codeorama Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 For the Christians, the question should be "What would Jesus do?". Its as simple as that because the old testament (thou shall not murder, eye for an eye) is not what Christianity is based upon... :2cents: For the record, I'm very much for the death penalty, not because it deters crime, but for revenge. Kilmer makes a very valid point that it is much less costly to keep an inmate in prison for life and make it more difficult for them (legal fees etc for appeals to the execution), however, if someone in my family were murdered, I'd want to butcher the **** myself.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 You would think more people that think logically would say: The death penalty should only be used against those already incarcerated for life. (The only punishment left) if they do heinous crimes like murder while in... Same with the other end of the spectrum.. only as a last resort... but you know me... i'm a tree huggin liberal... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 For the Christians, the question should be "What would Jesus do?".Its as simple as that because the old testament (thou shall not murder, eye for an eye) is not what Christianity is based upon... :2cents: Yes, partially. Don't take this as an argument because its not. but Christianity is based on the Old Testament, but as understood through the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus shapes the Christian understanding of the Old Testament to the point that it is understood that the Old Testament is only fully understood, or fully realized in the person of Christ. As for the point you were making I simply say; Right ON! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmorina69 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Because, an eye for an eye, they killed someone , we kill them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE HAMMER'IN HOG Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 The bible states that if you take a life than by man's hand you shall forfeit your own, it also say's the gov't does not bare the sword in vain, the sword in the bible is used for killing, meaning GOD has given the gov't rule over man and the right to issue punishment according to GOD's will surcumscribed in the bible. We as people are not to take the law into our own hands, in our hearts we are to forgive, but that doesn't mean just because you forgive an individual of a horiffic crime that punishment no longer has to be carried out. The fact is when the gov't allow's a convicted murderer to live they are in violation of GOD's law Romans 13 - "1": Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. "2": Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. "3": For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: "4": For he is the minister of God to thee for good. 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. "5": Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. Genesis 9 -"5": 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. "6": Whoso sheddeth man's'> blood, by man shall his'> blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halter91 Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Personally, I support the death penalty. I'm tired of all my taxes going to Prisons to help feed a criminal. if you are convicted of murder, you should die, regardless. Murder, not accidental deaths, wrongdoings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Romans 13 - "1": Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Please don't use what Paul wrote in Romans as a God baptized approval of everything that every government does, because something tells me that Paul would not have been so approving of the Roman persecution of Christians during Nero and Domitian. As I stated earlier in this thread it was this very mis-representation of Paul's teaching that kept the church's mouth shut during 1930's Germany. Governments can and often do very bad things and those governments deserve to be challenged and disobeyed in those instances, we cannot approve of everything that governments do just because they are governments, because sometimes governments abuse the powers that they are ordained with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Yes, partially. Don't take this as an argument because its not.but Christianity is based on the Old Testament, but as understood through the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Jesus. Jesus shapes the Christian understanding of the Old Testament to the point that it is understood that the Old Testament is only fully understood, or fully realized in the person of Christ. As for the point you were making I simply say; Right ON! Great point, I didn't mean to come across as "throw the OT out the window", that's not what I meant. However, the "Main Point" of christianity is Jesus. Many people quote from the bible BUT, you can't just pull any old line from the OT and base all your beliefs on that. Jesus's teachings were different in many cases from the OT. And besides, the bible as a whole is not one book written by the same person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 I don't think that Jesus is correcting God. Instead the Noah situation has to be seen as the exception rather than the rule, and if this is to be repeated then one must be able to claim that they were being directly led by God to do such things. However, the giving of the Law superceeded anything that came before, (and according to Christians) the teaching's of Christ supercede the Law and give fulfillment to the Law and its original intention. The giving of the law was to Jews(his chosen people) whereas the covenant with Noah was directed to mankind,so unless you wish to believe the Mosaic law applied to all mankind the fullfilling of the Law does not apply to my example Show me proof of "supercede ", please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Why do we kill people, who kill people, to prove that killing people is wrong? Basically because of ignorance. I think people misconstrue revenge with doing what God wants. If a person can convince himself that he's performing God's will, then how can it be wrong? The bad thing about the Bible is that people tend to interpret it so that it benefits their own personal beliefs. Another huge topic of debate right now is whether being gay is a sin. One person can read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah and come to the conclusion that being gay is wrong. Another person could see that the villagers were merely trying to humiliate and shame the angels (regardless of it being a gay act), as it was common in those days. One passage, but two completely different interpretations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Quote: Originally Posted by SKINS@THEGOALLINE Why do we kill people, who kill people, to prove that killing people is wrong? Why do we imprison people,who imprison people,to prove that imprisoning is wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jnhay Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 Quote:Originally Posted by SKINS@THEGOALLINE Why do we kill people, who kill people, to prove that killing people is wrong? Why do we imprison people,who imprison people,to prove that imprisoning is wrong? We're protecting people when we imprison in that case. We're seeking revenge when we kill that person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Williams Posted January 25, 2007 Share Posted January 25, 2007 We're protecting people when we imprison in that case. We're seeking revenge when we kill that person. waterboy's mom, " REVENGE, is the DEVIL!!!!" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 For those of you saying that Jesus was against the death penalty are wrong. especially in using John 8 The romans were looking to charge Jesus with disobeying teh laws of the land Under Roman law said a prostitute was to be stoned, under Mosaic law said she could be set free. So if he set her free they would charge him with disobeying Roman law and if he had her stoned they would charge him with disobeying Mosaic law. For those of you saying he advocates against capital punishment You are wrong he clearly states let those without sin cast the first stone. Now there are those that will say their is no one alive to today with out sin, yes that is true but it doesnt mean every crimanal gets a free pass. And to further my point In Romans 13:1-7, for example, teaches that human government is ordained by God and that the civil magistrate is a minister of God. We are to obey government for we are taught that government does not bear the sword in vain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 What's is there to explain? Its pretty clear what is meant here. Just as this same principle is clear here:Leviticus 24:17-21 'If a man takes the life of any human being, he shall surely be put to death. 18 'The one who takes the life of an animal shall make it good, life for life. 19 'If a man injures his neighbor, just as he has done, so it shall be done to him: 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; just as he has injured a man, so it shall be inflicted on him. 21 'Thus the one who kills an animal shall make it good, but the one who kills a man shall be put to death. Matthew 5:38-48 You have heard that it was said, 'AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.' 39 "But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 "If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 "Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 "Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you. 43 " Jesus takes the eye for and eye (reciprocity) model and tosses it out the window, and if he tosses it with the little things (slap on the face etc) then it would stand to reason that he tosses it with the big things as well. This is also in keeping with the Jewish legal tradition of "From the Lesser to the Greater" where if a principle was true for a small thing then that same principle was true for the big thing. . What Jesus was talking about there was revenge Being tried by a court does not constitute revenge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 The giving of the law was to Jews(his chosen people) whereas the covenant with Noah was directed to mankind,so unless you wish to believe the Mosaic law applied to all mankind the fullfilling of the Law does not apply to my example Show me proof of "supercede ", please Easy, do Christians believe that they are saved by faith in Jesus and his resurrection or by following the works of the law? Jesus superceded everything that came before. Again this is like a jeweler cutting a diamond, first it starts off very rough (Noah) then as he progresses it becomes clearer and more brilliant (Moses) and when the work is done it is cut to perfection (Jesus). Jesus even mentioned that God through Moses allowed for divorce because the people's hearts were hard, would not this same principle apply? If not then why not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 For those of you saying that Jesus was against the death penalty are wrong. especially in using John 8 The romans were looking to charge Jesus with disobeying teh laws of the land Under Roman law said a prostitute was to be stoned, under Mosaic law said she could be set free. So if he set her free they would charge him with disobeying Roman law and if he had her stoned they would charge him with disobeying Mosaic law. For those of you saying he advocates against capital punishment You are wrong he clearly states let those without sin cast the first stone. First you have this backwards, it was the Jewish Law that stated the adulterer and the adulteress were to be stoned, but under Roman law the Jews were not permitted to put any one to death, this is why they brought Jesus to Pontius Pilate. John 8:4-6 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. Now there are those that will say their is no one alive to today with out sin, yes that is true but it doesnt mean every crimanal gets a free pass. And to further my point In Romans 13:1-7, for example, teaches that human government is ordained by God and that the civil magistrate is a minister of God. We are to obey government for we are taught that government does not bear the sword in vain. See point made here before you go off God ordaining everything that "governments" do. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3461570&postcount=157 The same argument that you are making here was used by people throughout the centuries to defend slavery, simply on the basis that it was legal by the state. State (government) legality does not equal righteousness. In 1 Peter there is also a discussion about the Christian understanding of government, now it should come as no great surprise that Peter's view of government is less approving especially when the context of its writing is taken into account; in that during the period of its writing the Romans were beginning to make more and more laws regarding the Christians. No where in this passage do we find the tone that Paul uses, in fact it seems more that the Christians are to bear the burden of a government that is increasingly hostile to them. 1 Peter 2:12-15 Conduct yourselves honorably among the Gentiles, so that, though they malign you as evildoers, they may see your honorable deeds and glorify God when he comes to judge. 13 For the Lord's sake accept the authority of every human institution, whether of the emperor as supreme, 14 or of governors, as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. 15 For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish. Then once we get to the time in Revelation where there is a second full blown persecution of the Christians by Domitian that occured years after the persecution of Nero, Rome is portrayed as the Beast and the emperors as the anti-Christ. (The Dispensationalists will obviously disagree). But to prove my point about a Christian's approach to government I'll just throw out a litmus test: Should a Christian in Nazi Germany during the 3rd Reich followed the laws that made it illegal to harbor and smuggle Jews, or should they have been good law abiding citizens and contacted the Gestapo whenever they found a Jew? One will obviously make the case that Nazi Germany is an extreme exception, and while that may be the case this also proves that there is no blanket blessing by God on all governments, because some can do some very horrendous things, and do them legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 What Jesus was talking about there was revenge Being tried by a court does not constitute revenge Explain to me how the death penalty is not revenge or reciprocity, which Jesus was also against as illustrated in the passage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 What Jesus was talking about there was revenge Being tried by a court does not constitute revenge The rationale that many here present for allowing the death penalty is that it brings a certain level of satisfaction to the family of the victim or victims. Bearing that in mind, it's very difficult to claim that the death penalty does not constitute revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Explain to me how the death penalty is not revenge or reciprocity, which Jesus was also against as illustrated in the passage. I can forgive someone who murders a family member, courts dont have to. plus look into more of what jesus was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Biblical Christianity places a very heavy burden on such a misuse of God's commandments. For example, if the Lord condemned capital punishment as immoral when He declared "You shall not kill," then why did He command the death penalty so liberally in other portions of the Pentateuch? And why did He command the Hebrews to utterly destroy all the Canaanites in the Promised Land? Does the Lord contradict Himself? That is an impossibility. Are there two or more gods speaking in Scripture? That too is impossible (although there are some, even in evangelical circles, who imply such--a god of wrath and a god of love). Clearly the commandment not to kill has a context, and this is clarified by the passages in Scripture where unlawful killing--i.e., murder--is defined very specifically (Ex. 21:12-14; Num. 35:15-23). Thus we know that when the Lord commands "You shall not kill," He means, "You shall not murder." Now for those who would pit God against Himself in regard to His commandments concerning murder and capital punishment, the command "You shall have no other gods before me" enters the picture. The person who claims contradictions in God's law or willfully ignores the obvious--i.e., the Lord commands killing in some circumstances--is creating another god, one different in character from the God of the Bible and made in man's image. Furthermore, the person who argues that the command against killing forbids all executions is implicitly equating murder and execution. Both acts are viewed as being evil and essentially the same thing. Murder is the killing of a man by an individual and execution is the killing of a man by the state. Of course this ignores the very real difference between the two "killings": one is a crime, while the other is an act of justice in punishment for a crime. In the end, those who try to use Scripture or alleged "Christian principles" to oppose capital punishment are idolators, creating a false god. They not only misinterpret the Sixth Commandment (bad enough), but they also violate the First Commandment (fatal!). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 First you have this backwards, it was the Jewish Law that stated the adulterer and the adulteress were to be stoned, but under Roman law the Jews were not permitted to put any one to death, this is why they brought Jesus to Pontius Pilate.John 8:4-6 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" 6 They said this to test him, so that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. . ok so i got it backwards but he still does not advocate against the death the death penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Biblical Christianity places a very heavy burden on such a misuse of God's commandments. For example, if the Lord condemned capital punishment as immoral when He declared "You shall not kill," then why did He command the death penalty so liberally in other portions of the Pentateuch? And why did He command the Hebrews to utterly destroy all the Canaanites in the Promised Land? Does the Lord contradict Himself? That is an impossibility. Are there two or more gods speaking in Scripture? That too is impossible (although there are some, even in evangelical circles, who imply such--a god of wrath and a god of love). Clearly the commandment not to kill has a context, and this is clarified by the passages in Scripture where unlawful killing--i.e., murder--is defined very specifically (Ex. 21:12-14; Num. 35:15-23). Thus we know that when the Lord commands "You shall not kill," He means, "You shall not murder." What about the laws that did change between the Old and New Testaments? (For example, restrictions on certain foods like pork.) Clearly one set of rules was overturned in favor of another - why doesn't the above reasoning also apply in those cases? Edit: I reread your post and you weren't quite saying what I thought you were saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 ok so i got it backwards but he still does not advocate against the death the death penalty Sure he did, because according to Mosaic Law he was the only one who would have been able to cast the stone, and he would have been legally required to do so, remember the law did not grant for a choice it was simply; Leviticus 20:10 If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, both the adulterer and the adulteress shall be put to death. By not following the Law, Jesus chose life over death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I can forgive someone who murders a family member, courts dont have to. plus look into more of what jesus was talking about. Honestly, after 10 years of Biblical education (undergrad and seminary) I think I've got a pretty good handle on what he was talking about. Furthermore, what exactly is a court if not people. You are attempting to create a separation between a person and a court, in the same way that many try to create a separation between people and governmental institutions, but that is a false separation because they cannot be separated for they are one in the same. Abraham Lincoln said: "and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." He understood that the role cannot be separated from the person. Its this same sort of compartmentalization that the Christian Right screamed at Clinton for engaging in during his Lewinsky fling. Whats more is that once a person is free to act in ways that would be personally immoral simply because they are in the role of the government, well then you have just freed that person to do all manner of evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.