Christians and the death penalty

[The Middle Way]

For me, discussing the death penalty on religious ground is totally pointless.

For me, it is essential. If you are going to extremely selectively, and entirely out-of-context take your "Word of God" in order to prop up your worst tendency as a human, which is to Judge another Human behind your own fears, and THEN call for the putting to death of that person, it is an outrage, and I tend to not want to idly lie down and shut up.

You do not ease suffering by enforcing more suffering. When that enforcement includes the oh-so-human factors of fallibility and corruption (and this is NEVER going to be 0%), you are at risk of institutionalizing premeditated murder - in fact that's what we got here, another topic in 'politics', perhaps - and that is what you might wanna call the work of The Devil. It is certainly a kind of Hell.

NOTA

Posted on: July 08, 2007, 06:45:12 PM

I got upset a couple days ago when an avowed, heavy Christian said in this forum, "I am in favor of the death penalty", on account of my cognitive dissonance ceiling just broke. I did not post immediately however. What I did post I have no guilt about.

I don't know.

I do not wish to re-direct Katia's thread [I don't have any issues with your questions, Katia. I respect your intelligence], but why become upset at this?

Why put yourself through such emotion?

Posted on: July 07, 2007, 06:44:22 PM

  i know many christians who are in favour of the death penalty.  i;m atheist so i guess i can get away with things like that.

Well, you can call 'em that, they can call themselves whatever they like, I'm not going to contend,
but I won't be calling 'em Christians. Xtians, maybe, in a more or less sarcastic tone.

What is your standard of reference? By what are you defining Christianity?

Opinions or suppositions, are irrelevant. 

My point with the pointed pointing is the term can reflect the inclusion of 'Christ' in it (see Elizabeth's quotes in her reply), but that if I don't think it fits, I can call it something else. NOTE WELL: In the first place I said: I am not contending with anything you call a thing, or what a participant in that thing wants to self-call, but in this case I am calling it something else.

And why do I care enough to get upset? Oh, I guess you're right: Institutionalized mass murder is just part of the price we have to pay for this freedom we go on about in this society, I guess I need to get over it.



Posted on: July 08, 2007, 07:01:28 PM

Basically the death penalty is a deterrent more than a punishment. Someone would think much longer and harder about murdering someone else if they knew that the crime would lead to their own death.

God did not tolerate murder in the Old Testament, and He never changes. Our own tolerance as a society has gotten us to where we are today.

Too many times people try to tie this subj with another that I wont even say because I dont wish for the thread to get hijacked. The two just simply are not the same.

Well, the thread was already hijacked... 

It's such a deterrent, WHY DO MURDERS STILL HAPPEN AT MORE OR LESS A STEADY STATE?!

God only tolerates the murders you think should be committed by the state, which means, according to you, HE CHANGES.

(NB: There is a strong suggestion, up top of this board: *Critical thinking is required*. See it?)

When a criminal makes the choice to end another persons life, they deserve the maximum sentence allowed by the laws of the state (or province or country for our posters outside the US) in which the crime took place. In one of the states I am familiar with, that is death by lethal injection. With this, the accused is likely receiving more mercy than their victim.

When the state makes the choce to end another persons life, and you agree with it 100% ('cause, you know, IT'S THE STATE, which you question about as well as you question what you assert here, which appears to derive from the idea that you tend not to question authority) what happens then?

WHO JUDGES YOU?

Or, does it just go around and around and around and around, with no end?

NOTA

[tinkerbell]

I've split this topic and renamed it.  It had gone way off course.  Also, please remember the site rules when responding to any threads, especially this one:

15. You may challenge the issue, but never the person.

Thank you.

tink

[Susan]

For me it goes back to the book of Genesis. In the Christian bible that verse was mistranslated.

And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground. -- Genesis 4:10

It actually should read:

Then He said, "What have you done? The sound of your brother's bloods, they cry out to Me from the ground! -- Bresheet 4:10 aka Genesis 4:10

To find out what it actually means we need to look to the the Jewish Rabbi's...

Cain's slaying of his brother Abel was the first act of violence in the history of the world. A sarcastic British Lord once argued that today's youth are no worse than the youth of old: Even when there were only two young men in the world, Cain and Abel, one of them was a criminal. Indeed, the story of Cain and Abel is not only tragic, but also pessimistic. There are only four people in the entire world, all are members of the same family, and yet a murder is committed. In relative terms, Cain killed a greater proportion of the world's population than did Hitler. Cain sowed the seeds of evil and violence that would accompany mankind in the future. Chazal described the period of innocence that preceded the murder as follows:

Mishna: Know that capital cases are not like monetary cases. In monetary cases, a person gives money and atones for himself. In capital cases, his blood and the blood of his descendants hang on him until the end of the world. For thus we find regarding Cain who killed his brother, as it is said: "Your brother's bloods cry out" (Genesis 4:10). It does not say "your brother's blood," but "your brother's bloods" – his blood and the blood of his descendants...

Then we have the fact that even after Cain's hideous murder was discovered God didn't strike him down, nor did he allow anyone else to do so. Instead God exiled Cain and protected him.

And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him. -- Genesis 4:15

Then we have the teachings of Jesus which most Christians seem to ignore outright...

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

So I support putting those who kill apart from civilized society but remember no one is so deep in the shadow, that they may not return to the light again. The death penalty can not be reconciled with the Christian faith.

That's my two cents, take it or leave it.

[tinkerbell]

I feel that that this is an extremely complex moral issue.  I usually think of how I would feel if my own child were tortured, raped and killed.  What would I do then?  could I forgive?  Even if I were able to forgive, that however does not erase the civil responsibility a murderer has to pay for his crime. Note that I said crime, not sin.  His sin is forgiveable, but he owes the government for his crime.

As far as the death penalty, we could spend hours, days, months, years, quoting the Bible.  In fact, I have a quote from the book of Genesis as well.

Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

Perhaps we should remember that when Jesus commanded us to forgive, He was not talking to governments, but to individual people.  But, as I've said before, for the government to carry out a sentence is not revenge. It's not a matter of forgiveness either. It is a simple matter of knowing the law and knowing the penalty for breaking it, and then breaking the law anyway.

My two cents.


tink

[Susan]

Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed, For in the image of God He made man."

Perhaps we should remember that when Jesus commanded us to forgive, He was not talking to governments, but to individual people.  But, as I've said before, for the government to carry out a sentence is not revenge. It's not a matter of forgiveness either. It is a simple matter of knowing the law and knowing the penalty for breaking it, and then breaking the law anyway.

I specifically addressed the verse you referenced.

Acts 3:22: Moses said, "The Lord God will raise up for you a prophet like me from your brothers. You shall listen to Him in whatever he tells you."

If we must "listen to Him in whatever he tells" us, we must examine once again what he has told us:

Matthew 5:38–39: You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." But I tell you, do not resist an evil person.

Indeed the Old Covenant has been Abolished and Replaced with the New Covenant...

A further reading of the New Testament confirms the above interpretation. Dozens of passages throughout the books of the New Testament declare that the old covenant has been "taken away" and replaced with "a better covenant." The following are some examples:

Hebrews 10:9: ...He took away the first covenant to establish the second.

Hebrews 8:13: In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 7:18-19: A former commandment is annulled because of its weakness and uselessness, for the law made nothing perfect; but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.

Hebrews 8:6-7: Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better than the old covenant, since it is founded on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second.

Hebrews 7:22: This makes Jesus the guarantor of a better covenant.

Hebrews 9:15: He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant...

Galatians 3:13: Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law.

Colossians 2:14: Having wiped out the handwriting of requirements that was against us, which was contrary to us, he has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross.

2 Corinthians 3:5-6: ...our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Romans 7:4-6: Therefore, you also have become dead to the law through Christ... Now that we have been delivered from the law, having died to what we were held by, we should serve in the newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness of the letter.

John 1:17: For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.

Luke 16:16: The law and the prophets reigned until the time of John: and since that time, the kingdom of God is preached, and every man strives to go in.

From a review of the above verses, we see that the first covenant has been "taken away," that it has "become obsolete," that it has been "annulled," and that it has "vanished away." On the other hand, the new covenant is "a better covenant," it is "much more excellent than the old," and it provides a "better hope."

As our friend and the site's spiritual advisor David Shelton is fond of saying it all comes down to four words. Love God, Love Man...

Matthew 22:37-40: ...Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

We can go further in depth if you like....

Many argue that Jesus taught against personal retaliation, but not governmental retaliation. According to this viewpoint, it is wrong for a follower of Jesus to retaliate personally against an enemy, but it is perfectly fine to use the governmental authorities and courts of law to punish the enemy. (For an examination of the relationship between Christians and courts of law, please read Should Christians Take Part in Courts of Law?) It must be noted, however, that even the Mosaic Law did not allow personal retaliation. An individual, to be in compliance with the Mosaic Law, was called upon to report any injury to the authorities, who would then administer punishment. This is what the Old Testament's "eye for an eye" consisted of: governmental retaliation. Personal retaliation is not condoned under either Testament. The Old Testament, however, did condone governmental retaliation, and this is what Jesus referenced and taught against. Jesus promoted the love of enemies. Retaliation, whether it is personal or governmental, does not convey love to an enemy.

So, are these passages meant to be taken literally? Several issues will need to be addressed to answer this question. To begin with, the example Jesus provided demonstrates this literal denial of self-defense. When Judas Iscariot arrived at Gethsemane, intending to betray Jesus and turn him over to the authorities, Peter attempted to defend him by reaching for a sword, and striking the servant of the High Priest, cutting off his ear. Jesus miraculously healed the wound Peter inflicted, and then rebuked Peter:

Matthew 26:52: "Put your sword back in its place... for all who take the sword will die by the sword..."

Peter's actions could certainly be considered a just use of violence. Jesus, an innocent man, was about to be given into the hands of an angry mob. Peter attempted to rescue his friend through the use of defensive violence. Jesus, however, rebuked him. Later at his trial before Pilate, Jesus made a comment which explained his condemnation of Peter's actions:

John 18:36: My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then my servants would fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews...

If Jesus' kingdom were of this world, his servants could use defensive violence when attacked. However, Jesus' kingdom is not of this world. Many argue that Jesus' purpose was to redeem mankind, and this is why his servants could not defend him. It must be noted, however, that Jesus' reason for not fighting was not that he had to redeem mankind, but that his kingdom is not of this world. His kingdom is built around love and the love of enemies. Jesus specifically forbade Peter from using the sword, but his wording was universal:

Matthew 26:52: "Put your sword back in its place... for all who take the sword will die by the sword."

This same prohibition of "the sword" is found in the book of Revelation, specifically applied to all followers of Christ:

Revelation 13:9-10: He who has an ear, let him hear... He who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword. This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of the saints.

In this passage, the same comment Jesus made prohibiting the defense of himself is explicitly applied to all "who has an ear." Indeed, refraining from using self-defense against an approaching enemy does require "patient endurance and faithfulness." Followers of Christ, however, are called upon to love their enemies, as Christ loved his. Repeated throughout the New Testament is the idea that followers of Jesus must imitate him in this respect.

So again it's clear that the death penalty can not be reconciled with the Christian faith...

[tinkerbell]

As our friend and the site's spiritual advisor David Shelton is fond of saying it all comes down to four words. Love God, Love Man...

He is right, although I am not sure I could love someone who murder my own child if that were the case.

tink

[Susan]

No one ever said being a Christian was susposed to be easy, forgive yourself, and then forgive them.

[tinkerbell]

No one ever said being a Christian was susposed to be easy, forgive yourself, and then forgive them.

Yeah, it isn't easy.  And this is why recently I have asked myself if I am REALLY a Christian.  Bottom line is that I can't do a lot of the things that Christians supposedly do (like the subject of this thread for instance).  I am far from being perfect and don't think I can ever be, so if that means that I am NOT a Christian in the eyes of others, then perhaps I am not.   No offense taken of course, just being as honest as I possibly can.

tink

[Susan]

Being a Christian is about walking the path, sometimes we take a wrong turn, when we do we simply need to backtrack and find the right way again. So hopefully in time you will be able to work it out, for now don't sweat it...

[Nero]

No one ever said being a Christian was susposed to be easy, forgive yourself, and then forgive them.

Yeah, it isn't easy.  And this is why recently I have asked myself if I am REALLY a Christian.  Bottom line is that I can't do a lot of the things that Christians supposedly do (like the subject of this thread for instance).  I am far from being perfect and don't think I can ever be, so if that means that I am NOT a Christian in the eyes of others, then perhaps I am not.   No offense taken of course, just being as honest as I possibly can.

tink

Christians are human like everybody else, Tink. Christians are individuals like everybody else. The whole concept is to strive to be Christ-like, not that Christians are inherently perfect. Having different viewpoints from other Christians has nothing to do with your own relationship with God.
I am at odds with you on two issues. The same two issues I'm at odds with my mother on. I was disowned by my sister for the topic of this very thread (why I try not to debate these issues anymore. too much passion on both sides).
The fact that I'm right and you, my mother, and sister are wrong , has nothing to do with the fact we're all Christians.

[BeverlyAnn]

Do I think the death penalty is a deterrant to murder?  No, not for a minute.  Do I think it is applied fairly?  Of course not.  When was the last time someone rich or famous got the death penalty?  Most of the rich or famous aren't even convicted.  Last time I checked, O. J. was still free.

And yet at the same time, I know for a fact that Ted Bundy will never rape/murder another 12 year old girl and stuff her body under a pig shed.  Ernest Dobbert will never have to opportunity to torture a 9 year old girl (his own daughter) over a period of time leading to her death or kill another one of his children or blind a third by sticking lit cigarettes in his eyes.  Danny Rollings will never murder more coeds, posing 2 of them to shock the police and decapitate another, putting her head on the bookshelf in her room.  Now some will say that they wouldn't be able to do that in prison but as a reminder, Bundy was serving a prison sentence in Utah and escaped. 

I guess my answer is, I don't have an answer, just mixed feelings about it

Beverly.

[Lisbeth]

There are two types of Christians.  There are the ones who have a consistent ethic of life: no abortion, no war, no death penalty.  And then there are those who selectively decide that some kinds of death are ok.  The ones who accept abortion (death before birth) are labelled "liberals."  The ones who accept war and the death penalty (death after birth) are labelled "conservatives."    But all that really matters is whether god labels them "sheep" or "goats."

Posted on: July 09, 2007, 12:09:37 PM

Yeah, it isn't easy.  And this is why recently I have asked myself if I am REALLY a Christian.  Bottom line is that I can't do a lot of the things that Christians supposedly do (like the subject of this thread for instance).  I am far from being perfect and don't think I can ever be, so if that means that I am NOT a Christian in the eyes of others, then perhaps I am not.   No offense taken of course, just being as honest as I possibly can.

By that standard, no one is (Romans 3:20).  But Romans 3:21-22.

[cindianna_jones]

I find it odd that those very people who attempt to protect all human life in the womb, fail miserably for those after they are born.

The inconsistencies are mind boggling.

Currently, it costs more to put someone to death than it does to keep them alive for those many years incarceration.  Since I'm paying my share to foot the bill, I go for the lowest cost option.  That satisfies any moral problems I might have.

Cindi

[Nero]

Currently, it costs more to put someone to death than it does to keep them alive for those many years incarceration. 

Thanks so much for pointing this out. During all my debates on this topic, the other party never fails to assume it's the other way around and bases half their argument for the death penalty on the fact they are a tax payer.
I was beginning to think I was the only one alive who knew this fact.

[cindianna_jones]

Ah Nero, you and I are cut from the same cloth

Cindi

[Nero]

heh heh guess so.