To the Christians that support the death penalty....why?

[Popeman38]

I don't understand a word of what you meant by this???? And I don't think you should be putting words in the Lord's mouth.

The Crhistian right is a large contingent of people. Most simply Christians living their live according to what they think God would want. To call them extremists is a bit, I don't know, judgemental maybe?

If Christ was walking the Earth right now I'm 100% sure He'd agree with JRock's statement that I quoted.

You are 100% sure how God would act/think? You are truly enlightened.

Perfect example is that idiot we call our president. It's okay for him to allow a pre-emptive(sp???) strike against a Country that did nothing to harm us, kill thousands of innocent civilians and hold captive hundreds of people the government might think of as a threat.

I'm not saying that I agree or disagree with the war, I'm just using that current situation to show that our Bible thumping president has caused the death of thousands, ignoring what the Bible preaches but hides behind it when it come to issues like stem cell research and abortion.

Last I checked, W was a man. He is fallable. He can make mistakes. I never mentioned him.

But I'm sure you'll be able to come up with a way to defend, you are the Popeman right...

You are right, I am the Popeman. But only because my last name is Pope, and I am a man. Not Catholic. Not really any denomination. Good try though....

[Popeman38]

Be very careful in supporting something simply because its a law, countries are allowed to do very bad things by taking advantage of this approach.

With all hesitancy I bring this up.

But it was this approach was the same approach that kept the church in large part silent in Germany during the 1930's.

Of course, I guess I should have expounded a little more there. It is a law that is enforced very rarely in ratio to the number of murders. The State is apprehensive about using the death penelty loosely. I am observing the execution (no pun intended) of the law. If I see the State begin to abuse the statute to cleanse, silence.... I will come out in protest of said law.

[edgun88]

I would say that I am a "real world" christian. I believe certain things that my church tells me and others I don't believe or even view as realistic ways of living. Example: "No sex before marriage" I think it is BS. I don't believe in that at all.

But then again like the ten commandments, I believe in.

But to answer your question, I would say that you can practice a religion and not believe EVERYTHING that is spoon fed to you. I mean I was taught in Catholic school that the death penalty was wrong, but I formed my own opions on such topics when I got older, like most people do.

[Popeman38]

I would say that I am a "real world" christian. I believe certain things that my church tells me and others I don't believe or even view as realistic ways of living. Example: "No sex before marriage" I think it is BS. I don't believe in that at all.

But then again like the ten commandments, I believe in.

I believe this is covered in tyhe Thou Shalt Not Covet commandment. A woman is a mans daughter. In order to sleep with her, you must desire to be with her. Covet=desire:D

[Midnight Judges]

Oh, come off it. It is very possible to adhere to everything Jesus says and still support the death penalty. As I noted earlier, Jesus dealt with the individual. The death penalty is implemented by the State. It's fine if you want to extrapolate, but you can't make the case that we have to, especially since if we fully extrapolated the sayings of Jesus to the State, the State would have to forgive criminals, and let them go, since jail would be "casting the first stone".

Wouldn't the crime itself be the first stone? In that case jail would be the second stone.

[edgun88]

I believe this is covered in tyhe Thou Shalt Not Covet commandment. A woman is a mans daughter. In order to sleep with her, you must desire to be with her. Covet=desire:D

Well, in order to get married you need to desire the person. Right? If covet = desire then what are you talking about?

[EersSkins05]

Ever-see-statistics-on-how-many-abortions-since-1972-much?

I would be in denial too so I could sleep if I thought abortions were a good deal.

Therein lies your self-righteousness. You think I'm in denial, and that I think they're a good deal... lol

A small percentage, yes. A healthy percentage? A little stretch, I would say...

As of the end of 2005, 1,004 people had been executed in the United States since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977. During that same amount of time, 123 prisoners were exhonorated after evidence surfaced demonstrating their innocence.

Those were just the ones that were proven to the sufficiency of a legal standard of proof. Obviously there's other innocent prisoners that weren't able to prove it.

So for every 100 men killed, 12 were FOUND innocent after evidence surfaced that demonstrated their innocence.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

Stats like these are probably why then Governor of the US state of Illinois, George Ryan (pro-death penalty), declared a moratorium on executions in his state in January, 2000. His decision followed the exoneration of the 13th death row prisoner found to have been wrongfully convicted in the state since the USA reinstated the death penalty in 1977. During the same period, 12 other Illinois prisoners had been executed

You can't be serious? The eggs harvested from chickens are unfertilized. That means that these eggs, if not eaten by humans, would rot. An abortion is the termination of a fertilized egg (at the loosest interpretation). I will support an abortion when someone can demonstrate that a naturally fertilized egg in a woman has ever turned out to be a non-human.

Well that's easy. Fertilized eggs are routinely flushed from a woman's body during her period.

No contradiction there. Most admitted killers do so to avoid the death penelty because they are offered a plea deal. In other words, you recognize that you have broken the law and amit that you are guilty and show remorse -vs- I know you have my DNA in her and on the knife but I swear it wasn't me (used for illustration).

So we kill the ones that have been accused of murder, but deny it, and imprison the murderers that we KNOW murdered.

Why are we killing people again?

Your opinion, I am assuming? Because you can not speak for everyone, and not for me. The Bible lays out some guidelines on how to live.

As has been mentioned, yes, the WHOLE Bible contains guidelines. Not just those we pick and choose.

You know, unless you honestly think I'm going to hell because I've eaten shrimp and have never asked for forgiveness for that "abomination."

[portisizzle]

Therein lies your self-righteousness. You think I'm in denial, and that I think they're a good deal... lol."

Bagels?

[Popeman38]

As of the end of 2005, 1,004 people had been executed in the United States since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977. During that same amount of time, 123 prisoners were exhonorated after evidence surfaced demonstrating their innocence.

Those were just the ones that were proven to the sufficiency of a legal standard of proof. Obviously there's other innocent prisoners that weren't able to prove it.

So for every 100 men killed, 12 were FOUND innocent after evidence surfaced that demonstrated their innocence.

http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-facts-eng

So, how do these stats correlate? They don't. 1004 have been executed. That is not the number to use. The number to use to make an argument would be those sentenced to death, not the ones put to death. Of course, that would lower your percentage quite a bit. 1057 have been executed, and 3370 have been sentenced to death. So your 123 would represent slightly more than 3% of the total sentenced.

Well that's easy. Fertilized eggs are routinely flushed from a woman's body during her period.

And this proves what? Natural biological function -vs- doctor induced death. Don't see the comparison there.

[techboy]

Wouldn't the crime itself be the first stone? In that case jail would be the second stone.

First, your interpretation would mean that if someone else does cast the first stone, everyone else is free to fire away, which, I think, kind of misses the point Jesus was making.

Secondly, however, to apply the verse to the state, one would have to say that the crime would be equivalent to the woman's adultery, and jail (or execution, or whatever), therefore, would in fact be the first stone.

AsburySkinsfan's position is wholly consistent with the Bible and acceptable for a Christian to hold. It is, however, equally consistent with the Bible to favor the death penalty (which, again, I actually don't), and I fear that his arguments lend credence to those who incorrectly believe that a Christian has to be a hypocrite to support the death penalty.

In non-essentials of the faith, reasonable people can differ. The motto I ascribe to is "In essentials, unity, in non-essentials, liberty, and in all things, charity", which is why I try to answer questions as best I can, but not take a particular side in such matters.

[EersSkins05]

So, how do these stats correlate? They don't. 1004 have been executed. That is not the number to use. The number to use to make an argument would be those sentenced to death, not the ones put to death. Of course, that would lower your percentage quite a bit. 1057 have been executed, and 3370 have been sentenced to death. So your 123 would represent slightly more than 3% of the total sentenced.

Considering that every man on death row is waiting for one of two things (his punishment or his exhoneration by new evidence), it's more logical to use those two numbers as opposed to those that have met neither fate.

After all, before they were exhonerated, those innocent individuals would have been a part of the total that you are now assuming is 100% guilty.

And this proves what? Natural biological function -vs- doctor induced death. Don't see the comparison there.

You wanted me to show you a fertilized egg that didn't become a human to justify your stance on abortion. I did so.

The process I described was natural, unwilling abortion vs. un-natural, knowing abortion.

Removing a fertilized egg from a womb prior to viability does unnaturally that which is done naturally all the time.

I don't think women should be going around getting abortions every day by any means, and it might not be what I would want if I was the man that had fertilized that egg, but I don't think it's my place to decide the unknowable for the whole world.

[techboy]

So your 123 would represent slightly more than 3% of the total sentenced.

You know, I'm not really comfortable with 1, let alone 123.

[EersSkins05]

You know, I'm not really comfortable with 1, let alone 123.

You are not alone.

Until we have the perfect legal system, we can't have the perfect punishment. :2cents:

[shk75]

Well i had a feeling this thread would get heated whenever relegion is a topic its easy for people to get pretty defensive or feel as if they are being attacked. I like the honesty of people and appreciate the real debate going on. The one thing i agree with is that people are not perfect, in fact far from it, and becaue of this we can be very hypocritical. I believe I am a hypocrite and so is everyone else but sometimes somethings just really piss me off and the President is one of them and people who use religion to gain support eventhough they do not really believe what they preach is another.

[Popeman38]

Considering that every man on death row is waiting for one of two things (his punishment or his exhoneration by new evidence), it's more logical to use those two numbers as opposed to those that have met neither fate.

After all, before they were exhonerated, those innocent individuals would have been a part of the total that you are now assuming is 100% guilty.

While I would agree with your intent, those statistics misrepresent the actual facts. Yo stated that 12 out of 100 (12%) were innocent. In fact "only" 3% were. Now, if you go back to the beginning, I think that you need 2 eye witnesses at least, if not 2 and DNA evidence, to apply the death penelty.

You wanted me to show you a fertilized egg that didn't become a human to justify your stance on abortion. I did so.

The process I described was natural, unwilling abortion vs. un-natural, knowing abortion.

Removing a fertilized egg from a womb prior to viability does unnaturally that which is done naturally all the time.

I don't think women should be going around getting abortions every day by any means, and it might not be what I would want if I was the man that had fertilized that egg, but I don't think it's my place to decide the unknowable for the whole world.

Touche! But you know that was not what I meant. I too, will never force my view on abortion down the throats of others. If the people want it, I am not one to stop them. However, I can express my belief that it is legalized murder in my opinion.

[EersSkins05]

While I would agree with your intent, those statistics misrepresent the actual facts. Yo stated that 12 out of 100 (12%) were innocent. In fact "only" 3% were. Now, if you go back to the beginning, I think that you need 2 eye witnesses at least, if not 2 and DNA evidence, to apply the death penalty.

My words exactly were "for every 100 men killed, more than 12 were found innocent." This is knowable fact.

We can't know the fates of those still on death row. They could be executed. They could be exhonerated. All we know is the final outcome given to us by those stats since 1977.

Touche! But you know that was not what I meant. I too, will never force my view on abortion down the throats of others. If the people want it, I am not one to stop them. However, I can express my belief that it is legalized murder in my opinion.

I too, support the notion that you can form your own opinion about abortion. Obviously, it's not really a knowable thing. My response there was basically directed to Portissizzle, who suggested that there was a contradiction in liberal ideology regarding the death penalty and abortion, then smugly claimed that I was "in denial" and trying to "sleep better at night" because I didn't share the same viewpoint as he.

[Destino]

For me this issue comes down to this: I know, and so do all of you, that no man made justice system is perfect. We know, with complete certainty, that there will be people put to death that are in fact innocent. Because of this truth, I can't support the death penalty. As long as the person is a alive thier is a chance new evidence can surface that will right a horrible wrong.

[dfitzo53]

people say we should let them rot in jail this idea is stupid, because that's not punishment. give anyone the choice, and you'll see. also, i don't see the point of letting someone live, and making all of us taxpayers support their sorry asses, while they continue to commit crimes, including murder, in prison.

It's already been mentioned in the thread, but if you're going to bring up the issue of taxpayer dollars it's actually more expensive all told to execute someone than to carry out a life sentence.

One point which I feel is relevant that hasn't been brought up, is that the death penalty has a history of being inconsistently applied with respect to race.

[jrockster21]

By your gold standard God would be against us judging criminals guilty and sending them to prison.

You for allowing Ted Bundy on the streets? :laugh: or are you just arguing to hear yourself argue?

Its not my gold standard - its the bible. And no, I am not for allowing Ted Bundy on the streets. Then again, I'm not Christian or religious, either.

[Mufumonk]

This thread reminds me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKPaMic7N5I

[portisizzle]

Its not my gold standard - its the bible. And no, I am not for allowing Ted Bundy on the streets. Then again, I'm not Christian or religious, either.

But you ARE saying that the Bible demands we not judge, right????????

[jrockster21]

But you ARE saying that the Bible demands we not judge, right????????

That is irrelevant, as I don't claim to follow the bible. You should be asking yourself that question, not me.

[portisizzle]

That is irrelevant, as I don't claim to follow the bible. You should be asking yourself that question, not me.

Listen to yourself. You want to bash Christians because you think they can not be on the side of capital punishment and still be followers of the Bible. I extend that silly logic by saying that according to the Bible no one shall judge other than God period. And you say...

bu bu bu bu bu........I don't follow the Bible.

No but you have fun sticking your finger in the eyes of those that do. Cut the crap.

Christians are not against the rule of law. How about that. If America says Capital Punishment is the law then so be it. End of story. Move on.

And stop with the charade.

[jrockster21]

Listen to yourself. You want to bash Christians because you think they can not be on the side of capital punishment and still be followers of the Bible. I extend that silly logic by saying that according to the Bible no one shall judge other than God period. And you say...

bu bu bu bu bu........I don't follow the Bible.

No but you have fun sticking you finger in the eyes of those that do. Cut the crap.

Christians are not against the rule of law. How about that. If America says Capital Punishment is the law then so be it. End of story. Move on.

And stop with the charade.

Its not my fault if you can't grasp a simple argument. Whether or not the bible says we shouldn't judge people is irrelevant to me, because I don't follow the bible. So telling me "You think Ted Bundy should be walking the streets!" is ridiculous hyperbole, because I don't think that. I don't have a book telling me this.

And your argument that the Death Penalty is law is a little off-base as well. Its a punishment for breaking the law; not the same as laws that you and I must follow. We are talking about the morality of the death penalty, not whether or not its legal. By that argument, you should support abortion, because its legal. America says abortion is legal. So be it. End of story. Move on.

[portisizzle]

Its not my fault if you can't grasp a simple argument. Whether or not the bible says we shouldn't judge people is irrelevant to me, because I don't follow the bible. So telling me "You think Ted Bundy should be walking the streets!" is ridiculous hyperbole, because I don't think that. I don't have a book telling me this.

And your argument that the Death Penalty is law is a little off-base as well. Its a punishment for breaking the law; not the same as laws that you and I must follow. We are talking about the morality of the death penalty, not whether or not its legal. By that argument, you should support abortion, because its legal. America says abortion is legal. So be it. End of story. Move on.

Whether or not the bible says we shouldn't judge people is irrelevant to you? Then why are you having any discussion here other than incite others??

You speak of morality with regards to the death penalty? Is the same moral discussion valid for abortions?

By your logic you should be against abortion. No?