theo_victis
New member
BR Round 5a
BR Round 5a
First of all, I would like to thank all of you for your patience and participation during this debate. I sincerely enjoyed this debate and found iron-sharpening-iron. I thank Knight for putting this on, Turbo for being a worthy opponent, and you, TOL, for your eyes and hearts.
The Grand Finale:
I have saved my final question for last:
Should Christians support the DP?
I will answer this after a few concluding remarks:
The Problem with Turbo’s view:
Never answered the question at hand
In Turbo’s opening post, he never introduced the topic at hand, nor laid out a plan of action, nor did he even answer the question for this debate: “Should Christians Support the DP?” He has, however, worked real hard answering questions like “Should the Government have a role in the DP?” and “Are fines and prisons mentioned in the Bible?” This has nothing to do with our task for this debate. Even if governments are given the authority by to execute others, it does not mandate that God desires for us to support their death, especially since there is overwhelming NT support for Christians not to support the DP. Should Christians go out and hunt down their neighbor and have the government put them to death? Or should Christians preach the gospel message to them? By default, unless Turbo turns it around in his next post, he loses for not even answering the question in a clear fashion!!!! In his first post, he fails to even mention it!
This debate, however, is not about technicalities. This debate is not about if I win or Turbo wins, or who gets the most votes, it is about whether or not Christians should support the DP. Which they certainly should not support!
Turbo’s Idealism
His view was idealistic. Turbo wants the DP to be administered quickly, painfully and all the time. This whole view on the DP is not realistic. Instead of proper trials and appeals process Turbo calls for bringing to death as soon as possible. Way to care about innocence! Instead of caring about the guilty party’s life at all, Turbo wants it to be painfully as possible (which could essentially have no limits). Instead of accounting for the mercy that God has shown on actual sinners deserving the DP (Cain, Lamech, Ninevah, Moses, David, Adulteress women, and Paul) Turbo advocates that we kill them all, ignoring the NT command to forgive (Col 3:13) and to be merciful (Luke 6:36).
Mat 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Ignoring Hebrews 8
Had I not made it clear in the fourth round that the gigantic list of OT laws that condemn us all is obsolete in Christ? Let me repost the verse that indicates so:
Heb 8:12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
Heb 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Forgiveness ignored
God commanded us to forgive as he does. God commanded us to be merciful. This is the NT ethic of love. This is what the Apostle Paul received even though he brutally persecuted and imprisoned the early church. He even oversaw and gave approval of Stephen’s death but that did not stop the early church to welcome in a new believer, forgiven and transformed by God’s grace.
Question for Turbo: Was Paul deserving death for his participation and involvement in the false death of Stephen and the persecution of the early church leading certainly to the death of many early Christians?
Revisiting Karla Faye Tucker
Karla Faye Tucker was no different. She, like Paul, received the Lord’s grace but unlike Paul, she was not shown mercy and was executed. Karla Faye Tucker was a Christian, a Christian that when executed, a crowd of other “Christians” cheered on, waving indecent posters and banisters.
Did the early church do this to Paul? Shouldn’t they have done the right thing and turned Paul in, having Paul willingly give up his own life? Shouldn’t they have at least tried to avenge Stephen’s martyrdom?
Read this passage:
Acts 9:23-24 After many days had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him [Paul], (24) but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him.
Saul, now a Christian preaching Christ, knew they were trying to kill him. Did Paul not realize what he had done to the saints? Shouldn’t he have turned himself in and died?
What did the early church do? They accepted him after testing him. And shouldn’t Jesus have picked up the largest stone he could find and cast it upon the woman caught in adultery? Did Jesus sin when he forgot to follow the absolute DP?
I think Turbo, you should address this fully and come up with some explanation for why the early church didn’t turn in Paul or why Jesus didn’t cast the largest stone! Why did Karla Faye Tucker have to die if Paul and the woman didn’t?!? Was she not forgiven by God? How do we know either way?
See here, it is NOT the Kill them all philosophy at work but the Forgive them all philosophy.
Where was Jesus’ stone? Where was it? Was Jesus chicken? A liberal sissy?
Taking James 2 Seriously
James 2 tells us something remarkable. Someone in the Battle Royale challenged me to tell me where God puts an end to the DP. If you need a clearer passage than this, then you have problems:
James 2:10-13 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (11) For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[2] also said, "Do not murder."[3] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. (12) Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, (13) because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
We are all lawbreakers. We all deserve the DP. When we break one point of the Law, we are as guilty as Hitler, Stalin, Osama, and any other list of bad guys. We are to speak and act as those who are going to be shown mercy. How is giving the DP a merciful act?
When someone commits adultery, we are to show mercy and not put them to death as Turbo wants. When someone murders we are to show mercy and not put them to death as Turbo desires. Don’t crave any blood but the blood of Christ that has been shed for our sins.
Taking Joseph’s example
We have talked a lot about man’s judgment in relation to God’s. We have witnessed that at the fall man judged for himself for the first time and has continued to do so up until today. Let’s, however, consider Joseph’s example of forgiveness in the book of Genesis:
Joseph was tormented, brutalized, and left for dead by his brothers for no good reason. When Joseph had not died, his brothers forced him into slavery(37:27). Joseph was then wrongly put into prison in Egypt(39:20). Joseph, being faithful to the Lord, became Pharaoh’s right hand man and gained an abundant amount of authority (45:9). During a particular drought that came over the land, Joseph’s brothers went to Egypt in order to get food. After Joseph saw his brothers beg for food, Joseph decided to confront them about what happened:
Genesis 50:15-21 When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?" (16) So they sent word to Joseph, saying, "Your father left these instructions before he died: (17) 'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father." When their message came to him, Joseph wept. (18) His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said. (19) But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? (20) You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. (21) So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.
I know what you are thinking: What a wicked man Joseph is for not killing them when he had the chance!?! Oh, wait. You weren’t thinking that. You were thinking, how great and merciful for Joseph to forgive them. Joseph denies his place as God (even though Pharaoh was considered divine and Joseph was his right hand man, making him closer in Egyptian authority to God then anyone else). Joseph forgives his debtors.
In a state of democracy where we the people run the government, why not forgive as Joseph has?! Why not show mercy as we are commanded in the NT?
Let’s take the example of the early church, Jesus, and Joseph, whom all forgave.
Should Christians Support the DP?
The answer is obviously no. It is very easy to see that the NT teaches us to forgive and to have mercy. How can we support something that is contrary to forgiveness and mercy?
We shouldn’t support the DP because:
It does not deter crime
It does not justify the crime (only Christ’s death can fully do this)
It does not allow the murderer to come to repentance (especially if we do this swiftly)
Man will never judge without error (the DP cannot be overturned once carried out)
There may be a sociological bias
We are all guilty and deserving of the Death Penalty (everyone one of us!)
God has fulfilled and made the OT obsolete in Christ
God has commanded us not to judge hypocritically
God has commanded us not to condemn anyone
God commands us to be forgiving
God commands us to be merciful
God commands us to act and speak as those being judged under mercy and freedom
God died on the cross for our sins so we do not have to
God is to be Judge
God did not always exercise the DP
God is love
It is that clear. Axiomatic!
Responding to Turbo:
Deterrence!?! Revisited for the millionth time
We have already visited this portion of the debate a few times. Let’s review the AV’s position:
Statistics indicate that states with the DP have an average homicide rater per 100,000 people higher then states that do not.
In fact, despite Turbo’s fitting together graphs, he failed to properly interpret and account for all of the facts about deterrence. While it is true that one does not run a high risk to receive the DP, it is obvious, however, that the DP does not deter crime.
In 2003, the South had the highest murder rate in the country, and that continued in 2004 even as the South carried out 85% of the nation's executions. The Northeast, which had no executions in 2004, had the lowest murder rate in 2003 and that position remained the same in 2004. (See FBI Press Release, "Preliminary Crime Statistics for 2004," June 6, 2005. Execution data from DPIC).
As we can draw from this, not every state executes and the ones that do, have a higher murder rate.
What Turbo’s analysis fails to inform you is that after 1976, when the DP was reinstated, not all States had the DP. In fact, homicides increased in the South, which was producing the most executions. Furthermore, taking the United States as a whole in homicide rates does not tell the whole story.
Take a 1995 study on California for instance:
The average annual increase in homicides was twice as high during years in which the DP was carried out than in years during which no one was executed. The study compared the homicide rates during 1952-1967, when an execution occurred on an average of every two months, with the homicides rates between 1968-1991, a period where no executions occurred. The study found that homicide rates where annually increasing by 10% when California was executing criminals consistently. This declined to an increase of 4.8% when California rescinded the DP. (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, How have Homicide Rates Been Affected By California’s Death Penalty, April 1995, p. 2-3)
Even America’s weak DP does not deter as well as countries without the DP:
Data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States, which retains the death penalty, has a murder rate that is more than three times that of many of its European allies that have banned capital punishment. (New York Times, May 11, 2002).
Of the countries listed from 1997-1999:
US: 6.8 per 100,000
Sweeden: 1.94
Netherlands: 1.66
France: 1.63
Italy: 1.56
Britain: 1.45
Germany: 1.28
Where is this deterrent? Certainly if Turbo is correct these governments over a two year period should see murder rates sky rocket because they do not have the DP!!!!
The Bottom Line
The Flood did not deter crime. Sodom and Gomorrah did not deter sin. The exile of God’s people to Assyria did not deter crime nor sin. God’s exile of the Israelites to the Babylonians did not deter sin. Christ’s death did not deter sin (but sure gave us victory over it). When has death deterred sin? Man will always sin until the last days when God completely obliterates the Law, Satan, and those who do his work. Then God will sanctify us and sin will be revoked. The DP does not deter crime.
Romans 13
You are skirting the issue. Bearing the sword is a metaphor (a very common one in fact). Paul is saying the Romans have the right to authority.
Calling it silly does not make my argument false. I have one question for you, is Paul not capable of a complete thought? Historically, contextually, grammatically, all of this argumentation for obedience out of love.
So Paul’s argument about love at the end of chapter 13 was tacked on for sentimental value or something!?!?!!!! C’mon, we know that fear is contrary to love and Paul is arguing for love and obedience from good conscience.
Where are you getting that? Clearly not from my posts!
But now God has negated his commands (Hebrews 8 and James 2) because of his son. I have to ask you this, Why did King David, an instrument of God’s wrath, not have himself be executed? Or was forgiveness an alternative?
Ok.. if you can make weak arguments like this than surely this similar argument should fly as well:
During Paul’s earthly ministry, Rome owned the world (one of many wicked nations in the Bible that used the Death Penalty as condemnation). The threat of the Death Penalty was a reality of the day. It would be like me saying, Don’t commit adultery unless you want to end up executed. Now, I don’t believe the DP is a suitable punishment for adultery, but the reality is, that’s the punishment adulterers should receive. My acknowledgement of that fact is not an endorsement of the DP as condemnation.
Anybody else struggle to find anything logical at all with this argument. It is unintelligible to me. In all sincerity, I think you might have been sleepy or something or switched your train of thought because this is all a bunch of scrambled thoughts not relating to one another.
This doesn’t refute Christ’s speaking about prisons. Notice Christ does more speaking about prisons then giving people the DP for their sins (in fact, he stopped someone from receiving the deserved DP).
This was irrelevant. But, I think it was sorta interesting. I agree with your point that fines should not necessarily benefit the government the way the US is doing so. However, like I said, nothing to do with the debate.
You know what? These ad hominems are really unnecessary. Why do this? Immature…grow up.
We cannot judge whether or not someone was angry without cause. I do not know the hearts of men. But I would advocate forgiveness and mercy before condemnation and judgment for someone who was guilty of this.
What is this? I cannot see how this makes you look like an intelligent debater. Whatever! :baby:
So… apparently if one plots a murder or adultery, or really anything horrific, we cannot bring justice until they have committed the crime? That is at least, your logic played out.
I don’t think you understand what Christ is saying. You are guilty of murder (not spiritual murder or something else you might make up)!!!! MURDER! If you are unjustly angry in your own heart, it is just as bad as murder. Is murder a sin Turbo? Of course it is. So, is it only then a spiritual debt that condemns us to hell? NO! We deserve the DP if we are angry without cause with our brother JUST AS MUCH as someone who actually murders.
I am going to answer these questions all together. I have stated plainly before that we should show forgiveness and mercy. That is a correct assertion. However, this is exactly why I have been advocating corrective, disciplinary imprisonments that help restore a criminal back into society. I recall stating this:
“Now, if we know for certain that a person has repented and confessed to God, then we should not have to do anything idealistically.”
Note the word “idealistically.” I then went on to explain:
“I advocate that if someone truly repents of their sin, we do not need to even imprison them. Let them go. The issue is, what if they do not repent. As Christians we certainly do not condemn them to death, we try our best to rehabilitate them to become functioning repentant members of society. Of course, an injustice is created by sending someone to prison that is innocent but you cannot compare that with taking the life of someone who is innocent.”
Now that you clearly see that this situation has already been handled, I merely ask, why are you asking these hypothetical questions?
Theo-A-TQ50: See, this depends on the crime. An adulterer is not necessarily going to kill everyone they know when we let them go. Either is a disobedient, rebellious child. We forgive and correct, mend, restore. Just as the early church did so with Paul, the tested to see if he was legit. Acts 9:26-31. We have to rely on the Holy Spirit to indicate whether a believer is true. We cannot let loose cannons who are going to kill back into society but we can try our best to reform them. This is not punishment. Who can call giving them mercy by not killing them unforgiving? We need to help people. If they like Paul prove to be pure, then let them go. Becoming a Christian means you are a new creation, a radical transformation occurs and Christians generally should not repeat murders. If someone is a psyscho path murderer or a repeat adulterer, we offer the man with psychological issues psychological help.
You are taking what I said way out of context. You bashed my understanding of imprisonment, then try to force me to use something I already beleive in. What logic is this? You have yet to prove that prisons are ungodly. Especially since my model of imprisonment does not equal what our prisons look like today.
Emotional appeal. Puh-lease.
You should really post an image showing 7 billion graves because all of humanity deserves the DP.
Figure of speech.
Conclusion:
I presented the three arguments, sociological, judicial and theological, asked and answered four important questions, and responded to Turbo. I beleive to the fullest of my knowledge that I have answered everyone of Turbo's questions. I have demonstrated that supporting the DP is against NT Christian ethics and God's NT commands. Christians should not support the DP.
Questions for Turbo:
Theo-Q-31: Was Paul deserving death for his participation and involvement in the false death of Stephen and the persecution of the early church leading certainly to the death of many early Christians?
Theo-Q-32: Will you refrain from name calling? It does not help this debate! I apologize if I did any myself.
Theo-Q-33: Does prisons and other alternate punishments really have anything to do with whether Christians should support the DP?
BR Round 5a
First of all, I would like to thank all of you for your patience and participation during this debate. I sincerely enjoyed this debate and found iron-sharpening-iron. I thank Knight for putting this on, Turbo for being a worthy opponent, and you, TOL, for your eyes and hearts.
The Grand Finale:
I have saved my final question for last:
Should Christians support the DP?
I will answer this after a few concluding remarks:
The Problem with Turbo’s view:
Never answered the question at hand
In Turbo’s opening post, he never introduced the topic at hand, nor laid out a plan of action, nor did he even answer the question for this debate: “Should Christians Support the DP?” He has, however, worked real hard answering questions like “Should the Government have a role in the DP?” and “Are fines and prisons mentioned in the Bible?” This has nothing to do with our task for this debate. Even if governments are given the authority by to execute others, it does not mandate that God desires for us to support their death, especially since there is overwhelming NT support for Christians not to support the DP. Should Christians go out and hunt down their neighbor and have the government put them to death? Or should Christians preach the gospel message to them? By default, unless Turbo turns it around in his next post, he loses for not even answering the question in a clear fashion!!!! In his first post, he fails to even mention it!
This debate, however, is not about technicalities. This debate is not about if I win or Turbo wins, or who gets the most votes, it is about whether or not Christians should support the DP. Which they certainly should not support!
Turbo’s Idealism
His view was idealistic. Turbo wants the DP to be administered quickly, painfully and all the time. This whole view on the DP is not realistic. Instead of proper trials and appeals process Turbo calls for bringing to death as soon as possible. Way to care about innocence! Instead of caring about the guilty party’s life at all, Turbo wants it to be painfully as possible (which could essentially have no limits). Instead of accounting for the mercy that God has shown on actual sinners deserving the DP (Cain, Lamech, Ninevah, Moses, David, Adulteress women, and Paul) Turbo advocates that we kill them all, ignoring the NT command to forgive (Col 3:13) and to be merciful (Luke 6:36).
Mat 5:7 Blessed are the merciful, for they will be shown mercy.
Ignoring Hebrews 8
Had I not made it clear in the fourth round that the gigantic list of OT laws that condemn us all is obsolete in Christ? Let me repost the verse that indicates so:
Heb 8:12 For I will forgive their wickedness
and will remember their sins no more."
Heb 8:13 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.
Forgiveness ignored
God commanded us to forgive as he does. God commanded us to be merciful. This is the NT ethic of love. This is what the Apostle Paul received even though he brutally persecuted and imprisoned the early church. He even oversaw and gave approval of Stephen’s death but that did not stop the early church to welcome in a new believer, forgiven and transformed by God’s grace.
Question for Turbo: Was Paul deserving death for his participation and involvement in the false death of Stephen and the persecution of the early church leading certainly to the death of many early Christians?
Revisiting Karla Faye Tucker
Karla Faye Tucker was no different. She, like Paul, received the Lord’s grace but unlike Paul, she was not shown mercy and was executed. Karla Faye Tucker was a Christian, a Christian that when executed, a crowd of other “Christians” cheered on, waving indecent posters and banisters.
Did the early church do this to Paul? Shouldn’t they have done the right thing and turned Paul in, having Paul willingly give up his own life? Shouldn’t they have at least tried to avenge Stephen’s martyrdom?
Read this passage:
Acts 9:23-24 After many days had gone by, the Jews conspired to kill him [Paul], (24) but Saul learned of their plan. Day and night they kept close watch on the city gates in order to kill him.
Saul, now a Christian preaching Christ, knew they were trying to kill him. Did Paul not realize what he had done to the saints? Shouldn’t he have turned himself in and died?
What did the early church do? They accepted him after testing him. And shouldn’t Jesus have picked up the largest stone he could find and cast it upon the woman caught in adultery? Did Jesus sin when he forgot to follow the absolute DP?
I think Turbo, you should address this fully and come up with some explanation for why the early church didn’t turn in Paul or why Jesus didn’t cast the largest stone! Why did Karla Faye Tucker have to die if Paul and the woman didn’t?!? Was she not forgiven by God? How do we know either way?
See here, it is NOT the Kill them all philosophy at work but the Forgive them all philosophy.
Where was Jesus’ stone? Where was it? Was Jesus chicken? A liberal sissy?
Taking James 2 Seriously
James 2 tells us something remarkable. Someone in the Battle Royale challenged me to tell me where God puts an end to the DP. If you need a clearer passage than this, then you have problems:
James 2:10-13 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. (11) For he who said, "Do not commit adultery,"[2] also said, "Do not murder."[3] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. (12) Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, (13) because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!
We are all lawbreakers. We all deserve the DP. When we break one point of the Law, we are as guilty as Hitler, Stalin, Osama, and any other list of bad guys. We are to speak and act as those who are going to be shown mercy. How is giving the DP a merciful act?
When someone commits adultery, we are to show mercy and not put them to death as Turbo wants. When someone murders we are to show mercy and not put them to death as Turbo desires. Don’t crave any blood but the blood of Christ that has been shed for our sins.
Taking Joseph’s example
We have talked a lot about man’s judgment in relation to God’s. We have witnessed that at the fall man judged for himself for the first time and has continued to do so up until today. Let’s, however, consider Joseph’s example of forgiveness in the book of Genesis:
Joseph was tormented, brutalized, and left for dead by his brothers for no good reason. When Joseph had not died, his brothers forced him into slavery(37:27). Joseph was then wrongly put into prison in Egypt(39:20). Joseph, being faithful to the Lord, became Pharaoh’s right hand man and gained an abundant amount of authority (45:9). During a particular drought that came over the land, Joseph’s brothers went to Egypt in order to get food. After Joseph saw his brothers beg for food, Joseph decided to confront them about what happened:
Genesis 50:15-21 When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, "What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?" (16) So they sent word to Joseph, saying, "Your father left these instructions before he died: (17) 'This is what you are to say to Joseph: I ask you to forgive your brothers the sins and the wrongs they committed in treating you so badly.' Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father." When their message came to him, Joseph wept. (18) His brothers then came and threw themselves down before him. "We are your slaves," they said. (19) But Joseph said to them, "Don't be afraid. Am I in the place of God? (20) You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. (21) So then, don't be afraid. I will provide for you and your children." And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.
I know what you are thinking: What a wicked man Joseph is for not killing them when he had the chance!?! Oh, wait. You weren’t thinking that. You were thinking, how great and merciful for Joseph to forgive them. Joseph denies his place as God (even though Pharaoh was considered divine and Joseph was his right hand man, making him closer in Egyptian authority to God then anyone else). Joseph forgives his debtors.
In a state of democracy where we the people run the government, why not forgive as Joseph has?! Why not show mercy as we are commanded in the NT?
Let’s take the example of the early church, Jesus, and Joseph, whom all forgave.
Should Christians Support the DP?
The answer is obviously no. It is very easy to see that the NT teaches us to forgive and to have mercy. How can we support something that is contrary to forgiveness and mercy?
We shouldn’t support the DP because:
It does not deter crime
It does not justify the crime (only Christ’s death can fully do this)
It does not allow the murderer to come to repentance (especially if we do this swiftly)
Man will never judge without error (the DP cannot be overturned once carried out)
There may be a sociological bias
We are all guilty and deserving of the Death Penalty (everyone one of us!)
God has fulfilled and made the OT obsolete in Christ
God has commanded us not to judge hypocritically
God has commanded us not to condemn anyone
God commands us to be forgiving
God commands us to be merciful
God commands us to act and speak as those being judged under mercy and freedom
God died on the cross for our sins so we do not have to
God is to be Judge
God did not always exercise the DP
God is love
It is that clear. Axiomatic!
Responding to Turbo:
Deterrence!?! Revisited for the millionth time
We have already visited this portion of the debate a few times. Let’s review the AV’s position:
Statistics indicate that states with the DP have an average homicide rater per 100,000 people higher then states that do not.
In fact, despite Turbo’s fitting together graphs, he failed to properly interpret and account for all of the facts about deterrence. While it is true that one does not run a high risk to receive the DP, it is obvious, however, that the DP does not deter crime.
In 2003, the South had the highest murder rate in the country, and that continued in 2004 even as the South carried out 85% of the nation's executions. The Northeast, which had no executions in 2004, had the lowest murder rate in 2003 and that position remained the same in 2004. (See FBI Press Release, "Preliminary Crime Statistics for 2004," June 6, 2005. Execution data from DPIC).
As we can draw from this, not every state executes and the ones that do, have a higher murder rate.
What Turbo’s analysis fails to inform you is that after 1976, when the DP was reinstated, not all States had the DP. In fact, homicides increased in the South, which was producing the most executions. Furthermore, taking the United States as a whole in homicide rates does not tell the whole story.
Take a 1995 study on California for instance:
The average annual increase in homicides was twice as high during years in which the DP was carried out than in years during which no one was executed. The study compared the homicide rates during 1952-1967, when an execution occurred on an average of every two months, with the homicides rates between 1968-1991, a period where no executions occurred. The study found that homicide rates where annually increasing by 10% when California was executing criminals consistently. This declined to an increase of 4.8% when California rescinded the DP. (Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice, How have Homicide Rates Been Affected By California’s Death Penalty, April 1995, p. 2-3)
Even America’s weak DP does not deter as well as countries without the DP:
Data released by the British Home Office reveals that the United States, which retains the death penalty, has a murder rate that is more than three times that of many of its European allies that have banned capital punishment. (New York Times, May 11, 2002).
Of the countries listed from 1997-1999:
US: 6.8 per 100,000
Sweeden: 1.94
Netherlands: 1.66
France: 1.63
Italy: 1.56
Britain: 1.45
Germany: 1.28
Where is this deterrent? Certainly if Turbo is correct these governments over a two year period should see murder rates sky rocket because they do not have the DP!!!!
The Bottom Line
The Flood did not deter crime. Sodom and Gomorrah did not deter sin. The exile of God’s people to Assyria did not deter crime nor sin. God’s exile of the Israelites to the Babylonians did not deter sin. Christ’s death did not deter sin (but sure gave us victory over it). When has death deterred sin? Man will always sin until the last days when God completely obliterates the Law, Satan, and those who do his work. Then God will sanctify us and sin will be revoked. The DP does not deter crime.
Romans 13
You are skirting the issue. Bearing the sword is a metaphor (a very common one in fact). Paul is saying the Romans have the right to authority.
Your assertion that Paul was talking about paying taxes from the beginning of Romans 13 is downright silly! Paul didn't even mention taxes until verse 6, and note the word "also" in that verse.
Calling it silly does not make my argument false. I have one question for you, is Paul not capable of a complete thought? Historically, contextually, grammatically, all of this argumentation for obedience out of love.
No, a plain reading of this passage makes clear what Paul is saying: Don't avenge yourselves, God will avenge. The government is God's minister to avenge. Therefore you should willingly pay taxes to support the government, God's minister to you for good.
So Paul’s argument about love at the end of chapter 13 was tacked on for sentimental value or something!?!?!!!! C’mon, we know that fear is contrary to love and Paul is arguing for love and obedience from good conscience.
Paul: Authorities do not bear the sword in vain.
Theo: Yes they do!
Where are you getting that? Clearly not from my posts!
A thousand years prior to the two examples you gave, God forgave David for committing murder and adultery. Yet in doing so, you acknowledge that God did not negate his commandments that murderers and adulterers be put to death. The same is true of the two New Testament example you cited.
But now God has negated his commands (Hebrews 8 and James 2) because of his son. I have to ask you this, Why did King David, an instrument of God’s wrath, not have himself be executed? Or was forgiveness an alternative?
During Christ's earthly ministry, Israel was being occupied by Rome (one of many wicked nations in the Bible that used imprisonment as punishment that I alluded to in Round 1). The threat of imprisonment after being sued in court was a reality of the day. It would be like me saying, Don't drive drunk unless you want to end up in prison. Now, I don't believe imprisonment is a suitable punishment for driving drunk (or any other crime), but the reality is, that's the punishment drunk drivers often receive in our society. My acknowledgment of that fact is not an endorsement of imprisonment as punishment.
Ok.. if you can make weak arguments like this than surely this similar argument should fly as well:
During Paul’s earthly ministry, Rome owned the world (one of many wicked nations in the Bible that used the Death Penalty as condemnation). The threat of the Death Penalty was a reality of the day. It would be like me saying, Don’t commit adultery unless you want to end up executed. Now, I don’t believe the DP is a suitable punishment for adultery, but the reality is, that’s the punishment adulterers should receive. My acknowledgement of that fact is not an endorsement of the DP as condemnation.
Anybody else struggle to find anything logical at all with this argument. It is unintelligible to me. In all sincerity, I think you might have been sleepy or something or switched your train of thought because this is all a bunch of scrambled thoughts not relating to one another.
This doesn’t refute Christ’s speaking about prisons. Notice Christ does more speaking about prisons then giving people the DP for their sins (in fact, he stopped someone from receiving the deserved DP).
Fine, We Can Debate Fines Here
This was irrelevant. But, I think it was sorta interesting. I agree with your point that fines should not necessarily benefit the government the way the US is doing so. However, like I said, nothing to do with the debate.
You are like the dim-witted lab rat who just never catches on that when he presses that lever, he gets shocked every time.
You know what? These ad hominems are really unnecessary. Why do this? Immature…grow up.
TurboQ49: Theo, you advocate imprisonment as punishment for murder. Do you therefore, based on Christ's words, advocate imprisonment for becoming angry at someone without cause?
We cannot judge whether or not someone was angry without cause. I do not know the hearts of men. But I would advocate forgiveness and mercy before condemnation and judgment for someone who was guilty of this.
BZZZZT!
What is this? I cannot see how this makes you look like an intelligent debater. Whatever! :baby:
Christ was not talking about criminal justice, but about sin. Spiritually, wanting to commit murder or adultery is just as wicked as fully acting upon those desires and indeed such sinful thoughts condemn an unbeliever to hell as easily as any other. For the would-be victims and society as a whole, it is much better when a sure, swift and painful death penalty is in place to better deter people from acting upon such sinful desires.
So… apparently if one plots a murder or adultery, or really anything horrific, we cannot bring justice until they have committed the crime? That is at least, your logic played out.
I don’t think you understand what Christ is saying. You are guilty of murder (not spiritual murder or something else you might make up)!!!! MURDER! If you are unjustly angry in your own heart, it is just as bad as murder. Is murder a sin Turbo? Of course it is. So, is it only then a spiritual debt that condemns us to hell? NO! We deserve the DP if we are angry without cause with our brother JUST AS MUCH as someone who actually murders.
TurboQ50: Do you therefore completely forgive him as God has forgiven him and set him free?
If so, suppose that the next day he is back in your courtroom. The previous afternoon, just hours after you released him, he kidnapped another little girl, raped her, and murdered her. But he still confesses Christ. He explains that God is still working with him, and that he's very sorry for what he did. He explains that he recommitted his life to the Lord that very morning, and he reminds you that Christ's death has paid for all of his sins.
TurboQ51: Do you forgive him and release him a second time?
He is back a third time. And a fourth. And a fifth. And a sixth.
TurboQ52: How many times do you forgive him and release him?
Christ said that we should forgive our brother "seventy times seven" times (Matthew 18:22). That would make for quite a body count at the hand of your "forgiving" judicial system:
I am going to answer these questions all together. I have stated plainly before that we should show forgiveness and mercy. That is a correct assertion. However, this is exactly why I have been advocating corrective, disciplinary imprisonments that help restore a criminal back into society. I recall stating this:
“Now, if we know for certain that a person has repented and confessed to God, then we should not have to do anything idealistically.”
Note the word “idealistically.” I then went on to explain:
“I advocate that if someone truly repents of their sin, we do not need to even imprison them. Let them go. The issue is, what if they do not repent. As Christians we certainly do not condemn them to death, we try our best to rehabilitate them to become functioning repentant members of society. Of course, an injustice is created by sending someone to prison that is innocent but you cannot compare that with taking the life of someone who is innocent.”
Now that you clearly see that this situation has already been handled, I merely ask, why are you asking these hypothetical questions?
TurboQ50: Do you therefore completely forgive him as God has forgiven him and set him free?
Theo-A-TQ50: See, this depends on the crime. An adulterer is not necessarily going to kill everyone they know when we let them go. Either is a disobedient, rebellious child. We forgive and correct, mend, restore. Just as the early church did so with Paul, the tested to see if he was legit. Acts 9:26-31. We have to rely on the Holy Spirit to indicate whether a believer is true. We cannot let loose cannons who are going to kill back into society but we can try our best to reform them. This is not punishment. Who can call giving them mercy by not killing them unforgiving? We need to help people. If they like Paul prove to be pure, then let them go. Becoming a Christian means you are a new creation, a radical transformation occurs and Christians generally should not repeat murders. If someone is a psyscho path murderer or a repeat adulterer, we offer the man with psychological issues psychological help.
You are taking what I said way out of context. You bashed my understanding of imprisonment, then try to force me to use something I already beleive in. What logic is this? You have yet to prove that prisons are ungodly. Especially since my model of imprisonment does not equal what our prisons look like today.
Take a good look at that image, theo. That is the end result of your position. That should also be the end of your position. The only way for you to come out of this debate a winner is by conceding in Round 5, and by repenting of your opposition to God's wise commands regarding criminal justice.
Emotional appeal. Puh-lease.
You should really post an image showing 7 billion graves because all of humanity deserves the DP.
I wonder: Do you take Christ's "seventy times seven" maximum literally, or do you consider it a figure of speech meaning there is no limit to how many times you should forgive and release a serial child rapist/murderer?
Figure of speech.
Conclusion:
I presented the three arguments, sociological, judicial and theological, asked and answered four important questions, and responded to Turbo. I beleive to the fullest of my knowledge that I have answered everyone of Turbo's questions. I have demonstrated that supporting the DP is against NT Christian ethics and God's NT commands. Christians should not support the DP.
Questions for Turbo:
Theo-Q-31: Was Paul deserving death for his participation and involvement in the false death of Stephen and the persecution of the early church leading certainly to the death of many early Christians?
Theo-Q-32: Will you refrain from name calling? It does not help this debate! I apologize if I did any myself.
Theo-Q-33: Does prisons and other alternate punishments really have anything to do with whether Christians should support the DP?