U.S. Nears 1,000th Execution Since 1977

Phillip

What was their hypocracy? Don't you see the intentional connection with Deut. 17?

peace to you

 

Maybe not, but the theocratic state based on the Pentateuch did authorise the death penalty and Jesus quite clearly abrogated it. Bottom line: Jesus did not support the death penalty and neither do I as His follower.

 

Maybe not, but the theocratic state based on the Pentateuch did authorise the death penalty and Jesus quite clearly abrogated it. Bottom line: Jesus did not support the death penalty and neither do I as His follower. </font>[/QUOTE]Certainly he did. It is not for individuals to take the state's punishment into our own hands. It is OUR responsibility to forgive and the Bible contains much about living like Christ. He is NOT telling a government official that ANYTHING has changed.

 

That is exactly what the passage was about. They weren't interested in justice; they were interested in tricking Jesus (v. 6). The Pharisees, all through Scripture, were hypocrites. Read Matthew 24 for example. When Jesus said the first stone line, he was pointing out that they were guilty of the kind of sin they were accusing her of.

Incorrect. First, "we" don't administer the death penalty. That would be vigilante justice. The governmetn, not a person., administers the death penalty. Second, being a sinner does not prevent one from correcting sin. If that were so, then no parent could correct a child; no judge could correct a law breaker. But in fact, we see that God ordained that sinners judge sinners.

Were all men not sinful in Gen 9 when he said it? How did he establish it in Gen 9 when all men were sinners and then remove it because all men are sinners thousands of years later? Did you think about that before you said it? It doesn't make sense, my friend. The sin nature is the same in Gen 9 as in John 8, as it is today. The image of God is still the same. The command of Gen 9 is not based on the perfection of hte judge, but the image of God of the victim.

Not here you haven't.

You make a false dichotomy. The Bible say that all Scripture (including Gen 9) is God breathed. Therefore either Gen 9 is the words of Christ, or Christ is not God. Which option do you want? The third is my position, which you have already rejected. Your position has left you denying the inspiration of all Scripture, or the deity of Jesus.

I haven't appealed to OT Law since we are not under the Law. That was for Israel.

I have already asked you the same thing in different wors. I really struggle as to why you don't accept it. All you have done is try to circumvent it and rewrite it by changing the context and meaning.

As I said, I agree with this. What I have said doesn't contradict this at all.

That is false. It is the duty of all men to seek the death penalyt for murderers to honor the image of God in man.

THen Christ was a liar since he is the one who commanded it.

We are talkign in circles due to your circumlocution of hte issues. We agree on 1 tim 1:16, but that doesn't apply here since we are not talking about the Christian's individual response to murderers. We should love murderers, witness to them, and seek their salvation.

I have made no appeal whatsoever to the OT Law, which is what the subject of John 8 was. John 8 cannot in any sense be made to apply to death penalty for murderers. It is a different topic, based on teh OT Law.

Capital punishment belongs to the state, not to individuals. It is based on the image of God in man. As soon as man is no longer in God's image, then we can dispense with capital punishment for murder.

 

Several problems. First, John 8 is about the OT Law. Capital punishment for murder is not. It predates the Law. Second, we are not under the new covenant, per se, nor the old covenant. Those are Jewish things, but that's a theological discussion. Third, the Bible does not limit you to being only under the NT.

Capital punishment for murder is not based on teh theocratic state, nor the Mosaic Law. It predated that Law. Why do you guys keep ignoring that? It was instituted several thousand years before the Mosaic Law.

Jesus did support the death penalty for murder, and so should you.

 

What was ironic about that? All I have done is say what God said. I have supported my position from Scripture. That's not ironic, is it?

God said that human life, the image of God in man, was to be protected and honored. When someone stamps it out, they are to be killed in justice. To put them in prison would be the equivalent of taking a bank robber who made off with one million dollars and fining him a quarter while he gets to keep the million. Only by capital punishment is the image of God in man honored, at least if you believe what God said about it.

 

In fact, I believe that during Jesus' time, the death penalty extended all the way to accidental death, making it just that much more serious.

 

Pastor Larry

I think you are seeing far more in Gen. 9 than God ever intended.

You are correct, though, I am certain we are talking in circles at this point.

I say, "It is unChristlike to seek or support the death of anyone."

You say, "It is the duty of all men to seek the death penalyt for murderers to honor the image of God in man."

We both think the other is ignoring scripture or taking it out of context.

I don't think we could be farther apart.

peace to you

 

How do we know what God intended in Gen 9? By reading the words. The words say, "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, because in the image of God he made man."

It seems as clear as anything in Scripture. I am not sure where the hangup is.

There are certainly some issues with the death penalty such as being fairly applied, murder vs. manslaughter, intent vs reaction, and the like. Those are valid issues of discussion.

But I can't see how condemning the death penalty in principle is anything other than a rejection of God's standard about the image of God in man. It befuddles me.

 

To clarify Pastor Larry's position. Correct me if I am wrong Pastor, but I think instead of "It is the duty of ALL men to seek the death penalty for murders to honor the image of God in man." to "It is the duty of the government, blah, blah, blah.."

Pastor Larry, would you say this is more along your line of thinking?

 

Yes, my point is that it is not merely a Christian concern, but a human one. It is a matter of basic human dignity and human rights. It is not somehting merely "Christian" in nature, but something "Civil." It is the job of the government to carry it out.

 

First of all, since this is a religious discussion, it's hard for me to take it in any other context. A Christian's life isn't always "Practical" in man's eyes now is it?

But to answer the question..

Yes, if it means living more Chirst like, and living by the Bible by NOT killing. Money is only an ojection, not a reason for killing.

Since Cruel and Unuaual punishment is man's terms, and not (that I know of) God's terms it doesn't matter, it's not a point here.

Since Most criminals are not in a position to tell me/you/us/anyone right from wrong, it really doesn't matter to me which they perfer. I go by the Bible, not by what "criminals perfer".


Jamie

 

We can certainly do this, but not if we want to be obedient to God. That is the call we must make. God did not institute prisons for murderers. He instituted capital punishment. Why wouldn't you believe it? </font>[/QUOTE]Quote one place in the Bible where it says that by putting people in prison, it makes us Non-Obedient to God.


Jamie

 

Pastor Larry said, "How do we know what God intended in Gen 9? By reading the words. The words say, 'Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed, because in the image of God he made man.' "


I'm curious, does this apply to deaths, or to batteries and assaults as well? Bloodshed is not limited to murder, and if respective corporal punishments are warranted for physical assaults as well, then is incarceration for any offense biblically justifiable at all?

I'm asking honestly here.

 

Pastor Larry

We know God did not intend for Gen.9 to be an absolute statement or "command". Why do we know that? Because there are many examples of people who have killed and have not been killed in return, including Cain, Moses, David, and Paul.

Now, you and I can surely agree that if God wanted them to die by the death penalty, they would have died by the death penalty, right?

So it is not an absolute statement. It, therefore, must be a general statement. If it is a general statement, then to what does it apply? Well, the context seems to be clear. Animals are different from human beings, because human beings are made in the image of God. Therefore, the life of a human being has more value than that of an animal.

Can we agree on that? Sure we can.

So we have a general statement that a man's life is of more value than an animals life, because a man is made in the image of God. To emphasize the point, God tells us that if a man kills another, his own life will be forfeit.

Apparently, here is where we part company. You see this statement as authorizing the death penalty for governments for all time. Indeed, you have said that all men should seek to insure murderers get the death penalty as a way of honoring God. I think you are seeing far more than is there.

Surely if you can see God implementing the death penalty for governments in Gen. 9, (which makes no mention of governments, or trials, or witnesses, or any method of execution) you can't deny Jesus' teaching that only a sinless man can execute the death penalty in John 8, can you? I mean, Jesus actually uses the words and references the implementation of the death penalty in Deut. 17.

I supported the death penalty at one time, and used many of the same arguments as you do. But in reading the New Testament, I see Christ commanding a different type of attitude for Christians. One that is different from the world's. You admit to that, because you stated that you agree with me on I Tim. 1:16.

It appears to me, however, that you will not let the logically conclusion take hold; that Christians are not to seek or support the death of others. When it was clear to me what was being taught, I had to abandon my old position and let the teaching to scripture win the day. I hope and pray you come to this same conclusion.

It is unChristlike to seek or support the death of anyone.

peace to you

 

When God commands a particular response, any other response is disobedient.

 

"Shed man's blood" is a Hebrew euphemism for murder. It does not have reference to assaults, or the like.

I am not familiar with where God instituted civil government to practice corporal punishment. Perhaps you have someplace in mind.

 

The fact that God chose a different way is his right. We do not get that right. We are to obey God.

Non sequitur. You advance it out of convenience, not out of legitimacy. It is an absolute statement that God, at times, has chosen to act differently. But in those cases, God is the one choosing to act differently. It is not our decision to do such.

This is a key point. The death penalty is not warranted for killing an animal. It is for man. Why? Because man is in the image of God. Whatever "shed man's blood" means in teh first prhrase, it must also mean in teh second. We change it to "incarcerate" or some such thing.

How so? I have said only what is there. You have tried to limit it, unjustly I might add.

Your last phrase is key. Jesus is talking about the death penalty in Deut 17. That is the Mosaic Law of Israel. Gen 9 was several thousand years before the Law. Nothing in John 8 is parallel to "shedding man's blood." What would Christ have said if they brought a murderer? That would have bearing on this issue. But you are comparing apples and orange.

Yes, but the attitude we have is not the issue. We should ahve the attitude you say, and should also be in obedience to God to have the death penalty. You are making a false dichotomy, pretending these things can't co-exist. They can.

You have assumed the conclusion; you have not shown it to be logical.

But this is exactly what you did not do. You have taken two passages that have nothing to do with capital murder and have used them to ignore the teaching of Scripture on capital murder. You are not comparing apples to apples in any sense. And that is the problem. The fact that we should forgive people has nothing to do with murder.

Let's apply your standard to a lesser offense. Let's say your child fails to take out the trash and then talks back to you. Will you forgive him? Certainly. Will you punish him? Certainly. You see, forgiveness doesn't take away punishment for sin, and punishment doesn't mean that you don't love the child. Now if you do that for a lesser offense, why would you not do it for a greater offense? After all, your child didn't stamp out the image of God. You have put yourself in teh place of having a greater consequence for a lesser offense. And that is not scriptural.

Forgiveness does not take away the consequences of sin on this earth.

Repeating this won't make it right.

 

Pastor Larry

Gen. 9 does not say "capital murder". It says "sheds man blood". In the ancient near east, even accidental death could be punished by the "death penalty", if you will, by the blood avenger seeking vengence. That is why Israel had cities of refuge.

You are applying a modern concept, a government run penal system that puts people on trial and executes them, to an ancient near east culture that did not have governments, or even written laws at the time.

It simply can't mean what you keep saying that it means.

It is unChristlike to seek or support the death of anyone.

peace to you

 

If asked by the goverment of the United States or a State or local government, I would be quite willing to push the button for electrocution or insert the needle for lethal injection or, the way I think that executions should take place, pull the lever for the trap for a public hanging.