawAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

and lefties everywhere praise their gods!

---

The competition for the 2026 F16 Most Mindless Use of Clichs Award is heating up!

---

Speaking of mindless.,,,

Logos Stick said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

and lefties everywhere praise their gods!

---

The competition for the 2026 F16 Most Mindless Use of Clichs Award is heating up!

---

Speaking of mindless.,,,

---

Brutal, man.

It turns out autocorrect doesn't like the accented e.

95LawAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

and lefties everywhere praise their gods!

---

The competition for the 2026 F16 Most Mindless Use of Clichs Award is heating up!

---

Speaking of mindless.,,,

---

Brutal, man.

It turns out autocorrect doesn't like the accented e.

---

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

But, alas, I have grown weary trying to match wits with you. You may go now.

95LawAg said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Trump is a woke, deep state, MARXIST for not agreeing to allow this to be livestreamed.

---

This is either excellent satire or deserves the award for Most Mindless Use of Cliches at the 2026 F16 Poster Awards.

You might as well have called him a stoopy poopypants. It would carry just as much meaning.

---

Pretty sure it was satire. It would have to be, right?

BTW, your post discussing your opposition to capital punishment was one of the best arguments ive read here in this forum. Kudos.

Windy City Ag said:

---

I would love to see the decision making process that allows these ideas to spin for so long only to be unceremoniously shot down.

---

Probably wanted to wait and see how the public perception played out. Once everyone realized it was a terrible idea, it was shot down.

VaterAg said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Trump is a woke, deep state, MARXIST for not agreeing to allow this to be livestreamed.

---

This is either excellent satire or deserves the award for Most Mindless Use of Cliches at the 2026 F16 Poster Awards.

You might as well have called him a stoopy poopypants. It would carry just as much meaning.

---

Pretty sure it was satire. It would have to be, right?

BTW, your post discussing your opposition to capital punishment was one of the best arguments ive read here in this forum. Kudos.

---

I appreciate the kind words. We could use more of those these days.

Logos Stick said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

and lefties everywhere praise their gods!

---

The competition for the 2026 F16 Most Mindless Use of Clichs Award is heating up!

---

Speaking of mindless.,,,

---

Brutal, man.

It turns out autocorrect doesn't like the accented e.

---

---

It's a flaw in the TexAgs code. It does not allow them and deletes them if you try.

My gift to all the lefties in this thread...

it's éasy

Logos Stick said:

---

My gift to all the lefties in this thread...

it's éasy

---

I've found that analogies can be helpful when otherwise challenging concepts aren't being retained by someone.

Bringing someone a plate of brisket isn't a great way to show them how to smoke it.

Nominees must be submitted by November 4th.

Better:

95LawAg said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Trump is a woke, deep state, MARXIST for not agreeing to allow this to be livestreamed.

---

This is either excellent satire or deserves the award for Most Mindless Use of Cliches at the 2026 F16 Poster Awards.

You might as well have called him a stoopy poopypants. It would carry just as much meaning.

---

Oh man, I'm officially petitioning for you guys to start using "stoopy poopypants" to replace Orange man when mocking liberal outrage. Make it happen!

95LawAg said:

---

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Trump is a woke, deep state, MARXIST for not agreeing to allow this to be livestreamed.

---

This is either excellent satire or deserves the award for Most Mindless Use of Cliches at the 2026 F16 Poster Awards.

You might as well have called him a stoopy poopypants. It would carry just as much meaning.

---

Coming from that poster I bet he's dead serious.

Biden was the poopy pants.

****ting at the Vatican.

The Pope has become a joke. He is nothing but a left wing politician. Leftism over Christ is the new mantra of the Catholic Church.

Worse than Francis.

I stop years ago listening to pastors or anyone of who thinks of themselves as higher authority. Priest, ministers pastors, elders, deckons they are all empty suit shrills.

All churches care about is how much you give, how much you have and where you live. First Baptist Church of Kingwood was notorious for asking what village you lived in.

Churches have become more toxic than a sorority house filled with blonde girls with their soy bean pumpkin spice lattes and ugg boots.

Psycho Bunny said:

---

I stop years ago listening to pastors or anyone of who thinks of themselves as higher authority. Priest, ministers pastors, elders, deckons they are all empty suit shrills.

All churches care about is how much you give, how much you have and where you live. First Baptist Church of Kingwood was notorious for asking what village you lived in.

Churches have become more toxic than a sorority house filled with blonde girls with their soy bean pumpkin spice lattes and ugg boots.

---

interesting take.

As a Christian, and active member of a church body...I actually agree with most of what you said.

So many churches these days are country clubs, with a religious bent. They are not doing what the church is called to do.

And many pastors do seem to view themselves, and are treated as a 'higher authority', rather than a shepherd of a flock. They should be someone who lives out their calling to teach and disciple, so others can then go out and do the same. Unfortunately, we don't see a lot of that.

However, they aren't all 'empty suit shrills'. I know some very Godly men, who are simply trying to share and serve. They want nothing more, than for fewer people to be headed towards hell, and instead, living for Heaven. I'm sorry you have that impression of all churches/pastors, but I'd encourage you to find one that's different and scriptural. We aren't perfect, so there is not a church that will be either...but there are some good ones out there.

annie88 said:

---

The Pope has become a joke. He is nothing but a left wing politician. Leftism over Christ is the new mantra of the Catholic Church.

Worse than Francis.

---

So, you're saying the Pope is a stoopy poopypants?

Oh no, what will they ***** about now.

I had a feeling they were going to change their mind on this. Hey, as long as the guy dies.

damn.

would have been awesome to automate teh process and allow anyone with internet access to buy a "ticket" to be the one to "press teh button", with a random person being the one that actually get teh kill shot.

Ervin Burrell said:

---

Trump is a woke, deep state, MARXIST for not agreeing to allow this to be livestreamed.

---

Would this be considered another TACO moment by Trump?

I mean, I'm not surprised. He got his maga riled up then realized they (maga) won't be enough for the midterms, so he canceled what was likely to be yuge for maga viewing.

Maybe too little too late, but I can see why he did this.

95LawAg said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

My gift to all the lefties in this thread...

it's éasy

---

I've found that analogies can be helpful when otherwise challenging concepts aren't being retained by someone.

Bringing someone a plate of brisket isn't a great way to show them how to smoke it.

---

I learned something new today:
https://www.w3schools.com/charsets/ref_utf_latin_extended_a.asp

95LawAg said:

---

annie88 said:

---

The Pope has become a joke. He is nothing but a left wing politician. Leftism over Christ is the new mantra of the Catholic Church.

Worse than Francis.

---

So, you're saying the Pope is a stoopy poopypants?

---

It would explain the pope always wearing white. Can't see s*** stains in those black robes.

K2-HMFIC said:

---

“I wouldn't be watching it if it was aired,” House Speaker Mike Johnson told CBS News’ @Costareports on the Pentagon plans to livestream the execution by firing squad of Nidal Hasan, the ex-Army major convicted of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009. “I need to tell the White… pic.twitter.com/P8FwONwFNY

— CBS News (@CBSNews) October 12, 2026

I'm betting that Pete gets overruled by Friday.

---

BREAKING: Trump rules out livestream for Fort Hood attacker Nidal Hasan's firing squad execution pic.twitter.com/ZTlHU2qgLf

— Fox News (@FoxNews) October 15, 2026

Called it.

95LawAg said:

---

japantiger said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

japantiger said:

---

95LawAg said:

---

You are correct in that contemporary moral judgments are not automatically correct because they're contemporary. Similarly, the age of a moral claim doesn't establish its validity or invalidity. Neither does its religious or secular origin. The appropriate test is the quality of its reasoning, its evidentiary support where applicable, and its consistency with defensible moral principles.

Accordingly, if biblical claims must survive scrutiny just like contemporary claims, then citing scripture cannot, by itself, establish that the death penalty is justified.

Further, you appear to be conflating contested contemporary political and cultural positions with far more broadly established moral principles. You've assembled a collection of scientific theories, medical procedures, economic predictions, political movements, contested cultural issues, and ethical principles into a single category of supposedly failed contemporary "truths." None of these is directly equivalent to foundational ethical propositions such as the current, broadly-held morals regarding practices such as slavery or the use of the death penalty for adultery or violating the Sabbath, practices historically supported by biblical citations.

As for slavery, Christianity did play an important role in abolition. It also played an important role in justifying slavery. Both sides relied upon biblical teachings to support their positions. That seems to reinforce my point about the limitations of relying upon scripture as unquestionable moral authority.

I'm not suggesting contemporary morality is infallible. I'm suggesting that moral principles, whether ancient or contemporary, should be subject to examination, reasoned argument, and scrutiny.

Clearly, there is considerable disagreement regarding the ethics of capital punishment, at least in the United States. There appears to be considerably broader agreement that executions should not be turned into public spectacles.

---

If you don't accept the Bible as God's revealed word and the objective moral standard that comes from it, then we are not going to agree on the death penalty or on most other basic questions of justice.

You keep appealing to an undefined standard of ethics (contemporary understanding, broadly held morals, human rights, the quality of reasoning) as if that standard were self-evident and sufficient to rule Scripture out. Ethics based on what? Once biblical authority is set aside, there is no remaining objective foundation that can tell us why murder deserves death, why it does not, or why any other punishment is required or forbidden. Current consensus, personal conviction, and institutional fashion are just descriptions of what some people presently prefer. They supply no obligation that binds anyone who disagrees.

Broad agreement or disagreement is an even weaker basis. Majorities and elites endorsed that whole list of crap I put up earlier...all of those things originated as a direct attack on biblical truth. Counting heads or measuring elite sentiment does not generate a moral duty. And, oh, by the way; since leftist truth has had the upper hand; there's not a single societal measure that has improved.

A Christian moral worldview is built by submitting to what Scripture actually says, in this case about murder, the image of God, and the magistrate's authority to punish. It's not about polling the surrounding culture or waiting for a consensus (that will never arrive).

---

You say that, "A Christian moral worldview is built by submitting to what scripture actually says..."

1. The starting point is scripture that has been transmitted, translated, and compiled through human involvement over centuries. Those processes inevitably involve human judgment and discretion.

2. That translated text is then subject to further interpretation regarding its "true meaning." Again, human judgment enters the equation.

3. In many cases, there's yet another level of human variability because people base their moral conclusions upon someone else's interpretation of translated scripture.

So, when you say "what Scripture actually says," I ask, "According to whom?" What influenced those translations, interpretations, and conclusions? Inevitably, the learning, experiences, historical circumstances, and potential biases of the people involved.

Consider the pope, for example. Catholicism recognizes significant papal teaching authority, yet Catholics themselves have disagreed with popes throughout history. And as evidenced by this thread, even those who recognize religious authority don't necessarily agree about what scripture requires.

It seems your position is that scripture provides direct access to an objective, divinely established moral standard. My concern is that our access to that standard is necessarily mediated by imperfect human understanding.

I'm not challenging your faith in God, nor am I attempting to establish that divine moral truth cannot exist. I'm challenging the proposition that any particular human interpretation of scripture can be treated as an unquestionable expression of that truth.

Even if the source is divine, our understanding of it remains human.

My position isn't that scripture cannot provide moral guidance. It's that invoking scripture doesn't eliminate the need to justify one's particular interpretation or its application to public policy.

I'm assuming you don't support slavery or executing people who commit adultery or violate the Sabbath. If so, you already demonstrate what I am suggesting. We necessarily exercise human judgment in determining which biblical teachings remain applicable, how they should be interpreted, and whether they provide sufficient moral justification for contemporary public policy.

---

The fact that people copied, translated, and taught the Bible doesn't turn "what Scripture says" into an empty phrase. We can still tell a straightforward reading from a strained one. Your real objection is selective skepticism: because humans are involved and sometimes get things wrong, no particular reading can count as a reliable take on the text. If fallibility means we can't know what a text says, the same problem accrues to your own claims about morality, etc. You're human too. You don't get to demand a level of certainty for Scripture and ignore it everywhere else.

We don't need infallibility to read a text and act on it. Everyday life turns on telling better readings from worse ones. The chance that some people miss the point or apply only part of a text (as happened with some defenses of slavery) doesn't make every interpretation equal or leave the plain sense of the words unknowable. Christians have split on secondary issues for centuries without concluding the Bible says nothing clear about murder or the authority of government.

The same goes for the Mosaic penalties on adultery or Sabbath-breaking, or the limits placed on slavery. Those belong to specific old-covenant or historical settings (this is a thread to itself). They don't wipe out the repeated, clear lines on murder and the magistrate's sword. An error, even a serious one, on one question does not license selective skepticism about every other question the text addresses.

Invoking Scripture doesn't end every policy argument by magic, and interpretations still have to be defended. But the longstanding reading of Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13 is not some obscure interpretation. Setting it aside still requires a real argument. Selective skepticism doesn't give you one, because the identical human limits apply to whatever substandard substitute you prefer. It doesn't erase the gap between a clear text and a forced reading, and it leaves you administering justice on the shifting sands of popular opinion rather than on the rock of the plain language of Scripture.

---

I think we're closer to agreement than you may realize. You acknowledge that human fallibility doesn't preclude reliable interpretation, but also that interpretations must be defended. I agree with both propositions.

Your explanation of why the biblical death penalties for adultery and Sabbath violations no longer apply illustrates my point. You're using historical context, covenantal distinctions, and theological reasoning to determine which biblical prescriptions apply today. That's a legitimate approach, but it necessarily involves human interpretation and judgment.

I recognize that Genesis 9:6 and Romans 13 have long been interpreted as supporting capital punishment. But establishing that scripture permits a particular punishment is not necessarily the same as establishing that it requires that punishment, or that it's the most morally appropriate response under contemporary circumstances.

So I'd return to two questions: Why should murder be punished by death rather than life imprisonment? And even if we accept execution as an appropriate punishment, what moral justification exists for broadcasting it to the public?

Those questions deserve substantive answers. Simply establishing that scripture can be interpreted to authorize capital punishment doesn't fully answer either one.

---

Genesis 9:6 grounds the state's authority to take life for murder in the fact that the victim is made in God's image. That image is what sets human life apart, so deliberately destroying an image-bearer calls for a matched response. The same texts address bloodguilt, the unique guilt from shedding innocent blood. Numbers 35:33 says blood pollutes the land and no atonement can be made except by the blood of the one who shed it. Justice requires that liability to be discharged; lesser penalties don't do it.

Romans 13 places the sword in the magistrate's hand to carry out justice. Scripture distinguishes degrees of killing: the intentional murderer is subject to death, while accidental or unpremeditated killing may be spared. Once a homicide is judged intentional, the warrant for death is clear.

A prison sentence still gives the offender continued life and provisions the victims no longer have, paid for by an innocent society and, most perversely, by the victim's own family. It is certainly an insult to our community and civilization. I cannot imagine a greater insult to a victim's family. And it sets the same outer limit for murdering an image-bearer as for lesser crimes.

In premeditated mass murder, especially when the killer claimed a religious warrant for targeting soldiers, the gap is even wider. The act was calculated and framed as legitimate against dar al-harb. Lesser penalties do nothing distinctive to mark the value of the image of God or to settle the bloodguilt. Death is the penalty that matches the crime in both severity and finality instead of leaving the wrong unanswered in permanent custody.

I don't comment on the politics board much. I just want to say that I'm enjoying yalls thoughtful and respectful dialogue.