Failed execution of female murderer

[Ronald Nolette]

Yeah, He can do that as I clearly stated. He answers to NOBODY. You answer to Him! Murder is MURDER!

So why are you preaching MURDER?

So you are calling God a murderer then.

Genesis 9:5-6 King James Version​

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Yes I do answer to God! Show me where this command that God gave to Noah to give to all men was ever revoked!

I am not talking about forgiving them if they ask for giveness for their sin, but God saying that societies should stop taking a persons life when they took another persons life in what we would call cold blood.

But let me ask you, given the Gen. 9 command, do you feel that men like Stalin or Hitler or Mao or Pol Pot, or even saddam Hussein , if they were caught by the governing authorities should not be executed for the mass murder of the hundreds of millions these men butchered in cold blood?

What do you believe about the penalty one should get from civil authority for commmitting murder? Can you show me from Wcripture the evidence for your reasoning in light of Genesis 9?

Let me ask you a hypothetical. If the garden of Eden was still here and the command to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge was still here, should you suffer the civil consequences of that criime for eating or should God not do anything because that was command to Adam and Eve and not directly to us.

 

[bdavidc]

I actually agree with much of what you've written.

I've never argued that repentance automatically removes earthly consequences, nor have I argued that civil authority is illegitimate. In fact, I've repeatedly acknowledged that Romans 13 recognizes the authority of government to punish wrongdoing.

Where I think we're talking past each other is that my focus has never been on whether authority exists. My focus has been on what Christians should desire and what Christ reveals about the heart of God toward sinners.
You mention the thief on the cross, and I think that's actually a very helpful example. The thief admits:

"We receive the due reward of our deeds."

Yet Christ's immediate concern is not his punishment but his salvation:

"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

The focus of heaven is the conversion of the sinner.
Likewise, Ezekiel 33:11 says:

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live."

That tells us something important about God's desires.

So while I agree that justice and mercy do not cancel one another, I would also say that justice is not the highest revelation of God's heart. Christ is.
This is why I keep returning to John 8. The woman was guilty. Jesus never denied that. Yet His concern was repentance and restoration:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

No one has really addressed why Christ's response there should not heavily shape how Christians think about guilty people.

My point has never been that guilt doesn't matter. It's that Christianity teaches that a person is more than the worst thing they've ever done. If repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter, then they cannot be treated as irrelevant or "besides the point."

So when I look at Christina Pike, I can acknowledge her guilt, acknowledge the legitimacy of punishment, and still believe that what Christians should ultimately hope for is exactly what God Himself says He desires: repentance, healing, and salvation.

The fact that government may possess the sword does not answer the question of what Christians should hope for. Christ consistently hoped for the sinner's conversion, and I believe Christians should too.

We do agree on more than we disagree. Christians should absolutely desire the repentance and salvation of sinners, even those guilty of extremely nasty crimes. Ezekiel 33:11 tells us God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but calls them to repentance.

You know when Jesus showed mercy to the woman in John 8 it does not cancel the government's responsibility to administer justice (Romans 13:1-4).

Remember the theif on the cross. He knew his punishment was correct, and Jesus promised him paradise anyway (Luke 23:41-43). He did receive God's mercy but also did not escaping the earthly consequences of his crime.

We should pray that Christina Pike genuinely repents and comes to saving faith in Jesus Christ. But repentance does not remove the consequences of wrongdoing nor protect the public from people who fake their repentance in order to get out of prison. We absolutely should desire the salvation of every sinner and I do, but we should not compromise God’s justice. God’s word teaches both and we must not ignore either one.

 

[Moonwood]

These are mutually exclusive, as I pointed out. It is one or the other.

That's because you consistently contradict yourself. Somehow being outside doesn't mean you're not still inside. Yes, it does. They are mutually exclusive. Either:

A. Give what is earned and deserved.​

B. Do not give what is earned and deserved.​

​

Either the female convict in TN is executed or she's not.

This idea of repentance and restoration is besides the point of justice being carried out or not. You keep talking AS IF it's relevant. And again to @bdavidc point of what you're confusing: important distinction Scripture makes between

1. personal vengeance,
2. God's mercy, and
3. the responsibility of civil government to administer justice.

This thread is not about God's mercy although you are doing everything you can to make it about that. Or make it about anything other than the execution of justice in the case of the OP.

Perhaps most important,y, you are overlooking divine justice, which God loves. When Christ returns, the time for mercy, repentance, and restoration is over. First thing he’ll do is annihilate his enemies. Then there is Judgment day. The bad ass that Jesus is will raise people from the dead for the sole purpose of brutally executing them in the Lake of Fire without mercy. He will kill more people than anyone in history. This is divine justice, completely void of any mercy, repentance or restoration for the damned. It is a frightful thing to be judged by the living God.

You're defining justice as nothing more than giving someone exactly what they deserve. Under that definition, yes, mercy and justice would be mutually exclusive.

But Christianity doesn't present justice that narrowly.

If justice and mercy are truly mutually exclusive, then how can God be both perfectly just and perfectly merciful? Scripture repeatedly affirms that He is both.

In fact, the Gospel itself is built upon this reality. The wages of sin is death, yet God extends mercy to sinners. If God dealt with humanity solely according to what we deserve, none of us would be saved. The Cross is not justice defeating mercy or mercy defeating justice. It is where justice and mercy meet.

Earlier, you agreed that a person is more than the worst thing they've ever done and that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter.

If those things matter, then they cannot be "beside the point." They become part of the point.

Either repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul are relevant to how Christians view a person, or they aren't.

This is exactly why I keep returning to the adulterous woman.
If justice were simply:

1. Did she do it?
2. What punishment does the Law prescribe?

then Christ should have stopped there.
But He didn't.

He addressed the hearts of the accusers, exposed hypocrisy, and opened the door to repentance:

"Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her."
"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

Christ clearly did not regard repentance, restoration, and the future of the sinner as irrelevant considerations.

You keep saying this thread is about justice, not mercy. But that's precisely what I'm questioning. Why must Christians discuss justice as though it can be separated from mercy?

David's post actually made the point well:

"The Bible teaches both justice and mercy. One does not cancel the other."

I agree with that.

In fact, that's much closer to my position than the claim that justice and mercy are mutually exclusive.

You also point to Christ's future judgment. I agree that Christ will judge the world and that there will come a time when repentance is no longer possible.
But I don't see how that argues against mercy now. If anything, it argues for it.

This life is the time given for repentance before judgment. The fact that there will be a final judgment is one reason Christians should desire repentance while repentance is still possible.

My point has never been that guilt doesn't matter, that authority doesn't exist, or that punishment is always wrong.

My point is that Christians should not view a human being solely through the lens of their crime.

Christ certainly didn't.

He consistently looked beyond the offense to the person, beyond guilt to repentance, and beyond punishment to salvation.

So when I speak about repentance, restoration, suffering, and the state of the soul, I'm not changing the subject. I'm talking about things Christ Himself treated as important.

The fact that government may possess the sword does not answer the question of what Christians should hope for. Christ consistently hoped for the sinner's conversion, and I believe Christians should too.

 

[Moonwood]

We do agree on more than we disagree. Christians should absolutely desire the repentance and salvation of sinners, even those guilty of extremely nasty crimes. Ezekiel 33:11 tells us God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but calls them to repentance.

You know when Jesus showed mercy to the woman in John 8 it does not cancel the government's responsibility to administer justice (Romans 13:1-4).

Remember the theif on the cross. He knew his punishment was correct, and Jesus promised him paradise anyway (Luke 23:41-43). He did receive God's mercy but also did not escaping the earthly consequences of his crime.

We should pray that Christina Pike genuinely repents and comes to saving faith in Jesus Christ. But repentance does not remove the consequences of wrongdoing nor protect the public from people who fake their repentance in order to get out of prison. We absolutely should desire the salvation of every sinner and I do, but we should not compromise God’s justice. God’s word teaches both and we must not ignore either one.

I agree that repentance does not automatically remove earthly consequences, and I've never argued that it does. I also agree that civil authority has a legitimate responsibility to maintain order and protect society.

My point has simply been that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul remain relevant considerations for Christians because they remain relevant to God.

In fact, I think your examples support my point.

The thief on the cross acknowledged that his punishment was just, yet Christ's concern was still his salvation:

"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Likewise, Ezekiel 33:11 reveals God's heart:

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live."

So while I agree that justice and mercy must both be taken seriously, I don't think Christians should ever speak about justice as though repentance, restoration, and salvation are irrelevant or "besides the point."

That's the reason I keep returning to John 8. Jesus never denied the woman's guilt, yet His response was:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

To me, that reveals something essential about how Christians should view even the guilty. Not merely as offenders to be punished, but as souls capable of repentance and redemption.

So I think where I've differed from some others in this thread is not over whether justice matters, but over whether justice can be discussed as though mercy, repentance, and the salvation of the sinner are irrelevant. I don't believe Christ treated those things as irrelevant, and therefore I don't think Christians should either.

The fact that government may possess the sword answers a question about authority. It does not answer the question of what Christians should hope for. Christians should hope for exactly what God says He desires: that the sinner turn and live. That doesn't negate justice. It gives justice its proper end.

 

[Moonwood]

Once again you are trying to merge civil penalties with Christian forgiveness.

I would go to that woman and share the love of Jesus with her! I do nto wish to see her in teh lake of fire. but I also know that when one murders someone in cold blood, God commanded that persons life to be forfeited, for they are made in the image of God. that command went to Noah. that was the first act of civil government god gave to mankind and it has never been revoked. Not even by Jesus.

forgiving one of their sin is vastly different than holding them accountable for their crimes committed. that is trying to make apples and oranges the same.

If someone abused my chhildren, I would want them to suffer the civil consequences of that. I also would seek to share the gospel woth them. Forgiving them of their sin is completely different than them suffering the proscirbed consequnces that God gave to civil government to impose on crimes committed. Crime and sin- one before god(sin) as judge and ond one before Gods appointed authority for governing a society (judicial systems and laws)

I think we agree on more than we disagree.

I've never argued that forgiveness cancels civil authority, nor have I argued that repentance automatically removes earthly consequences. In fact, I've repeatedly acknowledged the state's authority to punish wrongdoing under Romans 13.

What I've been questioning is the claim that repentance, restoration, and the salvation of the sinner are somehow irrelevant to the discussion.

You say you would share the Gospel with her because you do not want to see her in the lake of fire. I agree completely. But that means you acknowledge that there is something more important at stake than the mere execution of a penalty: the fate of a human soul.

That's why I keep returning to Christ's example.

When Jesus encountered the woman in John 8, He certainly did not deny her guilt. Yet His focus was not on ensuring her death. His focus was repentance:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

That does not abolish authority. It reveals God's heart toward a guilty sinner.

I also agree that the thief on the cross suffered the consequences of his actions. But notice where Christ's attention is directed:

"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Once again, the focus is the salvation of the sinner.

So my point has never been that crime and sin are identical, or that civil government and the Church have identical roles.

My point is that Christians should not speak about justice as though repentance, transformation, mercy, and the state of the soul are irrelevant. Christ certainly didn't.

In fact, if we both agree that we should desire the sinner's salvation, pray for their repentance, and share the Gospel with them, then we're already acknowledging that a person is more than the worst thing they've ever done.

That's all I've been arguing from the beginning.

Scripture says:

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." (Ezekiel 33:11)

If that is God's desire, then I believe it should be ours as well.

The fact that civil government may possess the sword answers a question about authority. It does not answer the question of what Christians should hope for. Christians should hope for exactly what God says He desires: that the sinner turn and live.

 

[Wrangler]

I agree that repentance does not automatically remove earthly consequences, and I've never argued that it does.

Great! Then stop arguing.

 

[Moonwood]

Great! Then stop arguing.

If that were all I were arguing, I'd agree there would be nothing left to discuss.

But that has never been my argument.

I've repeatedly acknowledged that civil authority has a legitimate role, that wrongdoing has consequences, and that repentance does not automatically remove earthly penalties.

The question I've been raising is whether repentance, transformation, suffering, restoration, and the state of the soul are relevant considerations for Christians when discussing a guilty person.

Earlier, you agreed that those things matter.

If they matter, then they cannot simultaneously be "beside the point."

That's the issue.

My position has never been that justice should be ignored. My position is that Christian justice cannot be discussed as though God's mercy, the possibility of repentance, and the salvation of the sinner are irrelevant.
The thief on the cross is a perfect example. He acknowledged that his punishment was just, yet Christ's concern was still his salvation:

"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Likewise, Jesus never denied the adulterous woman's guilt. Yet His focus was:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

In both cases, Christ looked beyond the offense to the fate of the person.

So when I bring up repentance, restoration, suffering, and the state of the soul, I'm not changing the subject. I'm pointing to things Christ Himself consistently treated as important.

The fact that a sentence may be lawful answers a question about authority. It does not answer the question of what Christians should hope for.

Christians should hope for what God Himself says He desires:

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." (Ezekiel 33:11)

That doesn't negate justice. It reveals its ultimate purpose.

 

[Wrangler]

The fact that government may possess the sword answers a question about authority.

Wrong again! It’s not merely possessing the sword but using the sword.

Using the sword answers the question, despite the feminization of our society, that violence solves problems in this world, always has, always will. Government has problems to solve with its God given, human consented to authority.

The sword will not be used in vain = problems solved through violence. Our God is a warrior and we are made in his image.

 

[Wrangler]

But that has never been my argument.

I know. Your argument has always been besides the point.

 

[Moonwood]

I know. Your argument has always been besides the point.

Wrong again! It’s not merely possessing the sword but using the sword.

Using the sword answers the question, despite the feminization of our society, that violence solves problems in this world, always has, always will. Government has problems to solve with its God given, human consented to authority.

The sword will not be used in vain = problems solved through violence. Our God is a warrior and we are made in his image.

I think you've shifted the discussion.

Originally, we were discussing justice, mercy, repentance, and how Christians should view guilty people. Now you're making a broader claim that violence solves problems.

Certainly force can restrain evil. Governments, police, and armies sometimes use force to maintain order. I've never denied that. Romans 13 clearly recognizes the authority of civil government.

But Christianity does not teach that violence is the ultimate solution to humanity's deepest problems.

In fact, when Peter drew his sword, Jesus told him:

"Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Matthew 26:52)

That's an important statement if the argument is that violence is the answer.

The sword can restrain evil, but it cannot redeem a soul.

If violence were the answer to humanity's deepest problem, Christ would have conquered the world with a sword rather than a Cross.

The central Christian claim is that humanity's greatest problem is sin, and Christ did not overcome sin by killing His enemies. He overcame it by dying for them.

That's why I keep talking about repentance, restoration, and salvation. Not because justice is irrelevant, but because Christ repeatedly treated the salvation of souls as more important than the mere infliction of punishment.

Earlier, you agreed that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter. If they matter, then they are not "beside the point." If they truly matter, then they are relevant to how Christians view even the guilty.

This is exactly why I keep returning to the adulterous woman and the thief on the cross.

Christ looked at the adulterous woman and saw more than her offense:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

Christ looked at the thief and saw more than his crimes:

"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Christ even looked at His executioners and prayed:

"Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."

None of these examples deny justice. But all of them reveal God's heart toward sinners.

You say my argument is beside the point. I would argue that Christ repeatedly made these things part of the point.

Yes, government may wield the sword. Romans 13 acknowledges that. But the Christian hope is not ultimately in the sword.

The Christian hope is in conversion, redemption, and salvation.

As Scripture says:

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." (Ezekiel 33:11)

The fact that government may use the sword answers a question about authority. It does not answer the question of what Christians should hope for.

Christians should hope for what God Himself says He desires: that the sinner turn and live. The state may wield the sword, but Christ carried the Cross. That difference matters when Christians ask not merely what governments may do, but what they should ultimately hope for.

 

[Moonwood]

Our God is a warrior and we are made in his image.

I find it interesting that you say, "Our God is a warrior and we are made in His image."

But what does that mean in light of Christ?

When Peter drew a sword in defense of the innocent Son of God, Jesus did not praise him for using violence against the wicked. He told him:

"Put your sword back in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

That's significant because Jesus had every opportunity to justify violence in that moment. He was innocent. Peter was defending the righteous against the wicked. If there was ever a case where the sword seemed justified, this was it.

Yet Christ rejected the sword and chose the Cross.

So while Romans 13 recognizes the state's authority to wield the sword, being made in God's image cannot simply mean that violence is the answer to our problems. If it did, Christ would have conquered through force rather than sacrifice.

The sword can restrain evil.
The sword can punish wrongdoing.
But the sword cannot redeem a sinner.
The Cross accomplishes what the sword never can.

That's why I keep emphasizing repentance, restoration, and salvation. Not because justice doesn't matter, but because Christ consistently reveals that God's ultimate victory over evil is not found in destroying sinners, but in converting them.

Scripture says:

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live."

If that is God's desire, then I believe it should shape ours as well.

 

[amigo de christo]

They are not innocent and killing them isn‘t murder.

i think he was talking about the abortions on unborn babies .
Cause i kinda think they aint done nothing worthy of prison YET .
And it wont be ol budda sitting on that throne
or ol muhammed calling us home EITHER . so lets give the boot to all inclusive intefaith of anti christ .

 

[amigo de christo]

So you are calling God a murderer then.

Genesis 9:5-6 King James Version​

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Yes I do answer to God! Show me where this command that God gave to Noah to give to all men was ever revoked!

I am not talking about forgiving them if they ask for giveness for their sin, but God saying that societies should stop taking a persons life when they took another persons life in what we would call cold blood.

But let me ask you, given the Gen. 9 command, do you feel that men like Stalin or Hitler or Mao or Pol Pot, or even saddam Hussein , if they were caught by the governing authorities should not be executed for the mass murder of the hundreds of millions these men butchered in cold blood?

What do you believe about the penalty one should get from civil authority for commmitting murder? Can you show me from Wcripture the evidence for your reasoning in light of Genesis 9?

Let me ask you a hypothetical. If the garden of Eden was still here and the command to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge was still here, should you suffer the civil consequences of that criime for eating or should God not do anything because that was command to Adam and Eve and not directly to us.

Hold thing tongue and stay those lips .
GOD is not a murderer . BUT HE IS the only one who has the RIGHT to act on the sentence of death .
Not man . them days are long over . JESUS came to show us the new and living way .
And notice what he told those jews who were calling for her to be stoned .
HE did not call the law evil or wrong . NO mam .
ALL he said was WELL LET HE WHO IS WITHOUT SIN , cast the first stone .
SO i say let he who is without sin pull the lever or give the injection to the man or woman that darn sure is guilty of death .
Now govts aer gonna do as govts are gonna do .
But dont expect me to support the execution of anyone . SEEING i myself could never pull the lever or give them
that shot to end their life . NOw if you can , well then He who is without sin , GO ahead PULL IT .
Oh wait , ALL HAVE SINNED . so guess not .
I am totally for her life in prison . NO doubt about it . she earned that when she killed those children .
My only hope for her is that perhaps she can come to repentance and thus faith in JESUS
so while she remains in prison for life , well at least at her end its not the lake of fire she so earned .
OH wait , speaking of death , speaking of the lake of fire
WELL we all earned that one . THANK GOD f or the mercy and grace HE gave me
in JESUS CHRIST , rather than the lof i deserved . AND that is a fact .

 

[bdavidc]

I agree that repentance does not automatically remove earthly consequences, and I've never argued that it does. I also agree that civil authority has a legitimate responsibility to maintain order and protect society.

My point has simply been that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul remain relevant considerations for Christians because they remain relevant to God.

In fact, I think your examples support my point.

The thief on the cross acknowledged that his punishment was just, yet Christ's concern was still his salvation:

"Today shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Likewise, Ezekiel 33:11 reveals God's heart:

"I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live."

So while I agree that justice and mercy must both be taken seriously, I don't think Christians should ever speak about justice as though repentance, restoration, and salvation are irrelevant or "besides the point."

That's the reason I keep returning to John 8. Jesus never denied the woman's guilt, yet His response was:

"Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more."

To me, that reveals something essential about how Christians should view even the guilty. Not merely as offenders to be punished, but as souls capable of repentance and redemption.

So I think where I've differed from some others in this thread is not over whether justice matters, but over whether justice can be discussed as though mercy, repentance, and the salvation of the sinner are irrelevant. I don't believe Christ treated those things as irrelevant, and therefore I don't think Christians should either.

The fact that government may possess the sword answers a question about authority. It does not answer the question of what Christians should hope for. Christians should hope for exactly what God says He desires: that the sinner turn and live. That doesn't negate justice. It gives justice its proper end.

You said that the government's authority to punish wrongdoing doesn't answer what Christians should hope for. But I believe Scripture addresses both.

Romans 13:4 tells us that civil authorities are God's ministers to execute justice against those who do evil. And 1 Timothy 2:1-4 tells us to pray for all people because God desires that people be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.

You also said that mercy and repentance give justice its proper end. But Scripture never teaches that the purpose of civil punishment is to bring someone to repentance. Romans 13:3-4 describes its responsibility as restraining evil and punishing wrongdoing.

A person can genuinely repent and receive God's forgiveness while still facing the earthly consequences of their crimes.

The salvation of the sinner is the work of God through Jesus Christ. The punishment of wrongdoing is a responsibility God has given to civil government. We should not confuse the two.

 

[Jack]

I did provide NT verses way back in this thread.

Ain't no NT that approves of MURDER that you are promoting!

 

[Jack]

So you are calling God a murderer then.

Nope. What He does is ALWAYS righteous, unlike our 'justice system' that MURDERS innocent people and puts them in prison for many years when they are totally innocent!

Genesis 9:5-6 King James Version​

5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Yes I do answer to God! Show me where this command that God gave to Noah to give to all men was ever revoked!

I am not talking about forgiving them if they ask for giveness for their sin, but God saying that societies should stop taking a persons life when they took another persons life in what we would call cold blood.

But let me ask you, given the Gen. 9 command, do you feel that men like Stalin or Hitler or Mao or Pol Pot, or even saddam Hussein , if they were caught by the governing authorities should not be executed for the mass murder of the hundreds of millions these men butchered in cold blood?

What do you believe about the penalty one should get from civil authority for commmitting murder? Can you show me from Wcripture the evidence for your reasoning in light of Genesis 9?

Let me ask you a hypothetical. If the garden of Eden was still here and the command to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge was still here, should you suffer the civil consequences of that criime for eating or should God not do anything because that was command to Adam and Eve and not directly to us.

Why are you quoting the parts of the Law of Moses you like and EVADING the many parts you don't like? Utter hypocrisy!