Christianity and the death penalty

[Penguin]

I have always been a Christian, but I have wandered from the church during my adult life. Over the past few months, I have re-discovered my faith and re-established my relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. In doing so, I have found myself correcting several of my opinions (corrected is the correct term, not flip-flopped :D). The death penalty is one of them.

I used to be a supporter of the death penalty, now, I can't possibly support it under any circumstance. Have we as Christians forgotten about The Great Commission? Jesus commanded us to save souls! Every soul is precious. Every soul is worth saving, even those who don't meet "our" standards. How can we possibly sleep at night if we are executing some people that may need years or even decades to comprehend and accept The Good News?

Is our new man-anointed Great Commission to send souls to Hell as quick as possible?

Perhaps one thinks we are better off following Old Testament law (eye for an eye)?

Or, are there people arguing for the death penalty because Jesus himself was sentenced to death and that our road to Salvation may be different if that had not happened?


I'm just curious. Does religion affect your opinion of the death penalty?

[Rogue]

Nope. I'm against it on purely rational grounds.

[Lott's Bandana]

I had a preacher explain it in the following terms:

Delayed Self-Defense.

I kinda liked that explanation. Simple, yet effective. If you believe in it, there's some rationalization for ya.

(I'm ducking my head now, just wanted to share a quote!!)


:pop:

[Rogue]

For the record, I'm not suggesting that you Penguin, or any other Christian is irrational. Just that I arrive at the same policy position (against the DP) for reasons that don't include religion.

[Harry Beanbag]

I've always found this to be an interesting topic. In general, the same people who support the death penalty oppose abortion, and the same people who oppose the death penalty support abortion with no restrictions.

[OUDoc]

I'm all for the death penalty, especially with what's happened to my family lately. Some people don't deserve to live.

[C&CDean]

I think you bumped your head when you spent time in the hoosegow.

[Rogue]

I've always found this to be an interesting topic. In general, the same people who support the death penalty oppose abortion, and the same people who oppose the death penalty support abortion with no restrictions.

True. Except for the church in Rome.

[Ike]

For the record, I'm for anything that reduces traffic...


But, even though I'm for the death penalty, I think it should have some restrictions on its use. I think there should be some criteria (what that is, I don't know) regarding certainty of guilt. I know, I know, we are supposed to only convict when a guy (or gal) is proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. But sometimes we don't, and sometimes we convict the innocent for some pretty terrible crimes. I don't think we can be perfect about it, but I think we can get closer to that standard than we already are.

[Rogue]

I don't think we can be perfect about it...
That right there is why I can't ever support it.

[mdklatt]

sometimes we convict the innocent for some pretty terrible crimes

That's my primary objection against it.



I don't think we can be perfect about it, but I think we can get closer to that standard than we already are.

If we can't be perfect about it, we shouldn't be doing it. That's a pretty big "oops", and one that isn't necessary. Isn't a life-with-no-parole-and-we-mean-it sentence good enough? Why do we need to satisfy our blood lust? Life in prison is cheaper than a death sentence when all is said and done, and probably more of a punishment once you think about it.

[Veritas]

Is God so weak that he cannot act to save a man's soul before he is executed?

Maybe this is a little "Dean" but some pieces of **** need killing. We shame the victims by pitying the criminals.

[salth2o]

That right there is why I can't ever support it.

Using that rationale, how do you support the justice system at all? It is an imperfect system, not just the death penalty.

There are many accused but innocent offenders sitting in jails all across the country. Should we let all offenders go?

I was raised in a church, a Christian, and and strongly support the death penalty. Eye for an eye.

[mdklatt]

I've always found this to be an interesting topic. In general, the same people who support the death penalty oppose abortion, and the same people who oppose the death penalty support abortion with no restrictions.

Most people who support the death penalty also claim to want smaller government, but if killing people isn't the ultimate government intrusion I don't know what is. Does the Libertarian party support the death penalty?

[mdklatt]

There are many accused offenders sitting in cells that are innocent. Should we let them all go?


Are you seriously asking if we should let wrongly-convicted people out of jail?

[mdklatt]

I was raised in a church, a Christian, and and strongly support the death penalty. Eye for an eye.

Isn't that in the Old Testament? I thought the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. What about, "judge not lest ye be judged"?

[Harry Beanbag]

Are you seriously asking if we should let wrongly-convicted people out of jail?


By "accused" I think he meant awaiting trial. I hope so at least.

[salth2o]

Are you seriously asking if we should let wrongly-convicted people out of jail?

I am asking if he thinks we should let everyone go! Since the justice system is not perfect...that's what his rationale implied.

If someone is innocent...they should be free.

I am writing a paper and doing this at the same time...sorry if I was not clear.

[Rogue]

Using that rationale, how do you support the justice system at all? It is an imperfect system, not just the death penalty.

There are many accused offenders sitting in cells that are innocent. Should we let them all go?


My rationale is that other forms of punishment aren't so permanent as killling a mf'er. That right there is something you can't undo. You can't dig a d00d back up and say, "sorry we had the wrong d00d." True you can't give a feller back years of his life if he's wrongly imprisoned, but again it is undo-able.

I also happen to think that the state's primary function is to ensure our safety and it's never the state's prerogative to take a life of any of its citizens.

[Sooner98]

If you're looking for biblical justification for support of the death penalty, here it is:

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." - Genesis 9:6

This is part of the covenant that God made with Noah, after the flood. I believe that this is an everlasting condition that was made, and should still apply today. The covenant God made with Abraham, on the other hand, was made specifically for the nation of Israel (for example, the laws dealing with sacrifices, etc.), and does not apply to Christians today. However, as Doc said earlier, some people just don't deserve to live, and taking another person's life is apparently a serious enough offense in the eyes of God, that it is justification for that person to lose his own life. That's how I see it, anyway.

[mdklatt]

I am asking if he thinks we should let everyone go! Since the justice system is not perfect...that's what his rationale implied.

You can always let somebody out of jail if they're innocent. You can't un-execute them.



If they are innocent...they should be free.

Yes, people who are innocent should be let free. :confused:

[Soonrboy]

Forgiveness is divine, and I would like to think I can follow this teaching of Jesus. However, I don't know how divine I could be if something happened to my children.

[JohnnyMack]

I support the death penalty and a woman's right to choose.

I also support a lifetime ban of Harry Beanbag from this site.

[Rogue]

I am asking if he thinks we should let everyone go! Since the justice system is not perfect...that's what his rationale implied.
Nope, just the ones that aren't guilty.


If someone is innocent...they should be free. Yup, I agree.

[Paperclip]

Isn't that in the Old Testament? I thought the New Testament supersedes the Old Testament. What about, "judge not lest ye be judged"?

That refers to judging someone's spiritual condition. It has nothing to do with this argument.

[mdklatt]

taking another person's life is apparently a serious enough offense in the eyes of God, that it is justification for that person to lose his own life

Why does God need us to intervene on his behalf?

[Harry Beanbag]

I support the death penalty and a woman's right to choose.

I also support a lifetime ban of Harry Beanbag from this site.


Even if I'm innocent?

[Veritas]

Even if I'm innocent?
*snortsnickers* Yeah. You're innocent. :D

[mdklatt]

That refers to judging someone's spiritual condition. It has nothing to do with this argument.

How about THOU SHALT NOT KILL? I guess there's an asterisk on that one.

[Paperclip]

I've always found this to be an interesting topic. In general, the same people who support the death penalty oppose abortion, and the same people who oppose the death penalty support abortion with no restrictions.

I'm willing to trade the death penalty for doing away with abortion.

[Sooner98]

Why does God need us to intervene on his behalf?

If He didn't, then why would He have ever given Noah that condition in Genesis 9:6 to begin with? There are examples of tasks that God gave man all throughout the Old and New Testaments.

[starrca23]

If you read the Old Testament you will see several times when God himself used the death penalty. See: Sodom and Gamorra, the Flood. While the Bible does speak of God's love, it also states that vengence is the Lord's, that God is an angry God. Jesus himself said, Think ye that I came to bring peace? Nay, but to divide... Sadly, most (I didn't say all) Christians have watered down Christianity to be nothing more than love and flowers. The point to this ramble is that we all want the grace of God with out his judgment. So an eye for an eye is both Biblical and practical. Besides why should my tax dollars go to keep a murder on death row when Oklahoma ranks 48th nationally in per pupil spending for education?

[Paperclip]

How about THOU SHALT NOT KILL? I guess there's an asterisk on that one.

How about you study the scriptures and see what it says instead of cherry picking a verse or two you've heard somewhere.

[soonerinabilene]

I am one of those that support the death penalty, and am against abortion. My belief is that the innocent child that is killed in an abortion is just that, an INNOCENT CHILD. I believe that life happens at the moment of conception. I believe that a guilty man on death row cannot be compared to an unborn child. Another interesting question is why do most people that are pro-abortion believe that if you kill a woman who is pregnant, you should be charged for killing her and the baby. But that is a different topic altogether.

[mdklatt]

How about you study the scriptures and see what it says instead of cherry picking a verse or two you've heard somewhere.

A whole lot of people want the Ten Commandments displayed in schools and courthouses and everywhere else as the basis of our society. That is one of those commandments.

[def_lazer_fc]

That's my primary objection against it.


ditto

[olevetonahill]

I had a preacher explain it in the following terms:

Delayed Self-Defense.

I kinda liked that explanation. Simple, yet effective. If you believe in it, there's some rationalization for ya.

(I'm ducking my head now, just wanted to share a quote!!)


:pop:

Why duck ? No one can Neg Ya , Ya punanny.

[olevetonahill]

I'm all for the death penalty, especially with what's happened to my family lately. Some people don't deserve to live.

spek
Oh wait
HEH

[mdklatt]

Another interesting question is why do most people that are pro-abortion believe that if you kill a woman who is pregnant, you should be charged for killing her and the baby.

I don't know, I've talked to plenty of people who think that law is inconsistent and needs to be fixed.

[Boarder]

I would argue that Biblical justification releases the believer of guilt from ending another human life. Otherwise, unless you had a personal stake in the case what good would putting someone to death rather than removing them from society do for you personally? I'd venture that there are very few who have no stake in the case yet have lingering thoughts and grief over a convict who has gotten life without parole instead of death.

And, if you believe in the concept of eternity, what's a few extra years of life on Earth for the convict before God Himself enacts the vengeance that He promised?

[Kels]

Penguin, you ask a great question. I know that there are Christians who are against the death penalty. At the same time, most Evangelicals are for it.

Soonerinabilene makes the right distinction. Justice in the form of a legal execution sanctioned by the government is consistent with Romans 13. God granted authority to human governments to "bear the sword" against lawbreakers. If someone takes a life, then they should forfeit their own. Of course, only after due process (but the sentence should be swift IMO, not years of appeals).

There is no comparison with choosing to kill an innocent unborn child.

Though I disagree with Christians who are against the death penalty, it's not a point of contention with me. I know that some of my staff and students are probably on the other side of the issue than me.

If you are interested in the Evangelical perspective, I recommend Evangelical Ethics by Davis or Christian Ethics by Geisler.

[Okla-homey]

I oppose capital punishment because; 1) it is too arbitrarily applied; 2) it takes too long and costs too much; 3) if exculpatory evidence turns up years later that proves the convict's innocence and he's already dead, well, its too late; 4) only the US, the Communist and the Muslim states still use it; 5) for the really bad guys we want to hammer, life w/out possibility of parole actually does a better job of doing so -- remember how that piece of filfth that bombed the Murrah Building begged for his execution?

and for the record, I am an evangelical Christian.

[mdklatt]

only the US and the Muslim states still use it

This should give everybody pause.

[olevetonahill]

How about THOU SHALT NOT KILL? I guess there's an asterisk on that one.

The Correct Interpretation Is thou shall Not Murder.
According to your Interpretation. then when " If you have an Unruly son, Take him to the elders Of the city and they shall stone Him death" dont work either.

[def_lazer_fc]

If you read the Old Testament you will see several times when God himself used the death penalty. See: Sodom and Gamorra, the Flood. While the Bible does speak of God's love, it also states that vengence is the Lord's, that God is an angry God. Jesus himself said, Think ye that I came to bring peace? Nay, but to divide... Sadly, most (I didn't say all) Christians have watered down Christianity to be nothing more than love and flowers. The point to this ramble is that we all want the grace of God with out his judgment. So an eye for an eye is both Biblical and practical. Besides why should my tax dollars go to keep a murder on death row when Oklahoma ranks 48th nationally in per pupil spending for education?

you might be missing the point. the point is that everyone on death row is not guaranteed by god that they are guilty. many cases have illustrated this point. with that said, those that don't agree with the death penalty are just saying that such an ultimate punishment shouldn't be entrusted to human beings who can't determine without a doubt that the guilty party is indeed guilty. at least, thats not something i'd wanna do with a good chance of wrongly killing someone, even if it is uncommon.

[Okla-homey]

This should give everybody pause.

I had to go back and edit that. The CHICOMs use it too.

[mdklatt]

The Correct Interpretation Is thou shall Not Murder.


That depends on who you ask. The Catholic version (I think the Jewish version, too) is "shall not KILL".

[olevetonahill]

you might be missing the point. the point is that everyone on death row is not guaranteed by god that they are guilty. many cases have illustrated this point. with that said, those that don't agree with the death penalty are just saying that such an ultimate punishment shouldn't be entrusted to human beings who can't determine without a doubt that the guilty party is indeed guilty. at least, thats not something i'd wanna do with a good chance of wrongly killing someone, even if it is uncommon.

But if yer a Christian, They are Guaranteed Salvation If they But ask .
Now I dont think any one who has ever Been exonerated from the DP where ever completly Innocent .
I worked as a Prison Gaurd In the early 70s after the riot at Big Mac
every Damn one of em was only In there Cause they sang to Loud In church:rolleyes:

[salth2o]

I oppose capital punishment because; 1) it is too arbitrarily applied; 2) it takes too long and costs too much; 3) if exculpatory evidence turns up years later that proves the convict's innocence and he's already dead, well, its too late; 4) only the US, the Communist and the Muslim states still use it; 5) for the really bad guys we want to hammer, life w/out possibility of parole actually does a better job of doing so -- remember how that piece of filfth that bombed the Murrah Building begged for his execution?

and for the record, I am an evangelical Christian.

Does it cost more to execute someone or to keep them locked up for life?

[Okla-homey]

That depends on who you ask. The Catholic version (I think the Jewish version, too) is "shall not KILL".


I really think the consensus view on the correct interpretation is Thou Shalt Not Murder.

[mdklatt]

I had to go back and edit that. The CHICOMs use it too.

Even better. I'm sure you can add NK to the list, too.

It's like Oklahoma being one of the last two states to support cockfighting.

[olevetonahill]

Does it cost more to execute someone or to keep them locked up for life?

with all the appeals they Get the Lids of the world Get rich .
Its cheaper to Just lock em Up . But that being said some Maggots need to Just die a horrible Death .:pop:

[Okla-homey]

Does it cost more to execute someone or to keep them locked up for life?

I think it costs more to keep a guy on death row because of all the costly appellate shenanigans. And no, we can't eliminate that stuff without changing the Constitution.

[olevetonahill]

Even better. I'm sure you can add NK to the list, too.

It's like Oklahoma being one of the last two states to support cockfighting.

I like Fightin Mycock against some things
Just sayin:D

[salth2o]

I think it costs more to keep a guy on death row because of all the costly appellate shenanigans. And no, we can't eliminate that stuff without changing the Constitution.

That's what one of the CJ instructors at my campus said...I thought she was crazy...guess not.

[Lott's Bandana]

Why duck ? No one can Neg Ya , Ya punanny.

I thought I'd get the chair for sayin it.
;)

[mdklatt]

I really think the consensus view on the correct interpretation is Thou Shalt Not Murder.

Consensus of who? I think there are more Catholics than all the other Christian sects put together. Just a guess that the Eastern Orthodox folks go with the Catholic interpretation, which definitely tips the scales in that direction. And since the Jews literally wrote the book, I think their interpretation should carry a lot of weight.

Consensus in this case doesn't matter, though, because people are going to believe what they're going to believe.

[Lott's Bandana]

Sometimes it is used as punishment.

Sometimes an argument is made that it can be a deterrent.

It certainly deters the one it is used against.

[olevetonahill]

I thought I'd get the chair for sayin it.
;)

heh

[def_lazer_fc]

But if yer a Christian, They are Guaranteed Salvation If they But ask .
Now I dont think any one who has ever Been exonerated from the DP where ever completly Innocent .
I worked as a Prison Gaurd In the early 70s after the riot at Big Mac
every Damn one of em was only In there Cause they sang to Loud In church:rolleyes:

so you are basing your belief that every convicted person scheduled to be executed should be b/c you worked somewhere damn near 40 years ago and you (as a human with no all knowing powers that we know of) think that every person being executed is at least guilty of something :rolleyes:

if i turned out to be innocent but was killed, i wouldn't think salvation is all that great of a door prize.

[olevetonahill]

Consensus of who? I think there are more Catholics than all the other Christian sects put together. Just a guess that the Eastern Orthodox folks go with the Catholic interpretation, which definitely tips the scales in that direction. And since the Jews literally wrote the book, I think their interpretation should carry a lot of weight.

Consensus in this case doesn't matter, though, because people are going to believe what they're going to believe.

the Old testament was written In Hebrew IIRC:pop:

[mdklatt]

This...



Sometimes an argument is made that it can be a deterrent.


...is only true in this case:



It certainly deters the one it is used against.

It seems to me that murders fall into three categories:

1) Career criminals killing somebody during the commission of some other crime. Career criminals don't put a lot of thought into the the consequences of their actions, don't have very good judgment in the first place, and/or simply don't care what happens to them. The murder was probably a heat-of-the-moment decision. No deterrent value.

2) Crimes of passion. Obviously no deterrent value (and usually no death penalty imposed).

3) Cold-blooded executions. These are people who put a lot of planning into it. They don't think they're going to get caught. Or, going out in a blaze of glory is part of the plan, like the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings. No deterrent.

[olevetonahill]

so you are basing your belief that every convicted person scheduled to be executed should be b/c you worked somewhere damn near 40 years ago and you (as a human with no all knowing powers that we know of) think that every person being executed is at least guilty of something :rolleyes:

if i turned out to be innocent but was killed, i wouldn't think salvation is all that great of a door prize.

But you Might get 70 Virgins. Ever think of that ?
There are NO innocent folks In prison.
I worked in the womens ward one Nite and spent a few Hrs TALKIN (pervs)
with a Female trusty, The Only Diff Between Her and I was She got Caught .:eek:

[Penguin]

If you are interested in the Evangelical perspective, I recommend Evangelical Ethics by Davis or Christian Ethics by Geisler.


Thanks, I'll check it out.

[def_lazer_fc]

people are so outraged by public executions in other countries but does it make it any better to throw a curtain over it? public beheadings? is it somehow better if we kill them with more high tech means?

[def_lazer_fc]

There are NO innocent folks In prison.


that seems like the end all be all statement that only, i dunno...god, could make.

[mdklatt]

the Old testament was written In Hebrew IIRC

Well, you're certainly old enough to have been around to see it. :D

[def_lazer_fc]

besides the fact that your statement has been proven wrong so many times.:D :rolleyes:

[Lott's Bandana]

This...



...is only true in this case:




It seems to me that murders fall into three categories:

1) Career criminals killing somebody during the commission of some other crime. Career criminals don't put a lot of thought into the the consequences of their actions, don't have very good judgment in the first place, and/or simply don't care what happens to them. The murder was probably a heat-of-the-moment decision. No deterrent value.

Don't bother with the alcohol swab, they aren't gonna worry about no infection any more.

2) Crimes of passion. Obviously no deterrent value (and usually no death penalty imposed).

3) Cold-blooded executions. These are people who put a lot of planning into it. They don't think they're going to get caught. Or, going out in a blaze of glory is part of the plan, like the Columbine or Virginia Tech shootings. No deterrent.

May I suggest the Fargo method of "rubbish" removal on this one?


:hot:

[mdklatt]

Don't bother with the alcohol swab, they aren't gonna worry about no infection any more.


Heh. I've always wondered why they bother with that.

[TopDawg]

If you read the Old Testament you will see several times when God himself used the death penalty. See: Sodom and Gamorra, the Flood. While the Bible does speak of God's love, it also states that vengence is the Lord's, that God is an angry God.

Up to this point it sounds like you're saying "In the Bible, God handles the evil-doers with his own method of punishment."


Jesus himself said, Think ye that I came to bring peace? Nay, but to divide...

And Jesus, as the Son of God, is a continuation of that.

My point here is that (as Christians I think we all believe that) God, and Jesus', judgment is perfect. Therefore, his punishment (however you view it as being handed out) is perfect. As humans, ours is not. Like several have pointed out, sometimes our courts mess it up. If we, as members of a society that uses the death penalty, kill an innocent person (or, at least, someone innocent of murder) are we not also murderers? Perhaps it IS all fine and good if we shed the blood of a man who shed someone else's blood (although I'm not sure I agree with that either) but what if we shed the blood of someone who didn't? Then whose blood gets shed for that one?


Sadly, most (I didn't say all) Christians have watered down Christianity to be nothing more than love and flowers.

To me the sad part is that some Christians have taken on the role of God in doling out righteous judgment, and punishment, of others...whether it be their spiritual life or their actions. "The Bible says God did it, why can't I do it too?!" I think that's a bad place to come from.

Clearly there are a lot of what seem to be contradictions in the Bible. When I run across them, I turn to the passages where Jesus instructs us on how to live our lives...not on historical passages that tell us about how things were.

[tommieharris91]

That depends on who you ask. The Catholic version (I think the Jewish version, too) is "shall not KILL".

The stance the Catholic Church takes is against the death penalty. Their reasoning is, basically, that thou shalt not kill takes precedent eye for an eye.

[mdklatt]

If we, as members of a society that uses the death penalty, kill an innocent person (or, at least, someone innocent of murder) are we not also murderers? Perhaps it IS all fine and good if we shed the blood of a man who shed someone else's blood (although I'm not sure I agree with that either) but what if we shed the blood of someone who didn't? Then whose blood gets shed for that one?

This opens a huge can of worms when it comes to war, too. We know that innocent people are going to be killed when we deploy the military in any meaningful way. This is especially problematic for--ahem--preemptive actions.

[olevetonahill]

Well, you're certainly old enough to have been around to see it. :D

I aint as Old as dirt But I did Help throw out the 1st few Shovels Full:D

[olevetonahill]

besides the fact that your statement has been proven wrong so many times.:D :rolleyes:

No son think about what I said " there are NO innocents In prison "
They May be Innocent of the crime they are convicted Of , But they dayum sure guilty Of others , and some worse than what they Got Sentenced for
Just sayin

[mdklatt]

They May be Innocent of the crime they are convicted Of , But they dayum sure guilty Of others , and some worse than what they Got Sentenced for
Just sayin

That's probably true for most of them, but it's certainly not true for all them.

[olevetonahill]

This opens a huge can of worms when it comes to war, too. We know that innocent people are going to be killed when we deploy the military in any meaningful way. This is especially problematic for--ahem--preemptive actions.

then I should be put to death?
ok , I nevar tho id live to see 19 anyway :rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

That's probably true for most of them, but it's certainly not true for all them.

In the Immortal words Of BRR "ill bet Ya a Pizza "
How you think those clowns Became suspects in the 1st place ?
Walkin down the ****ing street Holding their Girls Hand :rolleyes:

[Lott's Bandana]

This opens a huge can of worms when it comes to war, too. We know that innocent people are going to be killed when we deploy the military in any meaningful way. This is especially problematic for--ahem--preemptive actions.

Some people's definition of innocents being killed is much diff from ours.

Read: Hundreds of stockbrokers working in really tall buildings.

[mdklatt]

then I should be put to death?
ok , I nevar tho id live to see 19 anyway :rolleyes:

An individual soldier in battle is not knowingly committing murder (hopefully) when he pulls the trigger. On the other hand, we are all in a sense committing murder by putting our military in a situation where we know innocent people are going to get killed.

Tactically innocent, but strategically guilty.

[mdklatt]

Some people's definition of innocents being killed is much diff from ours.


That doesn't justify the killing of innocent people somewhere else, does it? We're talking in a Biblical sense, remember.

From a purely secular point of view, hell yeah, bomb the **** out of Afghanistan, and if a some innocent women and children end up as collateral damage I'm not going to lose any sleep over it as long as we're doing our best to minimize civilian casualties. However, that seems like the heathen's point of view to me--and I should know, because I'm a heathen.

[Vaevictis]

Why does God need us to intervene on his behalf?

God doesn't need our intervention. God demands it (in some passages). There's a difference.


How about THOU SHALT NOT KILL? I guess there's an asterisk on that one.

Translational error. The meaning in English is not exactly what it should be.

This one of the places that lead me to call shenanigans on literal interpretation of the Bible -- at least some meaning is known to be lost to time and human error; how much more is unknown?


If you read the Old Testament you will see several times when God himself used the death penalty.

Man is not God. Man may not presume to do something merely because God does.

That is not to say that Man is forbidden the death penalty; in fact, it is explicitly called for in some cases. I am merely stating that your argument in this case is not only bogus, it could easily be construed as a certain form of hubris that is explicitly warned against.

-------------------------------

Regarding Biblical justification for the death penalty:

If you support the death penalty on the basis that it is called for in some crimes, you must also support it for all cases it is called for.

Otherwise, get the **** off, hypocrite.

Just for a little specificity, that means a rather large chunk of you folks out there who are divorced and married and/or are married to someone who has divorced in the past.

You and your spouse are dead under The Law, according to my understanding. Unless the divorce was sanctioned under The Law -- most aren't -- you are adulterers, both. Report to the local slaughterhouse, if you please.

You folks out there that disrespected your parents as kids? Yeah, you too.

etc, etc.

--------------------------------

As for me, it is my opinion there are certain things that exist which are biologically human, and yet are not human. There is no crime in killing these things.

Among these are certain criminals who have forfeited their humanity through especially heinous crimes and continued adherence to the moral code that permitted those crimes in the first place. You'd put down a mad dog, right? Same damn thing, in my opinion.

Whether you can trust the justice system to make this distinction is another matter, and I give full credit to those folks who don't believe you can. Personally, I am sympathetic to that view.

[TopDawg]

I think we also lose focus of the real point (of Christianity, not the death penalty debate) when we focus too much on issues like the death penalty.

In Matthew 5:21-22 it sounds to me like Jesus is basically saying "Yes, murder is wrong. Anyone who murders someone will have to answer to their government. But I'm telling you that Christianity demands more. If you're going to follow me, forget about murder...you can't even be angry with other people. If you let anger overcome you, the government is the least of your worries...you're in danger of the fires of hell."

I mean, it's a fun issue to debate...the death penalty and all...and I think there's some good that comes out of it. But it's important for Christians to not get so caught up in how we punish others that we forget Jesus' extremely high calling for how we are to live our own lives.

[Vaevictis]

I think we also lose focus of the real point (of Christianity, not the death penalty debate) when we focus too much on issues like the death penalty.

(...)

I think there's some good that comes out of it. But it's important for Christians to not get so caught up in how we punish others that we forget Jesus' extremely high calling for how we are to live our own lives.

Absolutely. However, you still must obey the Lord. I think the implication is that if the Lord requires the death penalty in certain cases, you must do so with an obedient heart, not a vengeful one.

Invoking my above comment that Man is not God, I infer from this that vengeance is God's prerogative, not Man's. Man may be the instrument of God's vengeance, but must not do so for his own sake.

[TopDawg]

Absolutely. However, you still must obey the Lord. I think the implication is that if the Lord requires the death penalty in certain cases, you must do so with an obedient heart, not a vengeful one.

And then, as you outlined above, the question is "when does the Lord require the death penalty?" There are certainly instances in the Bible where his requirements are MUCH more harsh than what we currently abide by.

Is it okay for us to compromise His law just so we feel more comfortable being the instruments of his vengeance? It seems to me that we've already answered "yes" which is why we're having the debate. But is "yes" the right answer?

[Vaevictis]

Is it okay for us to compromise His law just so we feel more comfortable being the instruments of his vengeance?

No, it's not.

Which is why I say: If you think that the death penalty is justified by the Old Testament, you don't get to pick and choose. Where the death penalty is called for, you must apply it.

Fair?

[Ike]

No, it's not.

Which is why I say: If you think that the death penalty is justified by the Old Testament, you don't get to pick and choose. Where the death penalty is called for, you must apply it.

Fair?


Crap. According to that logic, I'm screwed. I haven't kept the sabbath holy in years.

I'm pretty sure I've been blasphemous too.

Obviously, I don't deserve to live.

[TopDawg]

No, it's not.

Which is why I say: If you think that the death penalty is justified by the Old Testament, you don't get to pick and choose. Where the death penalty is called for, you must apply it.

Fair?

I wasn't asking you...you had already made your answer clear. :D

I think it's extremely fair. But it probably causes some folks to pause...myself included. As far as having a consistent ethic on the issue, it seems much more consistent to be completely opposed to the death penalty in any circumstance than to argue that the Bible calls for it but then arbitrarily decide when it should be applied and, in the process, eliminate some of the cases where the Bible calls for it.

But while I think it's much more consistent to be completely opposed to it, I realize that doesn't necessarily make it the correct stance. You bring up some good points.

[Penguin]

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, unless that person has broken one of the Ten Commandments."


Is this the way some Christians read John 3:16?

[olevetonahill]

so you are basing your belief that every convicted person scheduled to be executed should be b/c you worked somewhere damn near 40 years ago and you (as a human with no all knowing powers that we know of) think that every person being executed is at least guilty of something :rolleyes:

if i turned out to be innocent but was killed, i wouldn't think salvation is all that great of a door prize.

Got Nuting to do with where I worked Or when:rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

An individual soldier in battle is not knowingly committing murder (hopefully) when he pulls the trigger. On the other hand, we are all in a sense committing murder by putting our military in a situation where we know innocent people are going to get killed.

Tactically innocent, but strategically guilty.

So you did it ? you Bastage an Ive felt this guilt all these Years :rolleyes:

[olevetonahill]

I think we also lose focus of the real point (of Christianity, not the death penalty debate) when we focus too much on issues like the death penalty.

In Matthew 5:21-22 it sounds to me like Jesus is basically saying "Yes, murder is wrong. Anyone who murders someone will have to answer to their government. But I'm telling you that Christianity demands more. If you're going to follow me, forget about murder...you can't even be angry with other people. If you let anger overcome you, the government is the least of your worries...you're in danger of the fires of hell."

I mean, it's a fun issue to debate...the death penalty and all...and I think there's some good that comes out of it. But it's important for Christians to not get so caught up in how we punish others that we forget Jesus' extremely high calling for how we are to live our own lives.

" Render Unto Caesar the things that are Caesars "
Yall dont make me drag out My Strongs an 5 Volume set Of Matthew HenryCommentary Plus MY Bible Ok ?;)

[olevetonahill]

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, unless that person has broken one of the Ten Commandments."


Is this the way some Christians read John 3:16?

Nope Bro Its Not the way Anyone should read it .
IF your really serious about Learning More then May I suggest you do what I did ? Take your Bible, Go Off into the woods (wilderness )Read it thru as Many times as you Can and Pray witout ceasing , And Hope to Hell God answers you .

[Okla-homey]

Consensus of who? I think there are more Catholics than all the other Christian sects put together. Just a guess that the Eastern Orthodox folks go with the Catholic interpretation, which definitely tips the scales in that direction. And since the Jews literally wrote the book, I think their interpretation should carry a lot of weight.

Consensus in this case doesn't matter, though, because people are going to believe what they're going to believe.

consensus among Hebrew scholars.

[swardboy]

Romans 13:1-4 (New Testament for you biblical illiterates) clearly speaks to the God-ordained idea of government that is intended to instill fear in the person who would not live under authority. Good behavior is rewarded, but evil behavior is avenged by the ministry of government: "It is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."

Christians are under grace in the church community. But the world is still under "law", in which God expects judgement equal to the infraction under government control.

[85Sooner]

Abortion= Killing the innocent
Death Penalty = killing the guilty

nuff said

[olevetonahill]

Abortion= Killing the innocent
Death Penalty = killing the guilty

nuff said

spek Oh wait
HEH:rolleyes:

[stoops the eternal pimp]

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life, unless that person has broken one of the Ten Commandments."


Is this the way some Christians read John 3:16?

Penguin he did send his Son to die for people but he also still gave people a choice in their actions. Doesn't mean He didn't love them or didn't die for them..they make their choices with their actions...

Romans chapter 1 tells us that after a while, he will eventually just give people over to their own behavior and they suffer the consequences of their actions..

Paul, who wrote 2/3's of the new testament said “For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die” (Acts 25:11). By this, Paul admitted that there were offenses worthy of death and that the government had the right to administer death in those cases.

He further states in Romans that the powers that be (government) are ordained by God. They act as ministers of God for good. He further warns, “But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil” (Romans 13:4).

God Himself established the death penalty long before the law was given to Moses. He told Noah, “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man” (Gen.9:5).

Read Rev. 19 11 to 15 to see Jesus opinion on the death penalty when he comes back.

[TopDawg]

Paul, who wrote 2/3's of the new testament said “For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die” (Acts 25:11). By this, Paul admitted that there were offenses worthy of death and that the government had the right to administer death in those cases.

That could be interpreted as Paul simply admitting that there are crimes of which the earthly punishment is death. It doesn't necessarily mean that the punishment is justified by God.

Look at what he's talking about. He's talking about the Roman government killing him because he's spreading the word of God. Do you think God was okay with that use of the death penalty? According to what a lot of you are saying, God ordains the governments of the earth, therefore if the government says it's worthy of death, it's okay by God. So, then, couldn't Pilate have been "the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil"? Even if the evil being spoken of was being done by Jesus?

[C&CDean]

To all those against the DP, if a guy is butt-raping your 5 year old daughter in your hallway and you come home is it OK to cut him in half with the 12-gauge? Or if a guy is entering your bedroom with a gun in the middle of the night is it OK to plug him with the .357?

If you answered "yes" to either of these, then you are for the death penalty.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Paul though was one who patterned his life after Christ(after conversion), but it is definitely open to the interpretation of the individual, however you want to look at it..I look at it as though Paul responded the way he thought Christ would..

I guess the reason I don't get the Pilate reference is that Jesus didn't do anything deemed illegal..Thats why Pilate struggled with putting him to death..

[shaun4411]

as a non republican, non christian person who spent a majority of his life living in a country that has abolished the death penalty, i say fry 'em when they need fried.

[Hamhock]

i haven't read the whole thread, but I think the government's role as an administrator of civil law and your role as a believer are two separate things.

someone kills a member of my family: is it still possible for that person to receive forgiveness of sins? Yes. should i, upon repentance, be willing to extend genuine forgiveness to that person? Yes.

is that person still responsible to the civil government for his crimes? yes

[mdklatt]

i haven't read the whole thread, but I think the government's role as an administrator of civil law and your role as a believer are two separate things.


What are you supposed to do if the civil law doesn't jibe with your beliefs?

[Hamhock]

What are you supposed to do if the civil law doesn't jibe with your beliefs?

render unto Ceasar?

that's not an easy question to answer. i pay taxes that i don't "believe in", but i am subject to the government.

if the government required me to worship another God, I'd be out.

[Pieces Hit]

I didn't read all the posts and since no one reads mine that's okay.

But the actual hebrew translates "KILL" as "MURDER" in that there thou shalt not.

[shaun4411]

What are you supposed to do if the civil law doesn't jibe with your beliefs?

move to canada?

[Pieces Hit]

^^ and Murderers need Killin.

[Vaevictis]

render unto Ceasar?

that's not an easy question to answer. i pay taxes that i don't "believe in", but i am subject to the government.

if the government required me to worship another God, I'd be out.

Problem is that render unto Caesar is only clear-cut when you have an actual Caesar.

Under a government like ours where the citizenry has influence over the laws, how are you supposed to use that influence?

[mdklatt]

Under a government like ours where the citizenry has influence over the laws, how are you supposed to use that influence?

That's what I was getting at. It sounds like Hamhock was saying that Christians should just accept the death penalty because that's the law of the land, but what about, say, abortion laws? Do they have no duty to try to change them?

[soonerbrat]

I think you bumped your head when you spent time in the hoosegow.

naw, he just found Jesus

[Penguin]

naw, he just found Jesus

Jesus Gonzalez? Great guy. He said that if I ever find myself stranded in Mexico, look him up and he can smuggle me back across the border for $400.

[Sooner98]

people are so outraged by public executions in other countries but does it make it any better to throw a curtain over it? public beheadings? is it somehow better if we kill them with more high tech means?

Let me get this straight, are you drawing a moral equivalency between the beheading of Daniel Pearl and the execution of Timothy McVeigh?

[TopDawg]

I guess the reason I don't get the Pilate reference is that Jesus didn't do anything deemed illegal..Thats why Pilate struggled with putting him to death..

Blasphemy? Wasn't that deemed illegal?

Here's the account from Matthew 26:


57Those who had arrested Jesus took him to Caiaphas, the high priest, where the teachers of the law and the elders had assembled. 58But Peter followed him at a distance, right up to the courtyard of the high priest. He entered and sat down with the guards to see the outcome.

59The chief priests and the whole Sanhedrin were looking for false evidence against Jesus so that they could put him to death. 60But they did not find any, though many false witnesses came forward.

Finally two came forward 61and declared, "This fellow said, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and rebuild it in three days.' "

62Then the high priest stood up and said to Jesus, "Are you not going to answer? What is this testimony that these men are bringing against you?" 63But Jesus remained silent.
The high priest said to him, "I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ,[e] the Son of God."

64"Yes, it is as you say," Jesus replied. "But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven."

65Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, "He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. 66What do you think?"
"He is worthy of death," they answered.

In verse 64 Jesus claims to be the Son of God which, apparently according to the law of the land, was blasphemy and worthy of death.

At any rate, the example you gave with Paul seems to indicate that he feels like he's in danger of being put to death by the government for preaching the Gospel. It's government sanctioned, but does that mean it's okay by God? This kinda gets at the same issue that mdklatt and Vaev are discussing.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

yeah but the problem with the high priest accusations of blashphemy was that they weren't the law of the land at that point...If I m not mistaken, they were under Roman rule..it really be the same as me accusing you of a crime

Why? What crime has he committed?" asked Pilate. But they shouted all the louder, "Crucify him!"
Matthew 27:22-24..no crime given

[TopDawg]

yeah but the problem with the high priest accusations of blashphemy was that they weren't the law of the land at that point...If I m not mistaken, they were under Roman rule..it really be the same as me accusing you of a crime

Admittedly I'm not a historical scholar, but the way I understand it, he was taken before the Sanhedrin...a collection of judges, a part of the government...and they decided he was guilty of something worth the death penalty.

That seems like a pretty similar circumstance...just a little less formal than our process.

[C&CDean]

Geez. Jesus didn't kill anybody. Let's get back on point here.

[SoonerStormchaser]

My view is simple:
God gave us freewill...
Some people seem to have no regard for human life...thus they kill the innocent.
God gave us freewill to make sure that the guilty are punished. If you can't respect human life to the point where you have to kill an innocent person...then I believe you deserve to die yourself.

Then again, I think child predators and serial domestic abusers should be thrown in that boat too.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Admittedly I'm not a historical scholar, but the way I understand it, he was taken before the Sanhedrin...a collection of judges, a part of the government...and they decided he was guilty of something worth the death penalty.

That seems like a pretty similar circumstance...just a little less formal than our process.

right but they had to take him before the Romans, who could have let him go because he had not committed a crime against Rome, who was the ruling body....Pilate could not find fault

Luke 23:13-16 Pilate called together the chief priests, the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought me this man as the one who was inciting the people to rebellion. I have examined him in your presence and have found no basis for your charges against him...as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death. Therefore I will punish him and then release him."

Luke 23:7-11
When he [Pilate] learned that Jesus was under Herod's jurisdiction, he sent him to Herod who was also in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus...He plied him with many questions, but Jesus gave him no answer...Then Herod and his soldiers ridiculed and mocked him. Dressing him in an elegant robe, they sent him back to Pilate.

In the gospel of John, Pilate is made to repeat, on three separate occasions, the sentence: "I find no basis for a charge against him." (John 18:38;19:4,6)

Anyhow, I think in studying the bible, that there is nothing morally wrong with the death penalty...Sins are forgiven, but you still pay for your actions...

[LesNessman]

The stance the Catholic Church takes is against the death penalty. Their reasoning is, basically, that thou shalt not kill takes precedent eye for an eye.

This is not correct, at least clearly the first sentence. They do not heavily promote the death penalty, but are not against it completely. The Catchecism of the Catholic Church (CCC) is very clear on this.

The Church prefers bloodless mean of punishment to protect public order, but does not limit it to that. It does agree the death penalty, is cases extreme gravity.

CCC 2266, 2267.

Earlier sections also clarify Legitimate Defense.

[mdklatt]

If you can't respect human life to the point where you have to kill an innocent person...then I believe you deserve to die yourself.


Which brings us back to why should the death penalty be legal when it is a certainty that innocent people have been and will be executed? How much innocent "collateral damage" is it worth to you to have a death penalty? What if 1/1000 executions is a mistake, or even 1/10,0000. Is that acceptable? I say no, especially when life in prison is arguably more punishing to the offender than execution and less punishing to everyone else involved.

[tbl]

There are 7 pages in this thread and I'm just jumping in so I didn't read all of them, but the death penalty is obviously supported in the OT and is also supported in the NT.

Romans 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

The Greek word for "sword" is in reference to the sword of judgment used to condemn criminals. We are not to personally execute vengeance on those that do us wrong, but God has placed the governing authorities there to do it for us. This passage is very clear on what the death penalty should mean to Christians, which is why I believe a majority of Bible believing Christians support the death penalty.

Again I did not read through all 7 pages, but I'm hoping like crazy that somebody did not try to create an oxymoron by pointing out that the same Christians are also pro-life, as the comparison between a convicted murderer and an innocent child is not a comparison at all.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

you should have just read my posts and agreed with spek...errr a heh or something:D

[Boarder]

But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.

We are not to personally execute vengeance on those that do us wrong, but God has placed the governing authorities there to do it for us. This passage is very clear on what the death penalty should mean to Christians, which is why I believe a majority of Bible believing Christians support the death penalty.

For the underlined passage to be true, the definition of "wrath" would have to be the death penalty. Could not wrath include all punishments up to, but not including the death penalty?

[stoopified]

I support the death penalty in cases where the crime is particularly heinous.In the Old Testament there is a scripture that says IF A MAN COMMITS MURDER TAKE HIM EVEN FROM MY ALTAR AND PUT HIM TO DEATH.I am sorry to say I cannot recall the book/verse.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Austin 3:16

[Boarder]

To all those against the DP, if a guy is butt-raping your 5 year old daughter in your hallway and you come home is it OK to cut him in half with the 12-gauge? Or if a guy is entering your bedroom with a gun in the middle of the night is it OK to plug him with the .357?

If you answered "yes" to either of these, then you are for the death penalty.
You can have a belief that something is wrong and still go against it. Depends on the degree of strength of your particular belief. As long as your belief is past 50% one way or another, that's your belief.

I believe that fried foods are not good for me but it doesn't stop me from getting some Cain's chicken fingers (and feeling bad afterward).

[SoonerStormchaser]

Klatt...I'm not saying I'm totally for the DP as it exists now.
I think it should be reformed. The qualification needs to have irrefutable DNA evidence as well as eyewitnesses. None of this circumstantial or "we think" crap that's gotten all the bad press.

The DP is the one major hypocracy I see with the majority of Dems. They're all for letting people kill the innocent (the unborn) while they're against people killing the guilty.

[tbl]

For the underlined passage to be true, the definition of "wrath" would have to be the death penalty. Could not wrath include all punishments up to, but not including the death penalty?

No. Read what I said in regards to the Greek word used for sword. We have to take the passage into context and understand what the author was saying in the original language, and it was in reference to the death penalty.

Think back to the times it was written. There was a lot of corporal punishment, but the death penalty was used more often than even scourging (which would oftentimes result in death). You can't get around the death penalty by using the Bible.

[swardboy]

There are 7 pages in this thread and I'm just jumping in so I didn't read all of them, but the death penalty is obviously supported in the OT and is also supported in the NT.

Romans 13:1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same;
4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.
5 Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing.
7 Render to all what is due them: tax to whom tax is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.
8 Owe nothing to anyone except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.
9 For this, "YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY, YOU SHALL NOT MURDER, YOU SHALL NOT STEAL, YOU SHALL NOT COVET," and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, "YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF."

The Greek word for "sword" is in reference to the sword of judgment used to condemn criminals. We are not to personally execute vengeance on those that do us wrong, but God has placed the governing authorities there to do it for us. This passage is very clear on what the death penalty should mean to Christians, which is why I believe a majority of Bible believing Christians support the death penalty.

Again I did not read through all 7 pages, but I'm hoping like crazy that somebody did not try to create an oxymoron by pointing out that the same Christians are also pro-life, as the comparison between a convicted murderer and an innocent child is not a comparison at all.

Much the same as my Rom. 13 point earlier.

And here I would only add that God ordained 1) the family, 2) the church, and 3) human government.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

and then Wendy's

[Boarder]

No. Read what I said in regards to the Greek word used for sword. We have to take the passage into context and understand what the author was saying in the original language, and it was in reference to the death penalty.

Think back to the times it was written. There was a lot of corporal punishment, but the death penalty was used more often than even scourging (which would oftentimes result in death). You can't get around the death penalty by using the Bible.

Yes, the death penalty was used, but not all the time. Wouldn't it be more of a command to follow your country's (or current authority's) means of punishment, whatever that may be?

[Vaevictis]

The DP is the one major hypocracy I see with the majority of Dems. They're all for letting people kill the innocent (the unborn) while they're against people killing the guilty.

It's not hypocrisy if you don't believe it's a human until a certain stage of development.

[SoonerStormchaser]

It sure as **** is if you've gone through what I've had to go through!

[Boarder]

It sure as **** is if you've gone through what I've had to go through!
Doesn't matter (in the grand sense, not in your particular case) what you've had to go through. The belief in at what point life starts is the key to the abortion debate.

[Vaevictis]

It sure as **** is if you've gone through what I've had to go through!

You might disagree with the position, but it doesn't make it hypocrisy.

[LePetomaine]

Well, this is a deep one. I'll try to keep it short, but can't promise such a result. My position: the death penalty just does not work.

Starting point: don't get me wrong; it takes little stretch of my imagination to fashion a scenario in which I would administer the ultimate punishment myself, with a dull rusty steak knife, a bottle of rubbing alcohol, a small claw hammer, and no time limit. I am not afraid of it; some people just do things that warrant a quicker ticket south than others. That said, the problems the death penalty poses have grown to the point where it seems better to just take it out of the equation (after all, a 73 year baking in a 10 x 8 box sounds less than pleasant to me). Some thoughts:

it is expensive -- trial teams, appeal teams, jury pools, etc. are all increased from the get go in a death penalty trial. If the defendant is indigent, we pay both teams. The appeal process can go on for a very long time (after all, there is no mulligan on this one). Take the death penalty out of the equation, and we don't deal with these issues.

is it a deterrent -- no, see mdklatt's reasons above, no need to repeat them. It just doesn't enter the killer's mind these days.

is there a risk of killing an innocent defendent -- yes, recent cases of new DNA evidence have shown this. We tend to jump this hurdle with the argument that Johnny Dirtbag, while not necessarily guilty of the single offense for which he was convicted, certainly was guilty of the seven other killings that we're pretty sure he conducted. I tend to lean toward that thinking; but, again take the death penalty out of the equation and we don't even have to have that discussion.

is there a societal desire for punishment / retribution - yes, this is our breaking issue (see starting point above). I cannot imagine the emotions attached to some of the death penalty cases we see in here in Texas. but I think I ultimately come back to the idea that one hour of day light for you, Mr Badguy, for the rest of your breathing days will allow the rest of us to move on with confidence.

Sorry for the ramble

[stoops the eternal pimp]

are you related to BRJ?

[BigRedJed]

It's a deep well?

[SoonerStormchaser]

You might disagree with the position, but it doesn't make it hypocrisy.

Really? Because it seems to me that the whole concept of the pro-choice crowd is based upon the premise of "I don't want to take responsiblity for my actions." (Rape, incest, life of mother, life of child aside...as most of us pro-lifers agree that these are acceptable for an abortion) But when it comes to the DP, they're all "We don't want to kill those who have no regard for human life."

[BigRedJed]

:les: TIMING RUINER!!!

[BigRedJed]

:les: TIMING RUINER!!

[Boarder]

Really? Because it seems to me that the whole concept of the pro-choice crowd is based upon the premise of "I don't want to take responsiblity for my actions." (Rape, incest, life of mother, life of child aside...as most of us pro-lifers agree that these are acceptable for an abortion) But when it comes to the DP, they're all "We don't want to kill those who have no regard for human life."
It's my understanding that pro-choicers are fine with the option to be there for anyone (whether or not they'd actually do it) up to the point where it is absolutely determined that the life is there. Then it becomes taboo, bordering on murder.

[JohnnyMack]

Really? Because it seems to me that the whole concept of the pro-choice crowd is based upon the premise of "I don't want to take responsiblity for my actions." (Rape, incest, life of mother, life of child aside...as most of us pro-lifers agree that these are acceptable for an abortion) But when it comes to the DP, they're all "We don't want to kill those who have no regard for human life."

:rolleyes:

[Vaevictis]

Really? Because it seems to me that the whole concept of the pro-choice crowd is based upon the premise of "I don't want to take responsiblity for my actions." (Rape, incest, life of mother, life of child aside...as most of us pro-lifers agree that these are acceptable for an abortion) But when it comes to the DP, they're all "We don't want to kill those who have no regard for human life."

If you don't believe that it's a human life until X weeks, then abortion (by definition) isn't killing a human being until that point in time.

Whether you agree with the position or not is irrelevant. The fact is that the position is not inconsistent with opposing the death penalty, and hence, is not hypocrisy.

[Vaevictis]

And truly, you want to talk about a hypocritical position?

If it's an innocent human life from conception, then aborting in cases of rape or incest is the murder of an innocent human being.

THAT is hypocrisy.

[Vaevictis]

It's my understanding that pro-choicers are fine with the option to be there for anyone (whether or not they'd actually do it) up to the point where it is absolutely determined that the human life is there. Then it becomes taboo, bordering on murder.

Sorry, had to fix that. The distinction is important.

[Boarder]

What, they're gonna have a batboy?

:D

[Vaevictis]

What, they're gonna have a batboy?

You can accept that the cluster of cells is alive without accepting that it constitutes a human.

Rather like I accept that certain sub-human scum are alive without acknowledging that they are still human.

[tbl]

Yes, the death penalty was used, but not all the time. Wouldn't it be more of a command to follow your country's (or current authority's) means of punishment, whatever that may be?

Indeed, and in this country the DP is constitutionally allowed.

[sooner_born_1960]

And truly, you want to talk about a hypocritical position?

If it's an innocent human life from conception, then aborting in cases of rape or incest is the murder of an innocent human being.

THAT is hypocrisy.
You are absolutley correct. It's murder regardless of the means of conception.

[Boarder]

Yes, but your lack of acknowledgment does not remove from them the fact they are human.

Normally, I would have just sent you a spek saying I knew what you were saying. I suppose this is a way to get post counts up. hehe

[tbl]

And truly, you want to talk about a hypocritical position?

If it's an innocent human life from conception, then aborting in cases of rape or incest is the murder of an innocent human being.

THAT is hypocrisy.

I agree with this. You either believe it is a human life or you don't. The method through which that child was created does not make him/her any less human, and thus deserving of life.

[Hamhock]

I agree with this. You either believe it is a human life or you don't. The method through which that child was created does not make him/her any less human, and thus deserving of life.

heh.

but not really a "heh". more like "i agree".

[TopDawg]

stoops/pimp...

Well, I'm not sure about the whole Jesus/Sanhedrin/Pilate thing. I think we agree that it was the government who put Jesus to death, but we disagree about whether or not he did something wrong (in the eyes of the government). Right?

Either way, it seems to me that Paul (in the example you used) is saying "The government might put me to death for preaching the gospel, but that's a price I'm willing to pay." Doesn't that seem to indicate that the government at the time saw gospel-spreading as a crime punishable by death?


Anyhow, I think in studying the bible, that there is nothing morally wrong with the death penalty...Sins are forgiven, but you still pay for your actions...

But getting back to a point raised earlier, in studying the Bible you could conclude that there is nothing morally wrong with using the death penalty against children who do not respect their parents. It seems to me that when you go to the Bible to support the death penalty, but only use it in situations that you feel comfortable with (with murderers) instead of in all situations that the Bible says that the Lord calls for it, you are more concerned with feeling good about your stance than finding a stance that is Biblically accurate.

[Boarder]

Indeed, and in this country the DP is constitutionally allowed.
Yes, now what do you do if you were, say, starting your own new country? Do you put the death penalty in the books or not? That's where you answer the question if you are for or against it and why.

Once it's here, it's our duty to adhere to the laws put forth by our rulers. I agree with that.

[TopDawg]

Rather like I accept that certain sub-human scum are alive without acknowledging that they are still human.

Let's keep the longhorn smack on the football board.

[BigRedJed]

Heh.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

stoops/pimp...


But getting back to a point raised earlier, in studying the Bible you could conclude that there is nothing morally wrong with using the death penalty against children who do not respect their parents. It seems to me that when you go to the Bible to support the death penalty, but only use it in situations that you feel comfortable with (with murderers) instead of in all situations that the Bible says that the Lord calls for it, you are more concerned with feeling good about your stance than finding a stance that is Biblically accurate.

No that I found...I have not found in the Bible where children disobeying was punishable by death...help me out and tell me where it is....

reading the whole chapter(and throwing out verses here and there isn't my style because people take stuff out of context a lot when the do that..sorry about that) of Pauls story....anyway what (IMO) Paul was saying was there are indeed certain crimes punishable by death and if he committed them, then he deserved to face the consequence of the law..


He was saying(he also was brought in by the Jews) "If I have done something that is worthy of death, put me down..(my paraphrase)...problem was that preaching amongst the Jews was not a crime punishable by death....He was saying basically "If I murdered somebody kill me..if I didnt let me go...which he goes on later to say in acts 26..There was NO charge of preaching the gospel..people just wanted him dead...Paul was drawing a line between "just because people want me dead" and "I broke a law punishable by death....

end of acts 25

23The next day Agrippa and Bernice came with great pomp and entered the audience room with the high ranking officers and the leading men of the city. At the command of Festus, Paul was brought in. 24Festus said: "King Agrippa, and all who are present with us, you see this man! The whole Jewish community has petitioned me about him in Jerusalem and here in Caesarea, shouting that he ought not to live any longer. 25I found he had done nothing deserving of death, but because he made his appeal to the Emperor I decided to send him to Rome. 26But I have nothing definite to write to His Majesty about him. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before you, King Agrippa, so that as a result of this investigation I may have something to write. 27For I think it is unreasonable to send on a prisoner without specifying the charges against him."

next chapter at the end of his appeal
30The king rose, and with him the governor and Bernice and those sitting with them. 31They left the room, and while talking with one another, they said, "This man is not doing anything that deserves death or imprisonment."

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I m just interested in all the situatations the Lord calls for death now

[Harry Beanbag]

To all those against the DP, if a guy is butt-raping your 5 year old daughter in your hallway and you come home is it OK to cut him in half with the 12-gauge? Or if a guy is entering your bedroom with a gun in the middle of the night is it OK to plug him with the .357?

If you answered "yes" to either of these, then you are for the death penalty.


Hard to argue with this. I'm all for it BTW.

[olevetonahill]

Kill em All and Let God sortem out .:cool:

[Rogue]

To all those against the DP, if a guy is butt-raping your 5 year old daughter in your hallway and you come home is it OK to cut him in half with the 12-gauge? Or if a guy is entering your bedroom with a gun in the middle of the night is it OK to plug him with the .357?

If you answered "yes" to either of these, then you are for the death penalty.

Yes, Yes, and I disagree. If a victims family in the first situation kills the killer on the courthouse steps...he should walk. If the rapist in that situation makes it to trial, LWOP.

[Vaevictis]

No that I found...I have not found in the Bible where children disobeying was punishable by death...help me out and tell me where it is....

Claim is disrespect, not disobey. Although disobey is probably a classification of disrespect.

Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9. Matthew 15:4, though the context is Jesus telling the Pharisees what God commanded.

[Ike]

I m just interested in all the situatations the Lord calls for death now

I found this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_bible


According to the Torah (or Mosaic Law), these are the offenses which may merit the death penalty in a Jewish major court of 23 judges.
Murder, applies to Noachides as well (Genesis 9:6, Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17-23, Numbers 35:9-34)
Striking a parent (Exodus 21:15)
Cursing a parent (Exodus 21:17, Leviticus 20:9)
The "degenerate son" (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
Kidnapping (Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7)
Negligent homicide, specifically by ox-goring (Exodus 21:28-32)
Sorcery and Augury (Exodus 22:18, Leviticus 20:27)
Bestiality (Exodus 22:19, Leviticus 20:15-16)
Sacrificing to gods other than God alone (Exodus 22:20, Leviticus 27:29)
Sabbath breaking (Exodus 31:12-17, 35:2, Numbers 15:32-36)
Sacrificing to Molech, probably Human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:1-5)
Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
Incest (Leviticus 20:11-12)
Sodomy (Leviticus 20:13, Leviticus 18:22, see also Leviticus 18)
Marrying your wife's mother (Leviticus 20:14)
Prostitution by the daughter of a priest (Leviticus 21:9)
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16)
worshipping Baal Peor (Numbers 25:1-9)
False prophecy (Deuteronomy 13:1-10, 17:2-7, 18:20-22)
Contempt of court (Deuteronomy 17:8-13)
False witness to a capital crime (Deuteronomy 19:15-21)
Unchastity among those engaged to marry (Deuteronomy 22:13-29)

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I found this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_bible

Ok good...and the stuff V. listed as well...shall we take all of those into context?

First of all, all of those are merit in JEWISH courts..reading Exodus 21-24, you'll find those are specified to the Israelites at that time.In fact it was directly to the Judges of Israel.To say anyone is ignoring those...You read Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, you'll see who they are directed to and for what time period....Thats also why I didn't mention them in any of my posts...That would be taking scripture out of context, and I don't do that...and I didn't use passages from here to defend what I was saying either...

Anyway back to Exodus it also has a built-in protection for the rights of the child, according to Deuteronomy 21:18-21. This passage states that the parent did not have the right to carry out this punishment, but they had to bring the accused child before the elders and judges of the city. This meant that the parent - against all contemporary custom - did not have the absolute power of life and death over their children. As a practical matter, the judges of Israel rarely if ever administered the death penalty in such cases, yet the child was held accountable.

Leviticus 20 is just a list of the punishments already laid down....

Deuteronomy is a book that is laid out basically like a treatie between God and the Israelites..They agreed to it and enforced the laws..that was there covenant with God....

If I can say something before this goes further, I m not saying we have the death penalty because the bible tells us to..I m saying its OK for a Christian to think the death penalty is OK...

[Vaevictis]

Ok good...and the stuff V. listed as well...shall we take all of those into context?

I understand the context. My statement is that if you use the Bible to justify the death penalty for certain acts, you don't get to pick and choose. You have to accept the death penalty for all acts that apply.

This is different from:


If I can say something before this goes further, I m not saying we have the death penalty because the bible tells us to..I m saying its OK for a Christian to think the death penalty is OK...

To use the Bible to say that the death penalty is not inconsistent with Christianity is not the same as to cite the Bible to justify the death penalty, especially in certain cases.

One is passive: There is nothing in Christianity that prohibits the death penalty.

The other is active: The Bible calls for the death penalty, so we should have the death penalty.

[TopDawg]

To use the Bible to say that the death penalty is not inconsistent with Christianity is not the same as to cite the Bible to justify the death penalty, especially in certain cases.

One is passive: There is nothing in Christianity that prohibits the death penalty.

The other is active: The Bible calls for the death penalty, so we should have the death penalty.

I echo what Vaev says on this, stoops. And my bad on misunderstanding your point on the Paul scripture. I'd have to go study it a bit more myself, but I think your interpretation certainly is viable and that area of the discussion kinda runs parallel to the heart of this discussion which I think Vaevictis brought us back to.

To build on what Vaevictis said above, it returns us to the question that has been posed before: if the government establishes a law that we think violates our religious principles, what are we to do about it?

If you think the death penalty is wrong, should you let it go because God has ordained these governments? If you think abortion is wrong, should you let it go because God has ordained these governments?

And just like you concluded your post, I'd say the opposite...not that I disagree with what you said, but that I'd add to it by saying "I'm not saying we shouldn't have the death penalty because the Bible tells us NOT to...I'm saying it's OK for a Christian to think the death penalty is not OK."

And, personally, I'd rather err on the side of not killing people I should have (and having them locked up in prison for life) than on the side of killing people I shouldn't have.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

I can agree with what your saying TD...The more I went back and read the more it seemed there was just misunderstanding there...A Christian shouldn't feel they have to be for it nor should they feel like they have to be against it.....The first murder ever committed was not given the DP..David committed adultery and murder and wasn't sentenced to death....When they dragged the woman of the city to stone her for prostitution, Jesus stopped them from doing it.....I'm too tired to give scripture and verse for all and I shouldn't talk about them without doing it, but I m tired...

Good discussion TD and V