Capital Punishment?

[melon]

The OT and NT are both fully God's Word. The message from Genesis through Revelation is consistent (though true understanding can only come from the Holy Spirit).

Then let us bask in the consistency of the "true Word of God," the 1611 KJV:

Jesus is nonviolent:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." -- Matthew 5:38-39

Jesus is violent:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me." -- Matthew 10:34-38

Jesus is against divorce:

"And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." -- Luke 10:4-9

Jesus permits divorce:

"It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." -- Matthew 5:31-32

...

Putting this all aside, I've studied all of this more in-depth, and I find a lot of the inconsistencies come from the very inconsistent evolution of the Bible. It would perhaps interest one to know that Matthew is written by, at least, two people: the Jewish Christian original text (which explains all the upholding of the Mosaic Law, and the "sword" passage) and the Gentile Christian revisions (which explains all the passages that do not uphold the Mosaic Law).

Truthfully, all I can do really is *sigh* as most of us attempt to beat up ourselves in upholding the contradictory standards of the gospel of Matthew, especially when stacked up against the Pauline epistles:

"For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. I am crucified with Christ: neverthless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain." -- Galatians 2:19-21

Law...law...law...it appears that the Gentile Christian ministry of St. Paul (whereupon modern Christianity finds its roots) has been completely eroded over the millennia, and Jewish Christian ideals in Matthew that would make St. Paul cringe have made its way into the Protestantism. This is what I find to be dangerous, but I guess I have no control over the masses.

Melon

 

[pax]

Just popping in to say that this is a very well-maintained thread...keep it up, FYMers.

 

[melon]

So God's word is not present in the Old Testament?

I am a student of history, amongst others, and it should interest one to know what the creators of the New Testament canon thought of the Old Testament. Initially, as the Gentile Christian community of St. Paul effectively took control of the entire Christian Church, they wished to create a canon that only consisted of the gospels of Mark and Luke, along with only the Pauline epistles. The law of the Old Testament was fulfilled with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, to them, so it was no longer needed. However, the canon as we see it today came about, because they, apparently, appreciated history as well; the Old Testament was included only because the New Testament made reference to it in instances. It was not meant to be taken as doctrine.

Of course, enter the Dark Ages, where Europe plunges into ignorance, and all this context is lost, minus the one constant: the Vatican, which maintained these records over the centuries. But, at this point, history was irrelevant, as the concept of "faith tradition"--in other words, whatever the Church says is the "word of God"--took over, and, couple that with the increasingly imperialist composition of the hierarchy, you can imagine the rest. All ripe for abuse over the next millennium, until the Protestant Reformation, which, equally, was uninterested in historical context.

Overall, I've found that people are less interested in discovering what the Bible has to say as much as they are interested in keeping things "the same." As we have a very violent and patriarchal cultural history, it is convenient to use the Bible to support this "tradition" of ours. Those who evoke love and equality are seen as "picking and choosing," but more so because it challenges the societal status quo. It was for this same reason that Jesus Christ was crucified; the Pharisees were uninterested in relinquishing their traditions that they knew their entire life, so they killed Him. Human nature has not changed in the slightest in over 2000 years.

Melon

 

[hiphop]

Overall, I've found that people are less interested in discovering what the Bible has to say as much as they are interested in keeping things "the same." As we have a very violent and patriarchal cultural history, it is convenient to use the Bible to support this "tradition" of ours.

Melon

yes yes yes.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am a student of history, amongst others, and it should interest one to know what the creators of the New Testament canon thought of the Old Testament. Initially, as the Gentile Christian community of St. Paul effectively took control of the entire Christian Church, they wished to create a canon that only consisted of the gospels of Mark and Luke, along with only the Pauline epistles. The law of the Old Testament was fulfilled with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, to them, so it was no longer needed. However, the canon as we see it today came about, because they, apparently, appreciated history as well; the Old Testament was included only because the New Testament made reference to it in instances. It was not meant to be taken as doctrine.

You said many things and I respect your knowledge of the history of the church. I would however, point out that you did not answer my question. Are you saying that the word of God cannot be found in the Old Testament? Your own statements indicate that they had as much respect for the Old Testament as the New Testament because it was included.

According to Matthew 5(17-18): "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until the heaven and the earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Some would question if Jesus has yet fulfilled all that is written about the Messiah. This does not mean, I do not recognize him as the Messiah, but rather, all of the prophecies about the Messiah have not yet come to pass. Therefore, one could argue that the Old Testament is still a valid book.

Overall, I've found that people are less interested in discovering what the Bible has to say as much as they are interested in keeping things "the same." As we have a very violent and patriarchal cultural history, it is convenient to use the Bible to support this "tradition" of ours. Those who evoke love and equality are seen as "picking and choosing," but more so because it challenges the societal status quo. It was for this same reason that Jesus Christ was crucified; the Pharisees were uninterested in relinquishing their traditions that they knew their entire life, so they killed Him. Human nature has not changed in the slightest in over 2000 years.
Melon

There is a difference between the execution of Jesus Christ, and the administering of justice let's say in the case of the sniper. This has nothing to do with our "cultural history". I can love someone, even though they have done something wrong. This does not mean I should oppose the punishment wrongdoings. The sniper, rapists, and murderers of the world are not running around trying to change our "traditions". They have done nothing to contribute to changing "societal status quo". Jesus was however.

As for discovering what they bible says.........I agree many do not take the time to discover it. Since I am trying to discover it, maybe you can help me.

Show me once where Jesus stood opposed to just punishment against a murderer. You cannot equate him preventing the stoning of the prostitute with opposition to the death penalty. Prostitution is not murder.

To be come a follower of Christ, one has to change. There is no getting around it. The status quo people should be worried about starts within themselves.


Peace to All.

 

[hiphop]

Show me once where Jesus stood opposed to just punishment against a murderer. You cannot equate him preventing the stoning of the prostitute with opposition to the death penalty. Prostitution is not murder.

To be come a follower of Christ, one has to change. There is no getting around it. The status quo people should be worried about starts within themselves.


Peace to All.

Your interpretation of the bible is your very own, but I interpreted that story differently. It was not about how bad the crime was the prostitute committed. It was about that she shouldn?t be stoned to death, regardless of what she has done.

The bible is not a straight book full of concrete laws, imHo. I think there is a kind of logic that can?t deal with the bible.

Another point: if I really was for death penalty, it would be right to put every soldier that ever has killed another soldier on death row. Sure, hah, now you will say that it was not the soldiers fault because it may have been war or it may have been an order that he had to execute, blah blah. I don?t mean to come off hard, so sorry if it sounds so. But to me those things DON?T COUNT ZERO. The standards of our societies regarding war don?t count nothing, they?re worth less than the plastic bag to pick up your dogs shit. They are absolutely bad and rotten and make some places on beautiful mother earth to hellholes. So they have nothing to do with my opinion, you see? One life less on earth is one life less. Fault? Yes, the ones living can quarrel about whose fault it is for the rest of their lives. This is why I say, if I was for death penalty, every soldier who ever killed anyone (without personal reason, and not for selfdefense - and I mean selfdefense of his very own body, not of foggy things like nations or stuff) has committed the same crime like a killer. Now if I send him onto death row, I commit the same crime, see? I am killing a person, a human, no matter what he/ she has done. So I should be put on death row, right?

See, either everyone kills everyone or we all stay alive and happy, lock away the killers or rapers for the rest of their lives (without revisions), in a clean place but without TVs or shit, and try to make this world a better place by forbidding arms production, exports and imports; some will lose their job, but we don?t have enough social workers anyway, do we? To help the old and ill ones...

Sorry, I know I must sound like my head in the clouds, but you know, give me good serious reasons why that should not be worth a try. There are simple concepts (sure, there would be problems and its not that simple, but I am positive our experts can work that one out), so simple, and we could start so small.

History shows it doesn?t work out though... but have we ever all together truly tried?

 

[anitram]

I don't believe in it for a very simple reason - I would not be able to "pull the plug" so to speak, myself because I believe it is immoral. Therefore, I would be a hypocrite if I required other people to do it in my name.

Thankfully I live in a country where the death penalty is not an option.

 

[RavenStar]

ummm...Must we keep quoting the bible? I know it's what you guys believe in and stuff but try to remember not everyone here is all the familiar with it as you guys are. It can get confusing. Thanks

 

[Dreadsox]

Your interpretation of the bible is your very own, but I interpreted that story differently. It was not about how bad the crime was the prostitute committed. It was about that she shouldn?t be stoned to death, regardless of what she has done.

Fine, you can interpret it that way. If you take the words from Matthew where Christ says he is not here to abolish the law, and think about the fact that the Message of Christ time and time again was that we had to be better than the law, the two are not in conflict. Christians had to live not just by the law, "thou shalt not murder", but even when angry with ones brother are subject to judgement. This does not erase that people who kill are subject to the law.

 

[Dreadsox]

I am a student of history, amongst others, and it should interest one to know what the creators of the New Testament canon thought of the Old Testament. Initially, as the Gentile Christian community of St. Paul effectively took control of the entire Christian Church, they wished to create a canon that only consisted of the gospels of Mark and Luke, along with only the Pauline epistles.

Then you must recognize that Paul himself states.....

If I have committed a crime or done anything deserving death, I do not seek to escape the death penalty; but if there is no substance to the charges they are bringing against me, then no one has the right to hand me over to them.

 

[Dreadsox]

ummm...Must we keep quoting the bible? I know it's what you guys believe in and stuff but try to remember not everyone here is all the familiar with it as you guys are. It can get confusing. Thanks

Hey Ravenstar...we still you.

But, do you know what I do when I do not know or understand what someone is talking about?

I get a book, do a web search, and try and get some understanding on their point of view. It is obvious you are intelligent and are more than capable of educating yourself in this area. I am not saying you have to believe it.


Peace to all.

 

[RavenStar]

by the time I finish all that this conversation will be long gone. And I've just started a book on psychology so I wanna finish that first.
It's just that when you guys start quoting the bible the discussion turns in to your different interpritations of the bible instead of your views on capital punishment. Also, when all you do is quote the bible it makes it seem like you are just pasting the info here. Instead of just digging it up from your mind or something.

 

[pax]

It's just that when you guys start quoting the bible the discussion turns in to your different interpritations of the bible instead of your views on capital punishment. Also, when all you do is quote the bible it makes it seem like you are just pasting the info here. Instead of just digging it up from your mind or something.

Yes, Raven, but many folks here base their views on the death penalty on what the Bible says. And I would venture to say that they post the excerpts from the Bible just in case someone--like you--isn't as familiar with the passages they are. They're making an attempt to include you and other non-Christians in the discussion by posting the pasages so you know exactly what they're talking about.

I think that while the debate may have strayed a bit, it's overall on track and is certainly going civilly. Let's keep it that way.

 

[Sparkysgrrrl]

by the time I finish all that this conversation will be long gone. And I've just started a book on psychology so I wanna finish that first.
It's just that when you guys start quoting the bible the discussion turns in to your different interpritations of the bible instead of your views on capital punishment. Also, when all you do is quote the bible it makes it seem like you are just pasting the info here. Instead of just digging it up from your mind or something.

Yeah, what she said.
I leave for a day and I feel like I'm in church...

Don't have much time but another thing I want to remind myself to come back to:
I think keeping these criminals alive also allows them to be studied, which I feel is important, why people turn out the way they do, what made them do it, what makes them tick, and after all-

listening to their "born again Christian" bull when they're old and grey is just damned amusing.

 

[daisybean]

and after all-

listening to their "born again Christian" bull when they're old and grey is just damned amusing.

I wouldn't necessarily say it's bull. Most criminals don't even have a sense of remorse for thier crime. If a criminal who is sentenced to life in prision with no parole, has found a way to see what they did was wrong and made peace within themselves for it, how is it a bad thing? Nothing will ever "undo" the crime, but at least they are acknowledging what they did and are trying to make up for it.

 

[U2Kitten]

Most criminals don't even have a sense of remorse for thier crime.

Sad but true. A lot of people who oppose the death penalty use the rationalization that 'it's enough that they will have to live with this for the rest of their lives' BUT most of them don't regret it or let it bother them. They can go on about whatever they can amuse themselves with in jail and not ever care. If they had that kind of conscience they never would have done their crime in the first place. Some people honestly have no conscience, or conscience as most people know it, and we have to consider that. Just because you are a nice person and you would feel bad doesn't mean they will. You can't base what they feel on what you feel, I don't think anyone here is a harded muderer. If some have 'repented' and try change that's great, if they're serious. But we can't assume every guy like this is going to be that way.

I read in the paper this morning a guy who lived in a homeless shelter with the snipers said he heard them planning a crime where they'd blow up a tanker truck on the interstate to kill lots of people, then shoot a cop that comes to the scene, then kill the mourners at his funeral! Some people really are too far gone.

 

[Sparkysgrrrl]

Does anyone have any numbers or statistics to say that most who get life sentences never experience any remorse?
I think that it's easy for us to look at it that way and say "well most never care, they're just evil" but it is an assumption we may be making.

When you're left to rot in prison and turn to Jesus, I just think it's funny. Someone who is a serial killer can then at the end say "oops! Sorry, now I've found Jesus, look at me!" and we're supposed to believe them? Or we're supposed to care? Like that makes them a better person.....I'd rather hear about someone who feels remorse without claiming any religion as the reason, they just came to that conclusion on their own.

 

[oliveu2cm]

Very interesting..

I'd like to say that the reason people are quoting the Bible and discussing what they think God thinks about the death penalty is because their beliefs are wrapped up in what God says. But look at the inconsistencies presented, the different levels of interpretation- it's not always as straight-foward as it may seem to understand what God wants regarding the death penalty.

My gut would have to say He doesn't want more killing. Punishment, consequences yes. Killing..

Rather than the death penalty, I'd like to see them sentanced to a life in solitary confinment. Throw 'em in a small dark room, give 'em food a few times a day, and (certain) books if they request. That's it. If a prisoner wants to find God, repent his sins, etc (I'm thinking "Dead Man Walking") fine, it's not my business, and no one will Really know the truth besides God. I'd never laugh if they told me they did, but I'd never let them back onto the streets again.

I'm very torn on this issue though and my commitment to one side wavers. That's why I like reading discussions like this, to learn more.

Someone posted that article about Timothy McVay and how his crime may have been the work of the Taliban. If he was alive now, perhaps we could find out somehow (obviously he didn't/wouldn't just tell us, but maybe there'd be something someday that would tip us off).

Question: what comes of Osama if the U.S. catches him and brings him into custody in this country? Then what?

Even these snipers, Ughhh I wish evil things for them, that scare myself! See how evil brings out evil in others??

I guess right now i'd say No, no death penalty. But for crying out loud, take away their TVs, walks outside, visitation rights, possible parole, and any communication with the outside world!!

 

[Sparkysgrrrl]

I guess right now i'd say No, no death penalty. But for crying out loud, take away their TVs, walks outside, visitation rights, possible parole, and any communication with the outside world!!

I agree, there needs to some changes in how we house some prisoners. The whole systen is just out of wack...
A lot of anger about life in prison vs. death penalty seems comes from how we don't want these prisoners access to things that a normal citizen has, or that some of us law abiding citizens can't even afford.

 

[nbcrusader]

Boy, I sure missed a lot this weekend. Great discussion from all?.

Then let us bask in the consistency of the "true Word of God," the 1611 KJV:

You raise some excellent and interesting points. We can get into an in-depth discussion of biblical interpretation and the authenticity and accuracy of Scripture, but we will stray from the topic of capital punishment. I?d love to discuss the apparent inconsistencies in Scripture as well as what is considered the ?authoritative? translation. Maybe the stuff of a different thread?

As for the death penalty ? consider the thieves on the cross (crucifixion, by the way, is one horrible way to die ? essentially a slow suffocation). Jesus never questioned the punishment handed to them. He only promised eternal life to the one who believed.

As for why I look to God?s Word on this subject ? I think some basic question for all of us are ?Is there one truth that applies to all of us?? And ?What is your source of truth??

Have a great day my forum friends?

 

[Dreadsox]

As for the death penalty ? consider the thieves on the cross (crucifixion, by the way, is one horrible way to die ? essentially a slow suffocation). Jesus never questioned the punishment handed to them. He only promised eternal life to the one who believed.

Man, you stole my next point! I tip my hat at ya! Welcome back NB..... I was wondering where you might be hiding!!!


Peace to all.

 

[melon]

According to Matthew 5(17-18): "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until the heaven and the earth pass away, not the smallest letter or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place."

Considering this is one of the most mangled passages in the Gospel of Matthew, allow me to decipher it as I see it:

Matthew 7:12 -- "Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets."

This is fully in keeping with Gentile Christian / Pauline beliefs about law, which believed that "the law" was fulfilled by Jesus Christ. This is fully a semantical distinction on St. Paul's part, who treaded lightly to try and convert Jewish Christians to his beliefs by always referring to an ambiguous "the law," and must be watched carefully. His redefinition of "the law" from the Jewish definition of the "Mosaic Law" to the "Golden Rule" is immediately where most Christians stumble, especially when one attempts to bridge Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian texts--which was never meant to happen.

From a more scientific method, the latter passage is direct evidence of the Gentile Christian edits of the supposed "original" text of the Gospel of Matthew. It must be remembered, as always, that the origins of Christianity are borne in conflict, rather than uniformity.

Melon

 

[melon]

You raise some excellent and interesting points. We can get into an in-depth discussion of biblical interpretation and the authenticity and accuracy of Scripture, but we will stray from the topic of capital punishment. I?d love to discuss the apparent inconsistencies in Scripture as well as what is considered the ?authoritative? translation. Maybe the stuff of a different thread?

I was able to reconcile the inconsistencies through Biblical scholarship, and, by learning what "interest groups" wrote what, one learns, indeed, as to what is considered worthy of belief by our own tradition.

Melon

 

[melon]

I oppose capital punishment on the grounds of the one commandment of Jesus Christ: "Love God and love one another." It was, indeed, a difficult challenge; one that even led to His own death. As this commandment is even to be extended to one's enemies, I cannot see how the death penalty is reconciled with this commandment. Life imprisonment without parole assures public safety, while giving the prisoner sufficient time to ponder and potentially repent, if that is God's will. With the death penality, like abortion, man takes life in his own hands.

Melon

 

[Anthony]

I am against, purely because death is too good for them.

Ant.

 

[nbcrusader]

I was able to reconcile the inconsistencies through Biblical scholarship, and, by learning what "interest groups" wrote what, one learns, indeed, as to what is considered worthy of belief by our own tradition.

Melon

To studying His Word.

A question - let's say you highlight different passages from the bible according to the ?interest groups? who you believe were behind the writing/editing/subsequent translation. Does this elevate some Scripture over others? Is there an agree standard of attributing Scripture to ?interest groups?? Is this a dispensational view of Scripture?

I am only asking to grow in my own understanding. Thank you for sharing.

 

[Dreadsox]

To studying His Word.

A question - let's say you highlight different passages from the bible according to the ?interest groups? who you believe were behind the writing/editing/subsequent translation. Does this elevate some Scripture over others? Is there an agree standard of attributing Scripture to ?interest groups?? Is this a dispensational view of Scripture?

I am only asking to grow in my own understanding. Thank you for sharing.

I love the questions. I was just discussing this with a friend of mine. Melon, are the Gospels of Luke and Mark elevated above the others? Or are only the pieces of Matthew edited by the Pauline/Gentile Christians the valid ones?

Again...Why in ACTS 25 would Paul say go ahead and put me to death if I am guilty of the crime if he is opposed to it? He does not exclaim that the death penalty is wrong. He says if you can prove it, follow through with the consequence.

 

[melon]

A question - let's say you highlight different passages from the bible according to the ?interest groups? who you believe were behind the writing/editing/subsequent translation. Does this elevate some Scripture over others? Is there an agree standard of attributing Scripture to ?interest groups?? Is this a dispensational view of Scripture?

I think we must first discover what we, ourselves, believe before we can decipher what is correct, and a lot of this does have to do with issues of denomination, issues of philosophy, and issues of conscience.

Primarily and inescapably, I am Roman Catholic in background; and I do recognize that there are various different points of view on Christianity. Secondly, and also inescapably, all Christians have their own personal views and relationships with God that easily "defy" the status quo, as presented by denominations. Is that necessarily "wrong" or "immoral"? No, it is just human nature; a testament to humanity's persistent quest for individualism (hence, the general failure of "communal" structures like communism and socialism)--and we've seen what happens when we have groups who refuse to acknowledge even the most subtle of diversity in thought.

Why I have perhaps made the constant distinctions between Jewish Christians (a.k.a., Church of Jerusalem) and Gentile Christians (a.k.a., Church of Antioch) is the fact that, historically, Christianity has evolved wholly from the Gentile Christian point of view. The Church of Jerusalem imploded long before Christianity exploded with Emperor Constantine's conversion in A.D. 313 and subsequent decree that made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. This "Christianity" was specifically the successors of the Gentile Christian, Church of Antioch--the church of St. Paul.

As Roman Catholicism is the direct successor of this "Christianity" and the Church of Antioch, it is fairly simple to trace back through the centuries to see where these moral philosophies of ours originated--and also that, at every stage of Christianity, there has always been conflict. The earliest Christianity dealt with ideas of "law," which is recorded in the New Testament canon. Roman Christianity grappled with Jesus' divinity and the conflict between Jesus being 100% human (Gnosticism), Jesus being 100% God (Arianism), and the "official" Christian view that Jesus was both 100% human and 100% God....and so on and so on.

Why I am dismissive of Christian fundamentalism is sheerly because I think that such a concept in the most literal sense--that the entire Bible is true to a literal sense--is ridiculous and impossible to live up to. As we've seen, the only way to make such connections is to literally make huge stretches between divergent books, while completely ignoring large sections of the "love" portions. Again, we've made a cultural judgment that one isolated passage that supposedly permits divorce (which is a mistranslation of "porneia" or "blood mixing" [a Jewish Christian concern) / incest...but I digress] in the Gospel of Matthew supercedes the many other passages where Jesus wholly condemns it. What we, as modern Christians, are doing is no different than the medieval Christian stoics, who took isolated passages in Pauline epistles, and constructed a patriarchal and pleasureless pseudoscience out of it.

So what do I believe is the response to all of this?

"When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them (a scholar of the law) tested him by asking, 'Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?' He said to him, 'You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.'" -- Matthew 22:34-40

"For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" -- Galatians 5:14

"Owe nothing to anyone, except to love one another; for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law. The commandments, 'You shall not commit adultery; you shall not kill; you shall not steal; you shall not covet,' and whatever other commandment there may be, are summed up in this saying, (namely) 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' Love does no evil to the neighbor; hence, love is the fulfillment of the law." -- Romans 13:8-10

"Do to others whatever you would have them do to you. This is the law and the prophets." -- Matthew 7:12

Four passages of many in the New Testament that repeatedly state what the true nature of "the law" is--LOVE--and we're squabbling over one in Matthew that I've explained to have a double meaning? But human power and desire for control will never allow true love, which is selfless and vulnerable, and so many will use their power to do anything to weaken this love; and I think it is the true calling of a Christian to resist the temptation of tradition, which simply is more appealing because it is difficult to be "different." No one ever said, though, that "love," while, essentially, a simple concept, would ever be easy to enact.

...

As for Acts 25 and Jesus' crucifixion, think of the logic of this. "I'm opposed to the death penalty, so you can't execute me." With both Jesus and St. Paul, we are dealing with people that are already considered "the unconverted"--Pharisees and Romans. Acts 25 has less to do with death penalty pronouncements than St. Paul's confidence that the right way--God's way--will prevail and he will be innocent. St. Paul, as the unconverted "Saul," consented to St. Stephen's stoning to death (Acts 8:1), but, upon conversion, never did it again. If the death penalty is such a righteous form of punishment, then why do none of the heroes of the New Testament--Jesus, the apostles, and St. Paul--execute anyone?

Melon

 

[lady lemonade]

Rather than the death penalty, I'd like to see them sentanced to a life in solitary confinment. Throw 'em in a small dark room, give 'em food a few times a day, and (certain) books if they request. That's it. If a prisoner wants to find God, repent his sins, etc (I'm thinking "Dead Man Walking") fine, it's not my business, and no one will Really know the truth besides God. I'd never laugh if they told me they did, but I'd never let them back onto the streets again.

I'm very torn on this issue though and my commitment to one side wavers. That's why I like reading discussions like this, to learn more.

Even these snipers, Ughhh I wish evil things for them, that scare myself! See how evil brings out evil in others??

I guess right now i'd say No, no death penalty. But for crying out loud, take away their TVs, walks outside, visitation rights, possible parole, and any communication with the outside world!!

I guess I'm also agains the death penalty, especially due to the small yet horrific possibillity that someone innocent might be killed. In cases where there is irrefutable evidence, for instance in the case of the snipers, it becomes harder to argue against it.. I liked how you mention that "evil brings out evil in others." Do I wish the snipers would die a horrible death? Yes. Would I be able to kill them myself? No, I don't think I could consciously take away another human being's life, no matter how worthless and horrible I believe that person to be. I wouldn't want the consequences and the effects it would have on me. I'd be afraid that I would hate the person I'd become, someone who killed another human being.

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Although part of me totally understands why a victim's family or friends would want the death penalty, there is always that fear that the wrong person might be convicted (if there is no irrefutable DNA evidence). And while it is easy to sit here and say "We don't have the right to kill anyone" and "the death penalty won't bring back the victim" I'm sure if it were someone I loved, I'd probably want them to fry.

All aside from the death penalty, I think that rapists and child molesters should be castrated. That doesn't kill them, but it certainly humiliates them and hinders their ability to do it again.