No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
- Status
glassjester
Well-known member
Interesting. What do you propose should be done with criminals?
glassjester
Well-known member
How about exile for capital offenses?
Because God, who is just, and who's judgments are just, said "life for life."
glassjester
Well-known member
The criminal code of the OT is binding on Christians?
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] answered this in another thread.
| It's two different topics. The law of Moses was not the beginning of criminal justice. It merely expanded and clarified it. I'll say again, criminal justice is not about atonement for sin. It is about proper human government and the just management of a civilized society. So long as human beings are rightly in charge of government, God's criminal justice system stands as the standard for criminal justice. So, just because you are in Christ and are forgiven of all sin, if, in your flesh, you commit a crime, the government must punish you for that crime an eye for an eye. Christians commit crime all the time. Imagine if they were allowed to plead "forgiven in Christ" during the trial. Would there be a single criminal who would mouth such a plea? . . . Sometimes you'll get an answer as to the motive and sometime you will not. But the bible explicitly says not to take any ransom for his life. That would include information that one deemed valuable. Whether he is a believer or not is irrelevant to whether a murderer should be executed. God will deal with his soul. The government is only to deal with his crime. . . . Clete |
Last edited:
There should be a death Penalty
Genesis 9:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Genesis 9:6 King James Version (KJV)
6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
If it is a fact it might be okay to say it, but isn't this racism? Each person is an individual.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
glassjester
Well-known member
That doesn't completely answer the question. Of course the moral code remains. That which was morally wrong then, remains morally wrong today. But what about the punishments for each crime? Are we to carry out the very same penalties for the very same crimes?
Sheesh, I hate typos.
Please feel free to correct my typos any time you want to quote my posts.
It would only be racism if the cause of the murder rate had to do with race.
Remember, corrolation is not causation. In other words, just becasuse two things are corrolated does not mean that one caused the other.
100% of people who eat carrots die. That doesn't mean carrots are deadly.
Last edited:
If that which was morally wrong is still morally wrong then that which was morally right remains morally right, does it not?
If the crime remains, why would the just punishment for that crime change?
glassjester
Well-known member
I suppose then, Christ was wrong to stop the stoning of the adulteress?
In what way would life imprisonment be justice, especially when a "life sentence" usually ends up being less than twenty years.
Your question seems to indicate a misunderstanding of what justice is.
Justice is equity. It doesn't only apply to punishing criminals but applies in any area where being equitable matters.
Keeping focus spceifically on criminal justice, just punishment for a crime is simply to do unto the criminal as he did or sought to do to his victim. It is nothing more than the Golden Rule applied, by force, to the criminal. Of course, this is easier and more straight forward to apply in some cases than it is in others. If someone takes a life, their life is forfeit - simple. But what about the theif who is not only destitute but has eaten or otherwise detroyed what he stole? That's a little less straightforward. Fortunately for us, we don't have to figure such things out because God has done so for us and recorded it in quite lengthy detail in the bible.
Incidentally, the thief who can return the stolen goods is to do so and also must pay resitution equal in value to that which was stolen. The thief who, for whatever reason, cannot return what was stolen must repay seven times. If he is unable to pay with money or goods then he is to be endentured to his victim until his debt is repaid but for no more than seven years.
Clete
Good question! A little sacrilegious in tone, perhaps, but the point your question makes is a valid one. (It is just fascinating to me how these discussions about the death penalty always go down the same paths.)
Of course Jesus was not wrong.
There was more going on in John chapter 8 than a lesson on forgiveness. In fact, it has nothing to do with forgiveness at all. Using this episode as an argument against the death penalty is a classic, textbook example of taking a scripture out of context.
First of all the Jews were attempting to trap Jesus. (John 8:6) They hoped to accomplish this by getting Jesus to consent to her execution because Rome didn't allow the Jews to execute criminals (John 18:31).
It is clear, however, that Jesus did not come to abolish the Mosaic law. (Mat. 5:17-19, Mat. 8:4, Mat. 23:2-3, John 7:19-23 and elsewhere.)
So, Jesus is caught between getting into trouble with the Romans before His appointed time or violating the Mosaic Law, or so the Pharisees thought. But Jesus is smarter than they gave Him credit for being.
The Mosaic law doesn't say to "kill any adulterous you happen to find". That isn't what it says. The Law requires the testimony of two or three witnesses. It was when those called to testify against her refused to do so that Jesus also refused to condemn her to death (John 8:11). He didn't forgive the sin and He didn't proclaim the death penalty unjust nor did He abolish it. On the contrary, He followed the Law precisely while avoiding the trap set for Him by His enemies.
Clete
P.S. For a full understanding of the what the bible says about the death penalty, read the following article...
What Does the Bible Say About the Death Penalty
- Status