Capital Punishment?

[RavenStar]

why should we not have the right to live? It's not like I plan on killing anyone or molesting children. I might actually benefit society.

[nbcrusader]

Originally posted by melon


"An eye for an eye..."

I have always found it intriguing how much violence we can justify in the Bible, and, yet, those who try and find "love" are picking and choosing. Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? "God's Word" does not permit the death penalty, unless, I guess, you choose to read the OT, which, seemingly, hates and kills everyone.

Melon

Both principles we are discussing are supported by Scripture in many places. Finding love is not picking and choosing by any means. On a personal basis, loving God and loving our neighbors are our first two priorities. That is not in dispute.

A criminal can receive forgiveness from God and the victim and still receive punishment from the established government (including a death penalty).

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).

Peace brother.

[ultraviolet7]

Absolutely against.
> I´m not God to decide whether somebody should live or not
> Some people who may later be proven innocent may be executed
> Lifetime deprivation of freedom is enough or worse punishment in my view

The use of taxpayers money to maintain convicts is indeed a point to consider. Maybe some planning should be devised to have convicts do some work or give some service to the community to put that money into some good use. I can't think of anything in particular now since I haven't really analysed it in depth, but there must certainly be something they can do.

[cell]

i dont know. i wouldnt know if i can be pro-death or against it. thats a hard question to answer. everyone makes good points in here. i guess it depends how extreme the crime committed. and to me, the cost of executing someone for their crimes wouldnt really matter to me. its justice.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by kobayashi


i may be misunderstanding this...but you're saying if someone might get off because of DNA evidence...we should kill them before that happens?

I have reread my post three times. I think it was fairly clear that my intent was to say DNA has nothing to do with the sniper, and that in cases where DNA can be used it should be.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by melon


"An eye for an eye..."

I have always found it intriguing how much violence we can justify in the Bible, and, yet, those who try and find "love" are picking and choosing. Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? "God's Word" does not permit the death penalty, unless, I guess, you choose to read the OT, which, seemingly, hates and kills everyone.

Melon

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

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by melon


"An eye for an eye..."

I have always found it intriguing how much violence we can justify in the Bible, and, yet, those who try and find "love" are picking and choosing. Whatever happened to "turn the other cheek" and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"? "God's Word" does not permit the death penalty, unless, I guess, you choose to read the OT, which, seemingly, hates and kills everyone.

Melon

Please, show me an example in the New Testament where Christ stood up in defense of people who have killed or murdered others?

Yes he stopped the prostitue from being stoned to death, but again, look at the crime, she did not kill anyone.

It is kind of hard to turn the other cheek when you are dead. Who speaks for those people?

[hiphop]

Originally posted by RavenStar
why should we not have the right to live? It's not like I plan on killing anyone or molesting children. I might actually benefit society.

This only turns the philosophical quest around. So you think that someone who benefits society, has a right to live, whereas a person who doesn´t benefit society ( - - and commits horrendous crimes) also doesn´t have the right to live?

I don´t want to speak on behalf of the bible or how I interprete it. I just think that many people who are guilty, die. Many more people who are innocent also die. Can I, or society, give back life to them? No. So the society I live in should not be too easy with taking life.

[Rono]

Originally posted by RavenStar
So sparkysgrrrl, you are saying that child rapists have a right to live?

The rapist that is raped or abused by others in their childhood ?
Those people have psychical problems ( most of the time )

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by Rono


The rapist that is raped or abused by others in their childhood ?
Those people have psychical problems ( most of the time )

So this means should anything horrific happen to you in your childhood, you should be excused from exercising moral judgement?

There are plenty of people in the world who are abused mentally and physically who somehow manage to be outstanding citizens of the community without causing harm to their fellow man.

One problem with the society in which we live in is we have become enablers. Anyone who has been dealt a bad hand at the card table has an excuse for this that or the other thing. They should not be held accountable for whatever wrong they do in the world.

If you want to lesson the number of people who wind up on death row, start with accountability for ones actions at a young age. This starts at home. So many brilliant minds wasted because mom and/or dad are more concerned with making excuses than accountability for behaviors.

And fathers stop leaving the education of your children up to your child's mother. I can count on one hand the number of fathers I have seen at a parent conference in almost eight years of teaching. Get involved in your child's life, more than just showing up for their athletic events. It does not take much. And if you are divorced, take the time to give more than you can to be involved with your kid........I have met one divorced father in the same time span. Show that you are accountable for your actions as well. The biggest action you have undertaken in your life is to create that child.

Maybe then, there will be less people on death row.


Peace to all......Sorry for rambling.

[melon]

Originally posted by nbcrusader
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]

Originally posted by Dreadsox
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]

Originally posted by melon

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]

Originally posted by melon


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.

Originally posted by melon
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]

Originally posted by Dreadsox

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]

Originally posted by whenhiphopdrovethebigcars


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]

Originally posted by melon


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.