Death Penalty: All in Favor? All Opposed?

[Armour of God]

This post has a lot of wisdom in it @Lizbeth! Thank you for your post.

One thing that frustrates me about the overly-spiritualized, is their denial of Ordo Amoris and how human beings having overlapping responsibilities. Yes, I am responsible to my boss at work but this is not the limit of my responsibilities. I have a responsibility to my parents, wife, children, neighbors, etc. And yes, we have a responsibility to our own government, as Christ commanded, give to Caesar what is Caesar's. It's irresponsible to say we only have a responsibility to God. It's simply not true.

"As Christians" X responsibility. Also, as children, Y responsibility. As parents, Z responsibility. As citizen's W responsibility.

Jesus was a subject of an empire that afforded few rights while imposing duties, e.g., carrying soldiers gear 1 mile. Christ expanded that to go above and beyond. Walk 2 miles. Matthew 5:41. In our Western countries, they call it citizen government or self-government. You in Canada and me in the States have a duty, a responsibility to guide our government to be and remain on the path of JUSTice. 1 Corinthians 6:3-4.

I thought you were against the death penalty but many things you say makes it look like you actually support the death penalty

 

[Wrangler]

I thought you were against the death penalty but many things you say makes it look like you actually support the death penalty

You're right; I am ambivalent on the topic. Have you ever noticed how polarized our society has become? We can't be moderately, 60-40 on an issue? There is the expectation that everything is all or nothing. 100% for Biden. 0% for Trump. 100% for the war against Al Qaeda. 0% for the war in Iran. Most moral issues have compelling PROS and CONS. I'm acknowledging that reality even though it is increasingly goes against the norm in today's sick society.

Ultimately and in general, I'm against the death penalty but not for the many reasons put forth in this thread. It is cheaper than imprisoning someone for half a century. It is an act of justice. While there is a compelling philosophical reason to oppose it, the factor that seals the deal for me is the inability to make "one whole" in the event of an error.

Still, I admit that there are mitigating circumstances that make the death penalty the better option. So, under normal circumstances, I'm against the death penalty. There remain exceptional circumstances. For instance, suppose you and I and two other guys are stranded on an island for a long time. One day one of the other guys becomes a homicidal maniac and murders that other guy. He tries again and again to murder us but somehow we survive and subdue him. Further suppose it is not practical for us to restrain him indefinitely without us risking our lives in the future. It comes down to us or him and we have a right to defend our lives. So, there are normal ethics and crisis ethics needed for survival, which is the ultimate moral standard.

I think it is wise to give both sides of important moral issues due consideration before reaching a verdict in your own mind, don't you? Just because one side wins out doesn't mean the other side is totally wrong on every point. We might crave moral certainty but we live forever lacking all the information yet must choose a path though there remains ambiguity.

 

[Armour of God]

You're right; I am ambivalent on the topic. Have you ever noticed how polarized our society has become? We can't be moderately, 60-40 on an issue? There is the expectation that everything is all or nothing. 100% for Biden. 0% for Trump. 100% for the war against Al Qaeda. 0% for the war in Iran. Most moral issues have compelling PROS and CONS. I'm acknowledging that reality even though it is increasingly goes against the norm in today's sick society.

Ultimately and in general, I'm against the death penalty but not for the many reasons put forth in this thread. It is cheaper than imprisoning someone for half a century. It is an act of justice. While there is a compelling philosophical reason to oppose it, the factor that seals the deal for me is the inability to make "one whole" in the event of an error.

Still, I admit that there are mitigating circumstances that make the death penalty the better option. So, under normal circumstances, I'm against the death penalty. There remain exceptional circumstances. For instance, suppose you and I and two other guys are stranded on an island for a long time. One day one of the other guys becomes a homicidal maniac and murders that other guy. He tries again and again to murder us but somehow we survive and subdue him. Further suppose it is not practical for us to restrain him indefinitely without us risking our lives in the future. It comes down to us or him and we have a right to defend our lives. So, there are normal ethics and crisis ethics needed for survival, which is the ultimate moral standard.

I think it is wise to give both sides of important moral issues due consideration before reaching a verdict in your own mind, don't you? Just because one side wins out doesn't mean the other side is totally wrong on every point. We might crave moral certainty but we live forever lacking all the information yet must choose a path though there remains ambiguity.

Fair enough

 

[Lizbeth]

This post has a lot of wisdom in it @Lizbeth! Thank you for your post.

One thing that frustrates me about the overly-spiritualized, is their denial of Ordo Amoris and how human beings having overlapping responsibilities. Yes, I am responsible to my boss at work but this is not the limit of my responsibilities. I have a responsibility to my parents, wife, children, neighbors, etc. And yes, we have a responsibility to our own government, as Christ commanded, give to Caesar what is Caesar's. It's irresponsible to say we only have a responsibility to God. It's simply not true.

"As Christians" X responsibility. Also, as children, Y responsibility. As parents, Z responsibility. As citizen's W responsibility.

Jesus was a subject of an empire that afforded few rights while imposing duties, e.g., carrying soldiers gear 1 mile. Christ expanded that to go above and beyond. Walk 2 miles. Matthew 5:41. In our Western countries, they call it citizen government or self-government. You in Canada and me in the States have a duty, a responsibility to guide our government to be and remain on the path of JUSTice. 1 Corinthians 6:3-4.

Well, to be clear, I regard that as being God's wisdom concerning governments, but not the church. The church should not be embroiled in and invested in worldly government/political affairs.. We are only instructed to pray for those in authority (for their salvation and I believe also that they would act wisely, justly and honestly etc) and to submit to their laws. And the reason given that we are to pray for them is for the church's sake, that we might live peaceably (1 Tim 2:1-2). Corruption and anarchy don't bode well for a peaceful orderly life.

In my opinion, I don't think there is anything wrong with believers expressing views and suggestions to elected representatives or simply casting a vote, and being responsible citizens as you say....but I believe we should draw the line at political activism - that is just not what we're here for and we need to trust in God's sovereignty over such things. Jesus didn't get involved with the political circumstances of His day (in fact He resisted and fled that temptation), and neither did the apostles and early church. We need to follow their example and keep our focus above, not here below............Jesus said the cares of this world choke the word. Do we believe Him? I'm seeing a church today that has essentially exchanged its spiritual weapons for carnal ones. He is always right.

 

[Wrangler]

The church should not be embroiled in and invested in worldly government/political affairs..

Churches of the past were invested in worldly government/political affairs.
1. MLK Jr was a pastor who lead all kinds of worldly and political activism.

2. It's the whole reason the Johnson Amendment was passed.

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in a preliminary draft of the law in July 1954.​

3. The Founding Father's grew up listening to stirring sermons the First Great Awakening:

The Great Awakening aggravated existing conflicts within the Protestant churches, often leading to schisms between supporters of revival, known as "New Lights", and opponents of revival, known as "Old Lights". The Old Lights saw the religious enthusiasm and itinerant preaching unleashed by the Awakening as disruptive to church order, preferring formal worship and a settled, university-educated ministry. They mocked revivalists as being ignorant, heterodox, or con artists. New Lights accused Old Lights of being more concerned with social status than with saving souls and even questioned whether some Old Light ministers were even converted. They also supported itinerant ministers who disregarded parishboundaries.[57]​

​

Congregationalists in New England experienced 98 schisms, which in Connecticut also affected which group would be considered "official" for tax purposes. Historians have debated whether the Awakening had a political impact on the American Revolution, which took place soon after. Alan Heimert sees a major impact, but most historians think it had only a minor impact.​

​

Historians now tend to downplay the importance of religion in general. I read the actual words of the Founding Father's. The source material reveals the truth.

​

4. The Crusades were called by the Pope. That's fairly worldly and political.

5. 4th Century Church became the Official Sponsored religion of the Roman Empire that lasted another 1,000 years.

If the church cannot shepherd the modern flock in the top 20 issues of the day, it is rendered itself irrelevant. By what then, should society decide how to conduct itself other than the wisdom of God's word and people who follow the way? Are Christians better off being ruled by Atheist and Satanist ideologies?

 

[Lizbeth]

Churches of the past were invested in worldly government/political affairs.
1. MLK Jr was a pastor who lead all kinds of worldly and political activism.

2. It's the whole reason the Johnson Amendment was passed.

The Johnson Amendment is a provision in the U.S. tax code, since 1954, that prohibits all 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations from endorsing or opposing political candidates. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are the most common type of nonprofit organization in the United States, ranging from charitable foundations to universities and churches. The amendment is named for then-Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of Texas, who introduced it in a preliminary draft of the law in July 1954.​

3. The Founding Father's grew up listening to stirring sermons the First Great Awakening:

The Great Awakening aggravated existing conflicts within the Protestant churches, often leading to schisms between supporters of revival, known as "New Lights", and opponents of revival, known as "Old Lights". The Old Lights saw the religious enthusiasm and itinerant preaching unleashed by the Awakening as disruptive to church order, preferring formal worship and a settled, university-educated ministry. They mocked revivalists as being ignorant, heterodox, or con artists. New Lights accused Old Lights of being more concerned with social status than with saving souls and even questioned whether some Old Light ministers were even converted. They also supported itinerant ministers who disregarded parishboundaries.[57]​

​

Congregationalists in New England experienced 98 schisms, which in Connecticut also affected which group would be considered "official" for tax purposes. Historians have debated whether the Awakening had a political impact on the American Revolution, which took place soon after. Alan Heimert sees a major impact, but most historians think it had only a minor impact.​

​

Historians now tend to downplay the importance of religion in general. I read the actual words of the Founding Father's. The source material reveals the truth.

​

4. The Crusades were called by the Pope. That's fairly worldly and political.

5. 4th Century Church became the Official Sponsored religion of the Roman Empire that lasted another 1,000 years.

If the church cannot shepherd the modern flock in the top 20 issues of the day, it is rendered itself irrelevant. By what then, should society decide how to conduct itself other than the wisdom of God's word and people who follow the way? Are Christians better off being ruled by Atheist and Satanist ideologies?

The gospel is never irrelevant. And it has spin-off benefits in the world. Men will do what men will do, but we are to follow Jesus, His example and His word. And He did not demonstrate or instruct His church to go and change the world, but to go and make disciples. We are not called to change the world.....this world is appointed to wrath. We're only told to rescue souls OUT of the world before the wrath comes. As per Noah. And few listened to him back then too.

 

[chongshipei]

I support death penalty for crimes like murder. An eye for an eye. That is what God sets in the OT of the bible. If a man murders, he dies. Simple as that. The life of the victim is as valuable as the life of the murderer.

However, while I support death penalty for the murderer, I believe that it is important to share the gospel to him or her before he or she is executed for his or her crime of murder. This is so that he or she will not go to hell. Yes, he or she must pay for his or her crime while alive, but I hope that does not apply to his or her after-life.

 

[PeterAndroz]

I support death penalty for crimes like murder. An eye for an eye. That is what God sets in the OT of the bible. If a man murders, he dies. Simple as that. The life of the victim is as valuable as the life of the murderer.

However, while I support death penalty for the murderer, I believe that it is important to share the gospel to him or her before he or she is executed for his or her crime of murder. This is so that he or she will not go to hell. Yes, he or she must pay for his or her crime while alive, but I hope that does not apply to his or her after-life.

Sharing with them the saving Gospel for today 1 Cor 15:1-4, Eph 1:13, YES.
Yet they will only be saved by it if they believe it and trust it

 

[chongshipei]

Yes, I agree. They must believe in the gospel and truly trust it before they can be saved.
There are two thieves who are crucified with Jesus.
One believe in Him while the other didn't.
Jesus only told the one who believed in Him that he will be in paradise, and not to the other who did not believe in him.

 

[PeterAndroz]

Yes, I agree. They must believe in the gospel and truly trust it before they can be saved.
There are two thieves who are crucified with Jesus.
One believe in Him while the other didn't.
Jesus only told the one who believed in Him that he will be in paradise, and not to the other who did not believe in him.

Yes, that thief was saved.
2 questions based on what you understand or believe to be correct :-
1. Why was he saved ?
2. What verses do you believe teach how we are saved today ?

 

[quietthinker]

I support death penalty for crimes like murder. An eye for an eye. That is what God sets in the OT of the bible. If a man murders, he dies. Simple as that. The life of the victim is as valuable as the life of the murderer.

However, while I support death penalty for the murderer, I believe that it is important to share the gospel to him or her before he or she is executed for his or her crime of murder. This is so that he or she will not go to hell. Yes, he or she must pay for his or her crime while alive, but I hope that does not apply to his or her after-life.

I guess we don't listen to Jesus who said turn the other cheek. I know, I know, we can't. take that seriously can we?

 

[chongshipei]

There is a difference for Turn the other cheek when it comes to law and turns the other cheek in our personal life.
When the Israelites ask Jesus, shall we turn the woman who commits adultery.
Jesus does not challenge the death penalty for adultery. He does not say, "No. Because it is wrong to stone people for adultery."
Jesus supports the death penalty for adultery.
Instead, He challenges the leaders to examine their lives personally.
"Whoever does not sin cast the first stone."
The law that stones adultery is not wrong. But personally, we must learn to be more forgiving because we sin, too.
Hence, please differentiate between these two.
Turning the cheek personally, or as a a law.
Law is meant to deter crime. While personally, we are not to hate our persecutors or murderers.

 

[quietthinker]

There is a difference for Turn the other cheek when it comes to law and turns the other cheek in our personal life.
When the Israelites ask Jesus, shall we turn the woman who commits adultery.
Jesus does not challenge the death penalty for adultery. He does not say, "No. Because it is wrong to stone people for adultery."
Jesus supports the death penalty for adultery.
Instead, He challenges the leaders to examine their lives personally.
"Whoever does not sin cast the first stone."
The law that stones adultery is not wrong. But personally, we must learn to be more forgiving because we sin, too.
Hence, please differentiate between these two.
Turning the cheek personally, or as a a law.
Law is meant to deter crime. While personally, we are not to hate our persecutors or murderers.

Of courses he challenges the stoning (death penalty). "neither do I condemn you" is a diplomatic rebuttal of that law.

 

[chongshipei]

Jesus personally does not condemn the woman. Jesus is above the laws. We, as believers, are not Jesus. We are not above the laws.
But He does not say, "The law is wrong."

 

[chongshipei]

If Jesus challenges the law, why doesn't respond to the religious leaders.
"You shall not stone the leader because the law is wrong."

 

[quietthinker]

Jesus personally does not condemn the woman. Jesus is above the laws. We, as believers, are not Jesus. We are not above the laws.
But He does not say, "The law is wrong."

The only laws given directly by God and written by him were the 10 commandments. All other laws given were to Moses. Moses inevitably interpreted them through his own paradigm which was informed by his education in the house of Pharaoh. Pharaohs M.O was do or die.

Jesus challenged much of this stuff. Jesus is God's Word to the world. He is the unique Son close to the Fathers heart. He only speaks and does as his Father speaks and does. Jesus is the measure by which those who say they follow him, are to reflect.

 

[Lizbeth]

It becomes very simple when we separate the holy from the profane. It is governments that have the responsibility to keep order and maintain justice in the world........as Romans 13 says they are God's ministers (so to speak) for that purpose and do not bear the sword for nothing. But that is not the church's mandate....the church's mandate is mercy, not judgment. Our only instruction with regard to governments is to PRAY for them, as well as to submit to their laws insofar as it is possible without violating God's commands and will. We don't belong to this world, we are strangers passing through.....our true citizenship is not here.....we are ambassadors of reconciliation from another realm.

 

[amigo de christo]

I support death penalty for crimes like murder. An eye for an eye. That is what God sets in the OT of the bible. If a man murders, he dies. Simple as that. The life of the victim is as valuable as the life of the murderer.

However, while I support death penalty for the murderer, I believe that it is important to share the gospel to him or her before he or she is executed for his or her crime of murder. This is so that he or she will not go to hell. Yes, he or she must pay for his or her crime while alive, but I hope that does not apply to his or her after-life.

Okay . now let me ask you a question .
IF it were you that had to put the person to death for the said crime , Could you
DO so .
As for me i cannot put any man to death . And while its true they do deserve it
I cannot put a man to death .
And thus i will not hide behind the laws of man and act like i support it .
IF WE cannot do the deed , then let us not support it .
By the way i aint asking anyone to march against the death penalty .
MEN gonna do as men gonna do .
Our mission is TO PREACH JESUS , and i do mean ALL THINGS , not some , not most , BUT ALL
things HE did teach . Its time the church cleaned up its own house .
cause as of late i see me a koran kissing , b udda statue holding rainbow holding jesus sold
under the BANNER GOD IS LOVE .
AND WHILE I do know GOD IS LOVE , HE AINT NEVER GONNA ACCEPT ANY ONES SINS
NOR UNBELEIF IN JESUS CHRIST .
OH yes the well favored harlot has poured out an anti christ ecum eincal cup
of f ornication unto all denomiantions and even the false religoins .
She gonna merge them all as ONE . And it darn sure wont be UNDER GOD or HIS CHRIST
This world peace plan , OH ITS NOT OF GOD . Its of many anti christs
to lead the world and all as one right to it .

 

[amigo de christo]

It becomes very simple when we separate the holy from the profane. It is governments that have the responsibility to keep order and maintain justice in the world........as Romans 13 says they are God's ministers (so to speak) for that purpose and do not bear the sword for nothing. But that is not the church's mandate....the church's mandate is mercy, not judgment. Our only instruction with regard to governments is to PRAY for them, as well as to submit to their laws insofar as it is possible without violating God's commands and will. We don't belong to this world, we are strangers passing through.....our true citizenship is not here.....we are ambassadors of reconciliation from another realm.

As i type this i can literally hear sirens , an abumlance in the back ground . Actually its quite fitting for what i was about to type .
And that is this
THIS has happened b efore . What you and i and others are witnessing , men have both done it
before throughout history . And believe me when i say
WHEN ya blend , or try and blend , the heavenly WITH the earthen kingdom . OH it dont ever bode well .
Cause the church becomes only a co helper to said govt in power .
And believe me when i say blood o ften will ensue .
AND it is often always done for what they cliam IS FOR PEACE .
Only this time , peek around
ITS a world unifying religoin getting sold for world peace .
The lesson here is
CURSED is the man , is the nation, is the world that hopes b e in men
But blessed is the man , is the nation , is the world that hope be in CHRIST JESUS , the CHRIST OF GOD .
Now its not the world we are here to change .
NO its all going down in fire , per say on the day of THE LORD .
ITS as you said ealier , we are here to RESCUE SOULS OUTTA such a world
so they go not down WITH THE WORLD on JESUS DAY . for here we have NO continuing city , but we seek one to come .
IN the new heavens and new earth forever with the LORD .

 

[amigo de christo]

You're right; I am ambivalent on the topic. Have you ever noticed how polarized our society has become? We can't be moderately, 60-40 on an issue? There is the expectation that everything is all or nothing. 100% for Biden. 0% for Trump. 100% for the war against Al Qaeda. 0% for the war in Iran. Most moral issues have compelling PROS and CONS. I'm acknowledging that reality even though it is increasingly goes against the norm in today's sick society.

Ultimately and in general, I'm against the death penalty but not for the many reasons put forth in this thread. It is cheaper than imprisoning someone for half a century. It is an act of justice. While there is a compelling philosophical reason to oppose it, the factor that seals the deal for me is the inability to make "one whole" in the event of an error.

Still, I admit that there are mitigating circumstances that make the death penalty the better option. So, under normal circumstances, I'm against the death penalty. There remain exceptional circumstances. For instance, suppose you and I and two other guys are stranded on an island for a long time. One day one of the other guys becomes a homicidal maniac and murders that other guy. He tries again and again to murder us but somehow we survive and subdue him. Further suppose it is not practical for us to restrain him indefinitely without us risking our lives in the future. It comes down to us or him and we have a right to defend our lives. So, there are normal ethics and crisis ethics needed for survival, which is the ultimate moral standard.

I think it is wise to give both sides of important moral issues due consideration before reaching a verdict in your own mind, don't you? Just because one side wins out doesn't mean the other side is totally wrong on every point. We might crave moral certainty but we live forever lacking all the information yet must choose a path though there remains ambiguity.

very very polarized is and are the societies of the world , speciallly in the western ones .
But soon the nuetral one and ones shall arise
and be the very answer , or so seem to be anyway , that both sides were being led to by a false love
that never was of GOD , but cliamed to be OF GOD .
TO a false peace , that was not of GOD but claimed was of GOD .
And it will not appear to be left , or right , to be any one religoin , persay , but a unifyer of the world
and her relig ons it will be as though a god to them , a savoir to them .. It will be the son of the inclusi ve god . and it will make law
its father satans inclusive religion . And sadly many are already entrapped and en snared
by it . So i advise all to get out of anything connected to anyone or anything ecumenical and its interfaith and RIGHT NOW .
cause the DELUSION IS AT THE DOOR and it will encapsulate them all
and they will believe THE LIE and be as on e man , with one purpose . AND IT WONT BE OF GOD EITHER .