Capital Punishment ...

I still have not been convinced with scripture that it's wrong to support capital punishment. In fact, I think there is more evidence to support it than not to.

Life is very precious, which is why God said in Gen 9 that one who takes life is to forfeit his life. I believe this is a principle that God still holds, since I don't see him taking it back. The fact he allowed certain people who killed to live does not mean God is taking Gen 9 back - he simply chose to allow those men to live to carry out his plans and purposes.

As I said before, I disagree on your application of Jn 6 to capital punishment.

The use of the death penalty is flawed because our system of justice is flawed; this would be the only reason to oppose it, imo, if one wanted to oppose it. But theoretically, I do not see capital punishment being abrogated by scripture.

Good discussion, though.

 

Acts 5:1-11 Ananias and Saphira receive the death pental, from God.

Acts 25:11 Paul acknowledges the Roman government had the right to use the death penalty.

 

Thanks for the input.

Happy Thanksgiving to youraying:

 

My point exactly. God didn't need the help of a single Christian to take their lives.

Again, my concern is not about governments. It is about the attitudes of Christians toward the worst of sinners.

We are commanded by our Lord Jesus to exhibit the same kind of perfect patience and mercy that He demonstrated with Paul. That is a command from our Lord that cannot be lived out in our lives if we support the death penalty, IMHO.

peace to youraying:

 

Talk about superimposing your personal view into scripture

Your entire last paragraph is pure assumption and speculation with 'no bilbical point of reference' or better nothing that establishes what you gave was the meaning. He didn't change anything and secondly the witnesses did not stand in a line count to three to make sure they each threw at the same time. The first to cast a stone was not about changing anything but about revealing to them they were just as guilty as she was. Jesus was specifically pointing out the fact they those who were trying to bring judgment against this women was just as guilty as she was in purposely violating the law and thus they were forbidden to pass any judgment or participate in said judgment. There were 2 points Jesus was making; 1) they not executing proper judgment as God descibed it and thus in as much sin as the guilty before them, and 2) is that in judgment only God can forgive in spite of the all the evidence against a person. It was not anything remotely what you gave. Context and an understanding of OT law renders the plain meaning.

The problem most forget is that though a persons sin be forgiven by God that does not always pardom them from the consequences of such actions that brought them there. I agree however about an 'attitude' of "kill'em all and let God sort them out" when it comes to Christians. We are to love our enemies but also stand behind the laws of our God given governments. We are not only to love our enemies but also stand for righteousness and justice.

Also, the 'love your enemines' refers not about those who have broken the law but those how do not like or even hate you.

IMO, I think you are confused JD. We are to have compassion and love for all sinners yes, but that does not relenquish them from the consequences of their actions to which we as believers are also to stand behind for the sake of righteousness and justice. Our love for a person does not set them free from their actions and the consequences determined by the law. You are right in that we should be have a blood thirsty attitude because that is an attitude of vegengence but one of love and compassion toward them while still standing behind and supporting what is just and right (as far as man can be).

IMO, your are going beyond what the scripture is saying again. God is the only who can absolve a person from the consequences of breaking His laws. Jesus showing Paul mercy was toward salvation not absolving men and women from the legal consequences of their action. You are twisting scripture horrifically here. I will agree however that we are to deal compassionately even with those sentenced to death. But that is not what is being discussed here.

Sorry, I believe you are wrong. Supporting the death penalty is to support a God instituted institution. We are to support it because it was God Himself that has given it. We are to both support it as an institution and condone its usage not because the law breakers get their just deserts (so to speak) but because it was given by God to excute judgment.

and let us not forget righteousness and justice.

 

God prescribed the death penalty, yes. Violence is the proper response to violent crime, and the only way to keep violent criminals in check. But God also specified certain conditions before death could be administered. If these were observed, then probability of an innocent man being put to death would be minimal, if likely at all.

Have you noticed that Crabtownboy didn't advise us to read the Bible to form our views on capital punishment? One may oppose the death penalty, but it isn't because he believes in Christ. On the contrary, to oppose the death penalty is to deny Christ's appraisal of the human condition, and swallow the putrid vomitus of popular artists and novelists.

This is the foundational difference between the liberals and conservatives of today.

 

True.

I did note it when he stated this in the OP in his very last line:

 

Thanks for posting the list Crabtown. You just re-affirmed my faith in our system - although not perfect, still the best in the world.

You're not making the point you're trying to make. That list shows the system working as it should. Our legal system takes into consideration the fact that juries may make mistakes. That's why we go above and beyond in the appeal process, to the point that it sometimes takes decades to carry out a death sentence. Look at the length of time between the conviction and the exoneration (not really the proper word to use here. Just because they were pardoned or had the charges dismissed doesn't mean they were exonerated - just that prosecution felt for whatever reason they could not prove their case again. Could be the death of a key witness or the corruption/disappearance of physical evidence.) With just a few exceptions the time was only 2-3 years. So at least in these cases, the system work exactly as it should.

Just curious - if there is a pre-meditated murder case where there are at least 2 witnesses, plenty of physical evidence of what took place, and the one charged with the murder admits his guilt - would you be in favor of the death penalty in such a case?

 

As I read the first post I couldn't help but think "I wonder if you would do away with jails, no doubt innocent people are in some of them." Would you do away with all punishment because someone might be wrongly convicted? I know the difference is the death penalty ends life, well frankly I would much rather die by a painless injection, than grow old in a maximum security prison and then die slow and alone.

I mean if were going to stop a punishment because of the wrongly convicted, shouldn't we also stop the life sentence because there might be innocent people sentenced. We simply can't let the murders, rapist, child molesters and such get a lighter sentence because .5% might be innocent. You will be telling the criminals "worst case scenario, I go to jail and socialize with friends, get steak on Wednesdays, a warm bed and all the free TV I want to watch." Do you really think this is the solution to slow crime?

 

BUT, not ALL of the innocent will be set free. So why should we sentence possibly innocent people to a life imprisonment. wouldn't that be unfair?

 

The biblical ref. is Deut. 17:1-7. This passage specifically concerns the implementation of the death penalty under Jewish Law, which is clearly the context of John 8.

Jesus is refering to this Deut. 17 when He says, in John 8:7...

"he who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

Compare that language to Deut. 17:5 and 7

"you shall bring out that man or that woman who has done this evil deed to your gates....and you shall stone them to death....The hand of the witnesses shall be first against him to put him to death." (bold for emphasis, not shouting)

Surely you can see the similarity of the language there, can't you? Surely you can see that Jesus has changed the language, can't you?

The only issue, then, is whether you view this as applying only to this woman or whether Jesus is teaching a larger theological truth that we are to follow.

Given the numerous other examples of the commands Jesus gives to His followers to show mercy, love, compassion, and patience with even the worst of sinners, I believe Jesus is teaching a larger theological truth.

That truth is that we, as sinners, do not have the wisdom nor the knowledge to implement the death penalty is a just manner. Furthermore, as Christians, we are called to love with perfect patience, which is contrary to support for the death penalty.

Please show me from scripture where Christians are told to make sure the government administers justice?

The I Tim 1:16 passage tells us that Jesus showed mercy to Paul as an example of "perfect patience" that is to be followed by those who would believe in the future. If it only referred to salvation, how can that be for us to follow? We cannot grant salvation to anyone.

Paul had already mentioned many kinds of sinners prior to this statement, including murderers and those who kill their fathers and mothers. "Perfect patience" is an attitude of compassion and mercy toward the worst of sinners.

They kill Christians for simply being Christians in some countries. According to their laws, it is perfectly legal and just.

God put those governments in place. God gave them authority to kill.

Do you support the killing of Christians under the "righteous laws" of some countries? Of course not.

The very death penalty laws many Christians support today will be used to send their children and grandchildren to their deaths in the future.

peace to youraying:

 

I live in Ky and we put a man to death this week who asked to be, he gave up all appeals and wanted it, so we did what he asked, my only thought on this is it took too long, the death sentance should be at the end of one appeal then carried out. Anyone taken another mans or womans or childs life by murder should be put to death plain and simple. Does the system need work? yes it does but it is the best system in the world and is what we got.

 

I think the executioner should be a selected citizen, the same as the jury. Let's see how many could pull the switch.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I am not convinced from that list that those people were innocent. The system does not find people to be innocent, only "not guilty." "Not guilty" can mean the case was not tried correctly and so the sentence was overturned; there was a technical error in the trial or jury process and so the sentence was overturned; the prosecutor for some reason decided not to pursue the appeal of the death penalty; there was found to be not enough evidence on appeal, so the sentence is overturned.

For someone to get the death penalty in this country, very rigorous requirements are in place. Not just any murder can get the death penalty. There must be present: the commission of another felony; a particularly heinous crime in which the victim pled for mercy; torture involved in the murder; murder for hire or profit; or murder of a law enforcment officer or Federal officer.

The death penalty process is after the conviction, and a jury hears all the evidence. Prosecutors only ask for the death penalty when the evidence is very solid and the case meets the requirement I listed above (there may be a few I missed).

 

I dont think you would find as many as you think that would have a problem with doing this, any man takes anothers life by murder should and needs to have the death penalty, I would like for there to be enough evidence that there could never be a doubt that the guilty one is the one sentanced. Where there is doubt then they must be set free or should be by our law. I would rather have 10 guilty go free than take the life of one person who is not guilty. But this is not always the case and that is a sad thing indeed but how to fix this is anyone guess.