Failed execution of female murderer

[Ronald Nolette]

Do a little research. Genesis is certainly in the Law of Moses. Again you are EVADING the parts of God's Word you don't like!

You need to research. the law for man executing man was given to Noah- centuries before the Law of Moses was enacted. The Mosaic Law was for Israel alone, while the command given to Noah was for all mankind.

UnGodly US deserves to be murdered, but that's up to God!

So you do not care if a nation invades and murders the innocent civilians fo America. Okay then.

VASIVE! Give Scripture. You ain't got none!

No direct! they all had soldiers the spoke to.

By murdering innocents??? Sending them to Hell?

You support that by refusing to pick up arms against an invading a nation and murdering untold innocents.

Romans 12:19
19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.

If you studied a little you would know that is a personal command and not one issued to governing authorities. You cannot take personal commands and make them apply to nations and governments.

Romans 13 King James Version​

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

If that is God's stated disposition toward the wicked, then why should Christians desire something different?

You say that laws are laws. I agree that lawful authority has a role to play.

But acknowledging a lawful sentence and desiring the death of the offender are not the same thing.

I NEVER SAID i DESIRE THE DEATH OF A CONVVICTED MURDERER! I just acknowledge that there are penalties for it and they7 should be carried out. I am saddened that they made choices that brought them to that awful place, but now they face the civil consequences for actions taken.

 

[Wrangler]

I NEVER SAID i DESIRE THE DEATH OF A CONVVICTED MURDERER! I just acknowledge that there are penalties for it and they7 should be carried out. I am saddened that they made choices that brought them to that awful place, but now they face the civil consequences for actions taken.

The hand wringing to thwart justice being done in the Christa Pike case is unbecoming of a Christian.

So desperate are they, they put you in a position to have to deny desiring the death of someone who never had any dealings with In some twisted attempt to emotionally manipulate.

Where is the angst about this shooter being killed on the spot rather than 30 years later? Children and teacher killed in Oregon primary school shooting

 

[Triumph1300]

Where is the angst about this shooter being killed on the spot rather than 30 years later?

How about your "Christian White House Hero" murdering 200 students in an Iranian girl's school?
How about t h a t?

 

[Moonwood]

I NEVER SAID i DESIRE THE DEATH OF A CONVVICTED MURDERER! I just acknowledge that there are penalties for it and they7 should be carried out. I am saddened that they made choices that brought them to that awful place, but now they face the civil consequences for actions taken.

The hand wringing to thwart justice being done in the Christa Pike case is unbecoming of a Christian.

So desperate are they, they put you in a position to have to deny desiring the death of someone who never had any dealings with In some twisted attempt to emotionally manipulate.

I appreciate the clarification.

If you do not desire the death of the offender, then I think we may be closer in agreement than it first appeared.

I have never denied that civil authorities may impose penalties or that Romans 13 recognizes their authority to do so.

My concern has been with the claim that Christians ought to desire the offender's execution, or that concern for repentance, mercy, and salvation is somehow beside the point.

If you are saying that a lawful sentence may be carried out while still being saddened by the offender's choices and hoping for his or her repentance and salvation, then I would largely agree.

My point has simply been that Romans 13 answers a question about the authority of the state.

It does not erase what Scripture elsewhere says about God's desire that the wicked turn and live (Ezekiel 33:11), nor Christ's concern for the restoration of sinners.

So perhaps the real question is not whether the state possesses authority, but whether Christians should continue to desire repentance and salvation even for those who rightfully face severe punishment.

I believe Scripture consistently answers that question with "yes."

 

[Jack]

You cannot even answer whether Christa Pike deserves execution under the law.

What law?

This shows how you dispute, denying the very thing you are disputing. You have showed, proved what is disputed. There is no assumption about it.

Your intellectual dishonesty is so despicable, I’m going to put you on ignore now. I’ve had it with your nonsense!

 

[Jack]

Speak for yourself. You don’t seem teachable to ignore the 7 covenants of the Bible. @Ronald Nolette is referring to 3 not 5.

Scripture please.

 

[Jack]

You need to research. the law for man executing man was given to Noah- centuries before the Law of Moses was enacted. The Mosaic Law was for Israel alone, while the command given to Noah was for all mankind.

Bingo! And there ain't no cause to MURDER people in the New Covenant! ZERO!

So you do not care if a nation invades and murders the innocent civilians fo America. Okay then.

I do care. That's why I'm against your doctrine of MURDERING innocents. Do you approve of Uncle Scam dropping nukes on Japan MURDERING thousands of innocents? I think you do.

No direct! they all had soldiers the spoke to.

IOW no Scripture!

You support that by refusing to pick up arms against an invading a nation and murdering untold innocents.

Why would I support CORRUPT Uncle Scam for anything?

If you studied a little you would know that is a personal command and not one issued to governing authorities. You cannot take personal commands and make them apply to nations and governments.

That's right. It's for Christians. Are you a Christian?

Romans 12:19
19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.

Romans 13 King James Version​

13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

The obvious meaning is to obey their laws, not to MURDER for them!

 

[Wrangler]

What law?

The State law she was persecuted under.

Scripture please.

Proving you didn't read the link I provided. Scripture is provided in the link 7 Major Covenants in the Bible below.

Do you not get that what @Ronald Nolette quoted pre-dates the time of Moses? From 7 Major Covenants in the Bible | Explained Simply & Biblically

1. Edenic Covenant​

2. Adamic Covenant​

3. Noahic Covenant​

4. Abrahamic Covenant​

5. Mosaic Covenant​

6. Davidic Covenant​

7. New Covenant​

 

[Jack]

The State law she was persecuted under.

Proving you didn't read the link I provided. Scripture is provided in the link 7 Major Covenants in the Bible below.

I highly suggest you stick with the New Covenant. That's what Christians live by.

We don't MURDER people for Satanic politicians.

 

[Wrangler]

I highly suggest you stick with the New Covenant. That's what Christians live by.

We don't MURDER people for Satanic politicians.

You asked for Scripture. I gave Scripture. Now you say stick to the NT - after I already provided NT verses!

You’re right, we don’t murder. Execution, killing is not murder.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

I appreciate the clarification.

If you do not desire the death of the offender, then I think we may be closer in agreement than it first appeared.

I have never denied that civil authorities may impose penalties or that Romans 13 recognizes their authority to do so.

My concern has been with the claim that Christians ought to desire the offender's execution, or that concern for repentance, mercy, and salvation is somehow beside the point.

If you are saying that a lawful sentence may be carried out while still being saddened by the offender's choices and hoping for his or her repentance and salvation, then I would largely agree.

My point has simply been that Romans 13 answers a question about the authority of the state.

It does not erase what Scripture elsewhere says about God's desire that the wicked turn and live (Ezekiel 33:11), nor Christ's concern for the restoration of sinners.

So perhaps the real question is not whether the state possesses authority, but whether Christians should continue to desire repentance and salvation even for those who rightfully face severe punishment.

I believe Scripture consistently answers that question with "yes."

The problem with your answers is the word desire. We do not desire to see people executed. We just know in most countries that there is a death penalty and that if one commits a crime that calles for executed, they should be. The civil authorities do not carry Gods' sword in vain.

it is not a question of emotions, but of recognizing that there are different penalties for different crimes.

there is an old saying that is so very true- If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. It is tragic that someone must be executed for murder, but they made the decision, knowing if caught they would die for their actions.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

Bingo! And there ain't no cause to MURDER people in the New Covenant! ZERO!

The Apostle Paul totally disagrees with you.

I do care. That's why I'm against your doctrine of MURDERING innocents. Do you approve of Uncle Scam dropping nukes on Japan MURDERING thousands of innocents? I think you do.

That was war. Without going into thousands of words of the citizenry of Japan and their militaristic preparation (even the children) HIroshima and Nagasaki were larger military cities. You have to face this reality, war is rupnant, but when one nation bullies another (like currently Russia over Ukraine) then nations go to war to defend themselves. And even with all teh smart bomb techinolgies, civilians get killed.

In the eyes of God there are no innocents. as it says in romans 3: "There is none righteous, no not one." If people got what all of us deserve, we would all burn forever in junspeakble torment in the lake of firee.

IOW no Scripture!

There is.Maybe you need to go to biible gateway and look them up.

That's right. It's for Christians. Are you a Christian?

I am. Are you?

Romans 12:19
19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord.

That is a persoonal command, not an edict for governments. there is a difference if you thought about it.

The obvious meaning is to obey their laws, not to MURDER for them!

taking the life of one who murdered another is obeying civil government laws as well as gods law.

 

[Moonwood]

The problem with your answers is the word desire. We do not desire to see people executed. We just know in most countries that there is a death penalty and that if one commits a crime that calles for executed, they should be. The civil authorities do not carry Gods' sword in vain.

it is not a question of emotions, but of recognizing that there are different penalties for different crimes.

there is an old saying that is so very true- If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. It is tragic that someone must be executed for murder, but they made the decision, knowing if caught they would die for their actions.

I appreciate that clarification, because I think that distinguishes your position from some of the others in this discussion.

If by "they should be" you mean that civil authorities have the right to carry out the lawful penalty attached to the crime, then I understand your point.

My concern has never been with recognizing that different crimes carry different penalties.

My concern has been with the idea that Christian concern for repentance, mercy, and salvation becomes irrelevant once guilt has been established.

In fact, what you've just said seems to support my point.

You say it is tragic that someone reaches the point of execution. You say you do not desire their death. You acknowledge sadness over the choices that led them there.

That is precisely the distinction I have been trying to make.

A Christian can acknowledge guilt, acknowledge punishment, acknowledge the authority of the state, and still grieve for the offender and hope for his or her repentance and salvation.

In other words, the fact that a lawful sentence may be carried out does not mean Christians cease to desire what God desires:

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

So perhaps our disagreement is smaller than it first appeared.

You are emphasizing the state's responsibility to administer justice.

I am emphasizing the Christian's responsibility to continue caring about the soul of the offender.

Those do not necessarily conflict with one another.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You say it is tragic that someone reaches the point of execution. You say you do not desire their death. You acknowledge sadness over the choices that led them there.

That is precisely the distinction I have been trying to make.

A Christian can acknowledge guilt, acknowledge punishment, acknowledge the authority of the state, and still grieve for the offender and hope for his or her repentance and salvation.

In other words, the fact that a lawful sentence may be carried out does not mean Christians cease to desire what God desires:

I have always believed this and said it when in proper conrtext.

 

[Moonwood]

I have always believed this and said it when in proper conrtext.

Then I think we have found substantial agreement.

Throughout this discussion, I have not denied the authority of civil government, the legitimacy of punishment, or the reality of consequences for grave sins.

My concern has been with the suggestion, made elsewhere in the thread, that concern for repentance, mercy, salvation, and the offender's soul is somehow irrelevant once guilt has been established.

If you agree that Christians can acknowledge punishment while still grieving for the offender and hoping for repentance and salvation, then I do not think we are far apart on that point.

My only reason for continuing to emphasize it is because Scripture repeatedly emphasizes God's desire that the wicked turn and live, and Christ consistently displayed concern for the restoration of sinners.

So while we may differ on some conclusions, I am glad to hear that we agree Christians should not cease caring about the soul of the offender simply because punishment is warranted.

 

[Wrangler]

I have always believed this and said it when in proper conrtext.

@Moonwood is so desperate to deny justice in this case, she’s resorted to wanting to debate the meaning of words AS IF they’re not already defined.

What does Justice mean? Consult your favorite lexicon?

 

[Wrangler]

That is a persoonal command, not an edict for governments.

Agreed. The lack of discernment to advance an anti-biblical pacifist ideology is appalling.

 

[Jack]

You asked for Scripture. I gave Scripture. Now you say stick to the NT - after I already provided NT verses!

So you would kill innocent people for Uncle Scam?

You’re right, we don’t murder. Execution, killing is not murder.

It is MURDER! You're promoting MURDER!

 

[Jack]

The Apostle Paul totally disagrees with you.

You just promoted MURDER, again!

That was war. Without going into thousands of words of the citizenry of Japan and their militaristic preparation (even the children) HIroshima and Nagasaki were larger military cities. You have to face this reality, war is rupnant, but when one nation bullies another (like currently Russia over Ukraine) then nations go to war to defend themselves. And even with all teh smart bomb techinolgies, civilians get killed.

So you're ok with dropping nukes on Japan MURDERING thousands of innocents? For Uncle Scam!

In the eyes of God there are no innocents. as it says in romans 3: "There is none righteous, no not one." If people got what all of us deserve, we would all burn forever in junspeakble torment in the lake of firee.

Did God have mercy on you? Why don't YOU give mercy???

There is.Maybe you need to go to biible gateway and look them up.

IOW YOU don't have any! There is ZERO excuse to murder innocent people! That's exactly what Satan's children do!

I am. Are you?

Yeah, I'm merciful! I don't MURDER people for Uncle Scam!

That is a persoonal command, not an edict for governments. there is a difference if you thought about it.

Already stated, we are to obey the laws, NOT TO MURDER!!!

taking the life of one who murdered another is obeying civil government laws as well as gods law.

Again you're promoting MURDER for Uncle Scam!