Battle Talk ~ BR XI

[Primghar]

I just want to note that I think anyone using the word "restitution" needs to be careful. Restitution is defined as: giving back something that was lost; restoration; reimbursement. Some of you (not all!) have been using it when referring to the death penalty and seemingly implying that the execution of someone is restitution. That is crazy because restitution is restoring the lost property! So the death penalty is not restitution to the victim's family unless the victim is resurrected when the murderer is executed.
However, I have never really heard people use the word "restitution," so please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[theo_victis]

Theo, if we are under the commandment of "love" why are you neg repping me? Shouldn't you have forgiven me????

Its funny that you say "if" we are under the commandment of love.

I only negg repped you Novice because you are telling me that I undermine my own arguments. I disaproved of your comment. Isnt that what the little button is for?

To quote a famous song, "What's love got to do with it?"

Anyways, I dont want to make it a habit of interacting here yet since there is a lot to be said in the debate still.

btw, I forgive your ignorance : )

You cannot forgive someone else's debt. If my neighbor steals my friends lawnmower I have no right to forgive him of the debt he owes my friend.

Knight, I am going to address this in my next round. You have a peculiar understanding of forgiveness. If what you are saying is true, then any time a family has its own member murdered in cold blood they do not reserve the right to feel angry about it because the offense is not against them?

Forgiveness, in part = letting go of wrath/anger. being appeased, closure.


I am trying not to make it a habit of responding here until after the debate is over. So.... I am out!

 

[theo_victis]

Hey Theo in your neg rep comment to me why would you admit that you lost the debate?

um... I didnt?!?! Even if you can somehow semantically twist my words, I am not admitting to losing. The debate isnt even over. You dont always have to act this way.

 

[JoyfulRook]

That is not true. If your 16-year-old son stole money from you, you would forgive him. But you would still make him give the money back and possibly take away his license for a week or make him clean the house or something, but you have still forgiven him for his wrong.

I do not believe people should be given the death penalty; I believe they should be forgiven and punished--but not executed. I am not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

What punishments are Governments authorized by God to use?

 

[JoyfulRook]

I just want to note that I think anyone using the word "restitution" needs to be careful. Restitution is defined as: giving back something that was lost; restoration; reimbursement. Some of you (not all!) have been using it when referring to the death penalty and seemingly implying that the execution of someone is restitution. That is crazy because restitution is restoring the lost property! So the death penalty is not restitution to the victim's family unless the victim is resurrected when the murderer is executed.
However, I have never really heard people use the word "restitution," so please correct me if I am wrong.

No one is saying that restitution is execution. Restitution is one of the punishments God authorized Governments to meat out on criminals for certain crimes (such as stealing). It is the practice of returning what was stolen x2 or another multiple.

Another is flogging (for things such as drunkeness) and the last is execution (murder, rape, etc.).
I think you got confused as to what I was saying.

 

[novice]

I just want to note that I think anyone using the word "restitution" needs to be careful. Restitution is defined as: giving back something that was lost; restoration; reimbursement. Some of you (not all!) have been using it when referring to the death penalty and seemingly implying that the execution of someone is restitution.

Actually the only people that are making the restitution argument are you and Theo.

Yet of course you substitute the word restitution with forgiveness.

It was you who gave us the "16 year old son" analogy remember....

That is not true. If your 16-year-old son stole money from you, you would forgive him. But you would still make him give the money back and possibly take away his license for a week or make him clean the house or something, but you have still forgiven him for his wrong.

I do not believe people should be given the death penalty; I believe they should be forgiven and punished--but not executed. I am not sure why that is so difficult to understand.

Above you describe restitution and then punishment for the offense.

Son pays back the stolen money = Restitution
Take away son's license, make him clean the house = Punishment

 

[novice]

um... I didnt?!?! Even if you can somehow semantically twist my words, I am not admitting to losing. The debate isnt even over. You dont always have to act this way.

My post stated you lost the debate and you neg repped me stating "Yeah but..." How else was I to take the comment?

The truth just has the wacky way of coming out doesn't it?

 

[Primghar]

In light of that wouldn't you agree that what you and Theo are arguing for is actually restitution and NOT forgiveness?

No, I think I am arguing for forgiveness.

But that makes me wonder if those who are adamant about killing all the suspected murderers painfully and swiftfully are just seeking vengeance or some sort of "restitution" for the crime committed.

 

[JoyfulRook]

No, I think I am arguing for forgiveness.

But that makes me wonder if those who are adamant about killing all the suspected murderers painfully and swiftly are just seeking vengeance or some sort of "restitution" for the crime committed.

We advocate killing convicted muderers painfully and swiftly. If they are repentant, forgive them and THEN zap 'em.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, I am going to address this in my next round. You have a peculiar understanding of forgiveness. If what you are saying is true, then any time a family has its own member murdered in cold blood they do not reserve the right to feel angry about it because the offense is not against them?

Well then it should be easy for you to answer the question...

If my neighbor steals my friends lawnmower do I have no right to forgive him of the debt he owes my friend?

A YES or a NO would be fantastic.

Forgiveness, in part = letting go of wrath/anger. being appeased, closure.

An excellent argument for the death penalty! :up:

 

[JoyfulRook]

Hey Primghar... why do you support keeping abortion legal, and fight to stop the death penalty for convicted murderers?

 

[novice]

No, I think I am arguing for forgiveness.

But that makes me wonder if those who are adamant about killing all the suspected murderers painfully and swiftfully are just seeking vengeance or some sort of "restitution" for the crime committed.

Who is adamant about killing "suspected" murderers????

Did you mean to type "convicted murderers"? You and Theo have a hard time picking the right words. It seems you almost always use a word that you don't really mean to use or one that you misused painfully. Anyway, I forgive you. (no restitution necessary)

Tell me... why should the 16 year old son pay back the stolen money and then have to clean the house for his offense?

 

[jeremiah]

It seems to me that the heart of theo's argument is that a crime demands a punishment. A thief needs to be punished with an appropriate punishment. However when the Bible also prescribes a punishment for murderers, i.e. death, then theo has redefined "that" punishment as condemnation!

He is going to have to better explain how Jesus payed the punishment of death for murderers, and yet was unable to pay the punishment for thieves?

If we as Christians are going to explain the meaning of the gospel, and salvation and forgiveness all through the act of forgiving repentant murderers, and replacing the biblical punishment with corrective imprisonment, then how much "more" and easier should it be to allow a repentant thief, to not pay back that which he stole, let alone double or triple or more as the biblically prescribed punishments.

Also, since theo, and to a lesser extent Turbo agree that the LAW has been done away with, on what do they base any punishments that are meted out, or approved by Christians?

Also, if he is making the argument that the death penalty is not a deterrant then what is he quoting the account of Ninevah for? What is up with all that sackcloth, and repentance in exchange for their mortal lives business?????

 

[Stripe]

It is pretty hard to forgive a dead man. I guess I don't get what you are trying to say. At least as a living being the person can experience the fruits of forgiveness, even if it is in a jail cell. My mom works in women's prisons to help young ladies come to Christ and to overcome the years of abuse and other things that have driven many to crime (not saying they are not responsible for their own actions!!). But it takes quite a while for people to understand what forgiveness and freedom in Christ means. Paul preached that same freedom and forgiveness to slaves (who were often in worse conditions than our prisoners) as well as he did to free people. But, slave or free, they were alive.

think of the two thieves on the crosses next to jesus .. one of them accepted his punishment as just and was forgiven .. the other rejected his punishment and was not forgiven.

same thing for murderers put away for 20 years .. one might accept his punishment as just and recieve forgiveness .. the other might reject it and emerge in worse shape ...

all people though will die and face judgement in front of god .. id prefer to do so having already paid the earthly price for my sin ... those who reject the earthy judgement will likely find it much more difficult to accept what god might dish out...

 

[Phantastes]

If any of you have seen or read Les Miserables than it should shine some light on the situation. Jean Valjean is a convicted criminal who did 20 years. He is on parol and is taken in by a monk. He steals from the monk, and when caught and taken to the monk, the monk forgives him and has mercy on him. Valjean wasn't taken to prision and instead the Monk told him to change into a new man. Valjean did just that. Javert, an inspector, isn't convinced that anyone can change and belives that he must take Valjean in, since he is a convict. Here we have one many living by grace and another by the law. In the end, Javery realizes that he had no mercy and only followed the rules. He clapsed his arms in chains and dropped into a river to his death.

Something to ponder. Or make fun of, since that is a common thread on this forum.

 

[JoyfulRook]

If any of you have seen or read Les Miserables than it should shine some light on the situation. Jean Valjean is a convicted criminal who did 20 years. He is on parol and is taken in by a monk. He steals from the monk, and when caught and taken to the monk, the monk forgives him and has mercy on him. Valjean wasn't taken to prision and instead the Monk told him to change into a new man. Valjean did just that. Javert, an inspector, isn't convinced that anyone can change and belives that he must take Valjean in, since he is a convict. Here we have one many living by grace and another by the law. In the end, Javery realizes that he had no mercy and only followed the rules. He clapsed his arms in chains and dropped into a river to his death.

Something to ponder. Or make fun of, since that is a common thread on this forum.

As far as fictional books go, that's a pretty good one. But again, it's fiction.

 

[Primghar]

Hey Primghar... why do you support keeping abortion legal, and fight to stop the death penalty for convicted murderers?

Well, I was supporting what TheDude posted: "While I don't think we can suddenly make it illegal and think that the problem is just going to go away, I think we can make it an unattractive option for young people. Don't make it illegal just yet, but stigmatize it in the public eye. Make it unattractive for young people to do, by making it unpopular in the public eye and it will go away. It will just take longer."

I agree that making abortion illegal will not make the problem go away, and I think he had the right idea about making it an "unattractive option for young people," which I think would eventually lead to it becoming so unpopular it could be made illegal. So, I think abortion should be illegal, but I don't think it becoming so right now would do any good, because a lot of people don't see anything wrong with it. That is my reasoning for supporting it. I am not supporting the murder of babies; I am supporting his idea which would lead to an end of the murder of babies. So....yah....

 

[JoyfulRook]

Well, I was supporting what TheDude posted: "While I don't think we can suddenly make it illegal and think that the problem is just going to go away, I think we can make it an unattractive option for young people. Don't make it illegal just yet, but stigmatize it in the public eye. Make it unattractive for young people to do, by making it unpopular in the public eye and it will go away. It will just take longer."

I agree that making abortion illegal will not make the problem go away, and I think he had the right idea about making it an "unattractive option for young people," which I think would eventually lead to it becoming so unpopular it could be made illegal. So, I think abortion should be illegal, but I don't think it becoming so right now would do any good, because a lot of people don't see anything wrong with it. That is my reasoning for supporting it. I am not supporting the murder of babies; I am supporting his idea which would lead to an end of the murder of babies. So....yah....

Ok, glad to hear you don't believe that. I still disagree with that, but it's not as bad as I thought.

 

[Chileice]

Turbo,
I read with interest your latest installment on the debate. And although you make some good points, I fail to see a connect between the cross of Christ and what you are trying to say. Do you just uphold the OT law as was given to Israel? Do you think ALL OT capital crimes are still punishible by death? And you must have commented at least 6 or 7 times that TV could not be both forgiving and put someone in jail. How would YOU deal with non-capital offences? You seem to champion personal responsibility on one hand and that the person should pay with his life, but you fail to give us a logical choice for how to handle non-capital crimes. How are we to deal with those whose offences are not grave enough for death but which certainly harm society... such as drug dealers for example. The Bible is kind of mute on dope pushers. I don't think they should be summarily executed, but neither do I think they should roam our streets and prey on our youth. You seem to try to say that punishment and forgiveness are mutually exclusive. But as a parent of teenagers, I assure you they are not. If the punishment is given in such a way as to help restore the person to society as a person of value and worth, I believe that we could see how incarceration or work programs or many other kinds of punishment could be loving, redemptive and forgiving while still trying to address the personal responsibility of the offender.

 

[jeremiah]

I think that Turbo has effectively shown the errancy in theo's arguments, and indeed some unintended hypocrisy, in theo's answers, to some of Turbo's carefully worded questions.

I would advise him to abandon his line of reasoning, that forgiveness is only equivalent to having the government neglect its authority, by substituting corrective imprisonment, for the death penalty, in cases of capitol crime, at the behest of repentant Christians, who understand the Gospel.

I like Turbo's statement that it might even be the greater evil to intentionally withhold the death penalty then it was for the original murder done in the heat of the moment, perhaps.

When I counsel young women who are about to abort their babies, I often say something similar. Maybe you never intended to get yourself pregnant, or even planned to have sex. But you are intending to, and have intentionally planned the death of your baby for today. This is far worse, then any thing you have done up to now. Please turn around and repent, now!

I agree wholeheartedly with the idea that if the death penalty were swift and severe, murder in this country would be minimal. Therefore the greater evil is what the government has done, in not having one, or enforcing one!

If I were theo I would move on to King David, the woman caught in adultery, and "it is His Kindness that leads us to Repentance." To mention just a few. That would be a better line of reasoning, in my eyes at least.

As an aside, and even though I know most people think that the Law has been entirely done away with, it was legal in Israel for a brother to kill a man who accidently killed his own brother; Either before he reached a city of refuge, or after he was found innocent of voluntary manslaughter by its judges, if he stepped foot outside of its boundaries. There was no need for a stoning of the "manslaughterer" or of the "brother" who may have killed him with his bare hands. It was entirely a personal and "non governmental justice system and issue.

That case would surely drive todays non death penalty advocates to fits.