:first: Wow!!! Every now and then a TOL'er makes an incredible post that simply stands out above all the rest.
If you haven't read Turbo's 4th round post in Battle Royale XI you need to!
Turbo's post is the very essence of what TOL is all about... funny, clever, powerful, informative and inspiring! In a word... Truthsmack!
It's a classic post that will be talked about for a long time. :up:
If you haven't read Turbo's 4th round post in Battle Royale XI you need to!
Turbo's post is the very essence of what TOL is all about... funny, clever, powerful, informative and inspiring! In a word... Truthsmack!
It's a classic post that will be talked about for a long time. :up:
trubo said:Unfinished Business from Round 3.
And here we are.
In my first round post, under the heading The Death Penalty is a Powerful Deterrent, I stated:
Turbo in Round 1 said:
Just how likely is it that a murderer will someday be executed in this country?
Examine these two charts from the US Department of Justice website:
Just as an example, let's look at the year 1999, when the number of executions reached a 40+ year high:
Population: About 280,000,000
Murder rate: About 5 per 100,000
Total number of murders: 280,000,000 x (5/100,000) = 14,000
Number of executions: About 100
(100/14,000) x 100% = 0.7%
So, not taking into account the several-year lag between a murderer's conviction and his execution, murderers in 1999 can expect to have about 0.7% chance of being eventually executed. (Factoring in this delay would actually make this figure even lower, since the murder rate in 1999 was at its lowest in 20 years.)
"DP-happy Texas" has a population of about 22,900,000. A murder rate of 6.2 per 100,000 means they had about 1420 murders last year. Texas executed 19 death-row inmates last year.
Therefore murderers in "DP-happy Texas" only have about a 1.34% chance of ever being executed.
However, even in its watered-down form, the death penalty has some power to deter crime.
Look at what happens when you overlay the (inverted) murder rate chart onto the executions chart:
It fits like a glove! As executions were waning and eventually banned in the 1960s, the murder rate climbed rapidly until it doubled. After the ban was lifted and as the number of executions began to climb, the murder rate was halved.
So even when murderers only have about a 1% chance of being executed, and even though it will be administered painlessly many years after their conviction, the impact on the crime rate is tremendous! Imagine how low the murder rate could drop if the government started executing every murderer swiftly and painfully.
Romans 13 (Again)
Let's look at Romans 13:1-4 yet again, in the context of what comes before and after this passage:
17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 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. 20 Therefore
“ If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
If he is thirsty, give him a drink;
For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head.”
21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
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.
What are words like vengeance, wrath, and evildoer doing in a passage about tax collection? And what did Paul mean when he said not to avenge ourselves? Was he telling us not to tax other people?
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.
You also argue that the authorities carried swords solely for symbolic purposes, that they didn't actually use these swords.
Your argument can be summed up like this:
Paul: Authorities do not bear the sword in vain.
Theo: Yes they do!
'Nuff said.
TheoQ22.5: When Paul advocates us to do good out of love and essentially obey out of love, are we to fear punishment by the government (See 1 John 4:18)?
Turbo A-TheoQ22.5: No. Only evildoers are to fear punishment from the government.
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Romans 13:3-4
TheoQ23: Do you believe that Paul wanted us to fear (as in be afraid) of the government despite his appeal to love (which tells us not to fear)?
Turbo A-TheoQ23: No. See the passage above, especially the underlined portion.
TheoQ23: Is it reasonable to assume that Paul is telling his audience to pay taxes otherwise the government will kill them?
Turbo A-TheoQ24:No. It is not reasonable to assume that Paul is talking about taxes at all until he brings up "taxes" in verse 6.
Nothing New After the Son
You brought up Christ's forgiveness of the woman caught in adultery and Paul, as though these are examples of how our criminal justice system should operate. I had already explained that only God has the authority to forgive and pardon a criminal. And just because God chooses to pardon a repentant capital criminal, that does not mean that governments are to from that point on forbidden to execute capital criminals; nor does it give governments the option to pardon criminals. God has never delegated such authority to governments. ("Your eye shall not pity..." Deuteronomy 13:8, 19:13, 19:21)
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.
Theo's Flimsy "Biblical Support" for Imprisonment
Wow, theo! When you confessed in Round 2 that you "don’t have much Biblical support for [imprisonment]," you weren't kidding! Here's the best you could come up with:
That's a hypothetical question in which God is confining Job to prison. It's hardly a commandment from God for men to imprison criminals as punishment. It's not even an endorsement of imprisonment. It's just a rhetorical, hypothetical question posed by a man about God's power and authority.
This verse does not contain a typical Hebrew word for prison. Virtually every translation (other than your NIV) renders it as "the net" instead of "prison."
This looks to me to be a figure of speech alluding to the entire nation of Israel's captivity in Egypt (or similar).
It's a far cry from a command or endorsement for men to use imprisonment as a means to punish criminals. (It's a poem, for crying out loud!)
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.
In other words, it has nothing to do with Scripture. You had to stretch extra-hard to try to make the Bible appear to line up with your ideas.
Fine, We Can Debate Fines Here
Theo, in the two passages you brought up to support our government's policy of fining, the fines are paid to the victim of the crime. It is restitution. In Deuteronomy 22:19 for instance, the seducer pays the father a fine because normally a suitor would pay a bride-price to a virgin's father for the privilege of marrying her. Because his daughter has been violated, no suitor will be paying a bride-price for her. Therefore the seducer must pay instead and marry the girl (unless the father objects (Exodus 22:17)).
In our corrupt system of fining, the fine is paid to the government. Therefore the government generates revenue from crime, which creates a conflict of interest for the government. The government is supposed to work to prevent crime, but when the government uses crime as a source of revenue it stands to lose money by preventing crime.
Go back and read what I had said about fines in round 2:
Turbo in round 2 said:
Oops! You Did It Again!
Throughout my round three post, I pointed out the error and hypocrisy in your arguments against the death penalty by turning them around on you and your advocacy of imprisonment.
I would think that after all that, you would be more diligent to think through your arguments in this round, but apparently not. You are like the dim-witted lab rat who just never catches on that when he presses that lever, he gets shocked every time. Maybe this time I'll get a yummy pellet! BZZZZT!
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?
BZZZZT!
Turbo A-TheoQ26-27: 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.
Answers to Theo's Questions
TheoQ19 Is the DP wise? If yes, why is the DP wise?
Turbo A-TheoQ19
Swiftly, painfully and consistently administering capital punishment as God commanded:
- Minimizes capital crimes.
- Protects would-be victims.
- Prevents the wicked from becoming criminals.
- Makes society safer.
- Helps people to understand that there is a just God.
- Leads men toward Christ
Re: Genesis 9
TheoQ20a: Is this passage about human diets?
Turbo A-TheoQ20a: Part of it is, as I pointed out in Round 1. In verses 3 and 4 God expanded man's permissible diet to include the meat of animals. Verses 5-6, however, are not about diet. The topic of those verses is so plainly murder and the death penalty.
You stated, "The verse [Genesis 9:6] never specifies who this “man” is that shall shed the offender’s blood," as if that somehow supports your case. Yet theo, you never got around to explaining what you think "by man shall his blood be shed" was referring to within your cannibalism paradigm.
TheoQ20b: Will you admit that this verse does not speak of the DP in the manner you were referring it to be seen in this passage?
Turbo A-TheoQ20b: Of course not. From the plain reading of the text, as well as a compare/contrast with the three pre-flood commandments (as outlined in my first post), it is obviously about murder and capital punishment.
TheoQ21: Will you retract your statement that “at the foundation of a Godly criminal justice system” is the DP?
Turbo A-TheoQ20a:No.
TheoQ22: Does Exodus 21:22-25 make a value statement as a whole on the DP?
Turbo A-TheoQ22: I don't understand what you are asking.
TheoQ25: Did [the Flood] stop mankind from sinning? Was this ultimate global DP a deterrence in the end?
Turbo A-TheoQ25: God's purpose for the Flood, a one-time event which God promised never to repeat, was not to deter mankind from ever sinning again. God was preserving Christ's bloodline from corruption. (That's a topic for another thread.)
TheoQ28a: Do you agree that God’s wrath for all of our sins were appeased in Christ?
Turbo A-TheoQ28a:For those of us who believe the Gospel and accept His grace, yes. For those who reject Christ, His grace will not be accounted to them, no. (Have you read Revelation?)
TheoQ28b: If yes, why should we give others the DP?
Turbo A-TheoQ28b: (By "we" I assume you mean "the government" or something to that effect, and are not referring to individuals talking vengeance into their own hands.)
Because God commanded it. Proper criminal justice acts as a deterrent and makes society safer. Freeing criminals who say they are sorry does not. God has not authorized rulers to show mercy to criminals, but rather He warns even Christians (through Paul) should they do evil to beware His wrath administered through governing rulers who do "not bear the sword in vain."
TheoQ29: What does it mean for the OT Law to be Obsolete? What is the difference between the Old Covenant and the New? Does the Law condemn us for our sins?
Turbo A-TheoQ29: Believers according to Paul's gospel are not under the Law, they are under grace. Unbelievers are not under grace, they are condemned by the Law. Works of the Law no longer play a part in a believer's salvation.
TheoQ30: Is it fair for us to judge someone for a sin we ourselves have committed?
Turbo A-TheoQ30: If we have repented of that sin, yes.
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. Matthew 7:5
To remove the plank from your own eye is to repent of the sin for which you want to judge your brother. Once that is done, an individual is qualified to judge another for that sin, able to "see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
TheoQ31: Should a Christian support the DP if that means they are to then judge hypocritically (as defined by Turbo), if they are to not show mercy as commanded by the Lord, and if they are to not forgive as the Lord commands?
Turbo A-TheoQ31: This question makes no sense because I don't agree with your "if" statements. The Lord has not commanded governments to show mercy to criminals, and I've gone over the forgiveness issue in depth. And you agree that the government should judge criminals and punish them, you just prefer different forms of punishments.
Seventy Times Seven?
After some confusion in round 3 (see Theo A-TurboQ13), you reaffirmed your belief that the government should set free fellow believers who confess guilt and ask sincerely for forgiveness, arguing (as your professor did) that since God "remembers [their sin] no more," that the government should do likewise:
theo_victis,
Suppose you are a judge overseeing a trial. Forget about juries and precedents and anything that has to do with our current court system; in this scenario, you alone decide the suspect's fate. There is overwhelming evidence that the suspect brutally raped and murdered a 10-year-old girl whom he had kidnapped while she was playing outside. During the trial, he confesses to the crime, and also confesses that he has since accepted that Jesus is Lord and that his sins are forgiven. He gives you no cause to doubt his sincerity.
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 [jesus]"seventy times seven"[/jesus] times (Matthew 18:22). That would make for quite a body count at the hand of your "forgiving" judicial system:
I wonder: Do you take Christ's [jesus]"seventy times seven"[/jesus] 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?
How many children would have to be tortured and killed before you and your professor would no longer find this rapist/murderer to be fit to babysit and teach Sunday School?
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.