No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[Clete]

I suppose then, Christ was wrong to stop the stoning of the adulteress?

By the way, my post asked you a question. It was a rhetorical question based on your own premise. That premise being, "Of course the moral code remains. That which was morally wrong then, remains morally wrong today."

Why, if you believe that premise, was the point made by my rhetorical question insufficient to convince you? Is it because you really do believe that Jesus abolished the death penalty in John 8 and therefore your mind went instinctively to what you see as a contradiction to the line of reasoning or is it something else?


That's a real question, by the way! I don't understand why people are so resistent to allowing sound reason to persuade their mind, especially when that reason is based specifically on a premise that they've already accepted as true. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.


Clete

 

[glassjester]

That's a real question, by the way! I don't understand why people are so resistent to allowing sound reason to persuade their mind, especially when that reason is based specifically on a premise that they've already accepted as true. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.

I am wondering how you determine which OT laws are binding in Christians, and which are not. I brought up the adulteress of John 8 because she was caught in adultery (meaning there must have been witnesses), yet she was not executed. You've pointed out that no accusers came forward - which is true. But I'm still wondering - which OT laws/penalties do you consider binding on Christians, and which do you not? And why?

It is my understanding that many crimes of the OT warranted the death penalty - such as: cursing one's parents, falsely presenting oneself as a virgin for marriage, blaspheming, false prophecy, breaking the sabbath, sacrificing to a false god...

Do you advocate for the death penalty for all of these crimes? And if not, why not?

 

[ok doser]

I am wondering how you determine which OT laws are binding in Christians, and which are not. I brought up the adulteress of John 8 because she was caught in adultery ....

she was "taken in adultery, in the very act"



unless she was committing adultery by herself, with herself, the man was also caught or observed, if not "taken"

and the law required both participants to be brought before a judge

 

[glassjester]

she was "taken in adultery, in the very act"



unless she was committing adultery by herself, with herself, the man was also caught or observed, if not "taken"

and the law required both participants to be brought before a judge

Right. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Clete. How do you distinguish between the OT laws that are binding on Christians, and those that aren't?

Similarly, do you support the death penalty for all the capital offenses listed in the OT? And if not, why not?

 

[ok doser]

Right. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Clete. How do you distinguish between the OT laws that are binding on Christians, and those that aren't?

Similarly, do you support the death penalty for all the capital offenses listed in the OT? And if not, why not?

Clete can answer that better than I can - I've seen his reasoning and agree with it

 

[glassjester]

Clete can answer that better than I can - I've seen his reasoning and agree with it

Alright...

 

[Arthur Brain]

Right. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Clete. How do you distinguish between the OT laws that are binding on Christians, and those that aren't?

Similarly, do you support the death penalty for all the capital offenses listed in the OT? And if not, why not?

In essence, those who support the DP for adultery and homosexuality for anyone in society nowadays are religious extremists, little removed from their Islamic counterparts. There's good reason why we have laws that separate church and state where such can't be implemented.

 

[ok doser]

she was "taken in adultery, in the very act"



unless she was committing adultery by herself, with herself, the man was also caught or observed, if not "taken"

and the law required both participants to be brought before a judge

i wanted to come back to this, then i have to scoot - a woman "taken in adultery, in the very act" could claim that she was the victim of rape - a judge would need to have both participants before him for questioning, as well as the witnesses, in order to determine the truth of the matter

 

[ok doser]

artie does his impersonation of a broken record:

In essence, those who support the DP for adultery and homosexuality for anyone in society nowadays are religious extremists, little removed from their Islamic counterparts.

:yawn:



does it make you feel better to call people "religious extremists"?

do you realize how foolish you look when you fail to acknowledge that Jesus was a "religious extremist"?


Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

[Arthur Brain]

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

What do you suppose Jesus wrote on the ground that convicted the mob to slowly shuffle off and why was such even mentioned?

Do you honestly think that even if it were lawfully justified at the time for this woman to be stoned to death that Jesus would have let the crowd go ahead and do it?

 

[ok doser]

What do you suppose Jesus wrote on the ground that convicted the mob to slowly shuffle off and why was such even mentioned?

Leviticus 20:10

retards think it was something like "adultery is ok now!"

obviously you're not a retard artie, you're a brilliant man with a keen intellect

what do you think he wrote?

Do you honestly think that even if it were lawfully justified at the time for this woman to be stoned to death that Jesus would have let the crowd go ahead and do it?

do I honestly think that Jesus would have allowed the law to be followed?

:think:

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

yes

yes i do

 

[Arthur Brain]

What good does it accomplish, even if with 100% proof of guilt?

Well, as others have pointed out they wouldn't be able to do it again, but I'm not as hardline. I'm far more in favour of maximum security tight prisons where there's no possibility of escape or eradicating loopholes allowing violent offenders the potential to recommit similar crimes. I think the age and context of the crime has to be taken into account as well. I recall Red's character in The Shawshank Redemption. A stupid teenager who by the time his character is introduced is far from the same and a danger to nobody. It's not a black and white subject but my main objection to the DP is the inevitable wrongful convictions and especially as how some would have it implemented whereby 100% proof of guilt wouldn't even be necessary.

 

[glassjester]

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

So do you support the death penalty for cursing one's parents? or for breaking the sabbath?

 

[glassjester]

Well, as others have pointed out they wouldn't be able to do it again, but I'm not as hardline. I'm far more in favour of maximum security tight prisons where there's no possibility of escape or eradicating loopholes allowing violent offenders the potential to recommit similar crimes. I think the age and context of the crime has to be taken into account as well. I recall Red's character in The Shawshank Redemption. A stupid teenager who by the time his character is introduced is far from the same and a danger to nobody. It's not a black and white subject but my main objection to the DP is the inevitable wrongful convictions and especially as how some would have it implemented whereby 100% proof of guilt wouldn't even be necessary.

I'm only in support of it if there's absolutely no other way to keep the person from attacking others. But practically speaking, that might be never. Or maybe only when killing in self-defense (or defense of another).

 

[ok doser]

What do you suppose Jesus wrote on the ground that convicted the mob to slowly shuffle off and why was such even mentioned?

Leviticus 20:10

retards think it was something like "adultery is ok now!"

obviously you're not a retard artie, you're a brilliant man with a keen intellect

what do you think he wrote?

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'm only in support of it if there's absolutely no other way to keep the person from attacking others. But practically speaking, that might be never. Or maybe only when killing in self-defense (or defense of another).

So you're religiously against the DP? Not that that's a criticism as there's too many who are so willing to have a society where folk can be stoned, hanged or pushed off cliffs and such for stuff that isn't even their business anyway.

 

[glassjester]

So you're religiously against the DP?

I don't think it's inherently evil. I just think it's practically unnecessary (and to execute unnecessarily would be wrong). But yes, I guess I am religiously against it.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I don't think it's inherently evil. I just think it's practically unnecessary (and to execute unnecessarily would be wrong). But yes, I guess I am religiously against it.

So why are you religiously against it when plenty here are arguing that it's Godly to execute people?

 

[glassjester]

So why are you religiously against it when plenty here are arguing that it's Godly to execute people?

Two reasons:

(1) The civil/criminal and ritual laws of the OT are not binding on Christians (while the moral code remains). This, for example, is why Christians willingly eat pork, and do not advocate for the execution of children who curse their parents.

And (2) because human life is inherently valuable. Human life should not be directly and intentionally taken. And to clarify that - when killing in self-defense, for example, the principle of double effect is in place. I can stop a man from killing me (even by killing him, if necessary). But my intent is not to kill; it is to stop him from killing me. If, for example, in the struggle, I incapacitate him (thereby stopping his attack), it would be morally wrong for me to walk up to him and kill him, as he lay on the ground, helpless.

 

[ok doser]

I don't think it's inherently evil. I just think it's practically unnecessary (and to execute unnecessarily would be wrong). But yes, I guess I am religiously against it.

i think imprisonment is inherently evil, since it is never given by God as a punishment