No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[Idolater]

Ok. And the obvious question this raises is - how do you know the books that are in your Bible are divinely inspired?

Hey bud, I said that non-Catholic Christians are mentioned in the Bible, citing a couple Pauline passages. Now we're all the way down this rabbit hole you wanted us to go down, and I'm still wondering why. Are you denying that non-Catholic Christians are mentioned in the Bible? Do you agree? Say something on topic.

 

[Stripe]

"Seems,"...the devil is always in the details.

"Seems" like you face a challenge you're not willing to address.

 

[annabenedetti]

No :duh:


Trolls like barbie should be banned

Which is what you're angling for. :duh:

 

[Idolater]

Hmmmm...


John 8:3 And the scribes and the Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, 4 And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou?

6 And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. 9 But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee?

11 Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

The death penalty's a political matter, not a doctrinal or moral matter, so we're free to hold either position, even in the face of Pope Francis changing the text of the 'Catechism' wrt the matter. His charism preserves him from error when teaching in matters of faith and morals, not politics, so wrt politics, his view's no more weighty than yours, mine, or anybody else's.

Frankly, Pope Francis's argument against the death penalty is almost entirely reasonable, except that I do not believe that all innocent people are necessarily completely safe from murderers who are imprisoned, due to criminal networks that reach outside prisons and to the outside world. So for that rare yet real case, I'd keep the death penalty as an option, for its justified purpose, for the protection of innocent people from murderers, even if those murderers are behind bars for life.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You did.

You go on to rule out timeouts,

And prison sentences.

because they're not "physically painful."

They're also not swiftly served.

Because the sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil. - Ecclesiastes 8:11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ecclesiastes8:11&version=NKJV

How do you inflict pain physical pain on children without using violence?

It appears that I need to clarify terms.

Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

The intent of spanking is not to hurt (even though it should hurt), damage, or kill the child. Therefore it is not "violence."

The Bible doesn't say "spank" though, does it? You specifically cited a verse that says "blows that hurt."

Blows that hurt, yes. Not "blows that are intended to hurt, damage or kill."

Spanking is intended to discipline and correct, not harm, even though pain is a natural consequence of it.

Pain from a spanking lasts a short period (relative to one's lifetime). But the pain that results from not disciplining a child can have eternal consequences.

It's quite possible to discipline firmly without resorting to "blows that hurt."

It is more effective to use blows that hurt to discipline a child.

A slight tap on an infants hand to teach him not to try to grab your glasses while you hold him instantly teaches him that doing so is bad. He does it again, you give him a slightly harder tap. Usually, the infant will stop after the first or second time, because doing so brings physical consequences. It's called positive punishment.

All you're teaching the child is that it's okay to hit someone as long as the one doing the hitting is in charge.

This is simply not true. It teaches that authority naturally flows downhill, and that disobeying the authority results in consequences, just as disobeying God has eternal consequences.

Again, spanking is a form of positive punishment.

A child does wrong, and he experiences physical pain as a consequence. It teaches him that if he does wrong, it will be painful. And that makes it easier to relate to him that disobeying God and not repenting will result in eternal suffering.

I recommend reading https://kgov.com/pain as it is somewhat related.

Also https://kgov.com/spanking and https://kgov.com/bel/20010607.

This isn't about kinky, it's about creepy.

I was being facetious.

When it comes to being 'the patriarch' apparently some see little difference between children and women, reminiscent of your comparing kids' timeouts to prison "timeouts."

However, the Bible makes it clear in passages like Ephesians 5:22-33 and I Peter 3:1-7 that marriage is not a “partnership” but rather a patriarchy. It does not get any clearer than “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church” (Ephesians 5:23). And the fact is that the Bible is clear that as Christ is the head of the Church so too God the owner of humanity has put male human beings in charge of female human beings in marriage. It really is that simple.

Interesting that the guy notes he completely rewrote the page from the 2016 version, so I went to the wayback machine to compare them. Here's the email that didn't make it to the revision:

Kathy’s story “My husband spanked me and then grounded me because I wanted a break after having 6 children in the first 5 years of our marriage. Do I have Biblical grounds to divorce him for treating me like a child instead of his wife? I’m a 26 year old female and married 5 years ago to a wonderful Christian man- the problem is we have 6 children under the age of 5 which as you can imagine is quite tiresome as I’m at home looking after them all day and then I need to prepare for my husband’s return from work and by the time I’ve finished settling the kids and cleaning up after dinner I’m just totally exhausted. My husband seems to think I should be sexually available to him whenever he touches me but for the past few months I’m just so tired- so tired in fact I went to my doctor and got a prescription for birth control pills to prevent another pregnancy- I didn’t tell my husband because I know he feels it’s his choice whether I am pregnant or not. He had begun to get suspicious as to why I’m not pregnant again as we never had a problem before and our youngest is now 6 months old and we usually have three months between delivery and subsequent pregnancies, I had begun to avoid him sexually and there was a pretty tense atmosphere between us until it all exploded after a Sunday service a few weeks back when my parents in Law took the kids for the afternoon and my husband said he wanted us to spend time together alone which I dreaded. Anyway to cut a long story short he took me home and started to quote scripture about how I was being disrespectful and disobedient, he said in his 37 years on earth he never witnessed a woman treating her husband with the disregard I was treating him except on one occasion when his mother back answered his father, he then told me having spoken to his father about our situation and after much prayer he felt it was time to pull me back into line, he then proceeded to spank my behind with his hand while I screamed and begged him not to- he stopped and I thought it was over but he then removed his belt and gave me 20 more lashes which he said were for the birth control pills he had found. He then told me how much he loved me and wanted to save our marriage but for the moment he has forbade me to leave the house unless accompanied by one of his parents. Do I have grounds for divorce because of what he has done to me? I am still young enough to start again but don’t want to live with the fear of being seen as ungodly for seeking divorce or should I let him seek divorce based on irreconcilable differences, I have been much kinder to him since he disciplined me out of fear of it happening again which he has warned me it will if I step out of line and I don’t think he has any right to spank or whip me- he is not my father.”

I think that Kathy and her husband BOTH need to read this:

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. - 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:1-7&version=NKJV

 

[Idolater]

for a wife who acts like a child?

sounds like great idea! :thumb:

I was going to say, Depends how 'uppity she's being.

 

[JudgeRightly]

The death penalty's a political matter, not a doctrinal or moral matter, so we're free to hold either position, even in the face of Pope Francis changing the text of the 'Catechism' wrt the matter. His charism preserves him from error when teaching in matters of faith and morals, not politics, so wrt politics, his view's no more weighty than yours, mine, or anybody else's.

Frankly, Pope Francis's argument against the death penalty is almost entirely reasonable, except that I do not believe that all innocent people are necessarily completely safe from murderers who are imprisoned, due to criminal networks that reach outside prisons and to the outside world. So for that rare yet real case, I'd keep the death penalty as an option, for its justified purpose, for the protection of innocent people from murderers, even if those murderers are behind bars for life.

From https://kgov.com/pope:

- By claiming that "in the light of the Gospel, the death penalty is inadmissible", the Pope rebuked Jesus for the Lord's support of the death penalty. But Francis himself is condemned by the teachings of the Lord, for Jesus said, "Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying '...let him be put to death.' But you say [insert Franics quote here]" (Mat. 15:3-4; Mark 7:8-11). The Apostle Paul volunteered support for execution: "If I am an offender or have committed anything deserving of death I do not object to dying" (Acts 25:11), and on God's principles of governence, "give place to wrath" for "the governing authorities" are "a terror... to evil" for the governing authority "is God's minister... 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" (Rom. 12:19, 13:1, 3-4). And anyone guilty of a capital crime "dies without mercy" (Heb. 10:28). For the Apostle John wrote, "he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword" (Rev. 13:10). Etc. Thus Francis shows himself to be nicer than God.

 

[annabenedetti]

It appears that I need to clarify terms.

Violence: behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.

The intent of spanking is not to hurt (even though it should hurt), damage, or kill the child. Therefore it is not "violence."



Blows that hurt, yes. Not "blows that are intended to hurt, damage or kill."

Spanking is intended to discipline and correct, not harm, even though pain is a natural consequence of it.

Pain from a spanking lasts a short period (relative to one's lifetime). But the pain that results from not disciplining a child can have eternal consequences.



It is more effective to use blows that hurt to discipline a child.

So... Violence involves "physical force intending to hurt" yet spanking - using "blows that hurt" - isn't violence?

That makes no sense.

A slight tap on an infants hand to teach him not to try to grab your glasses while you hold him instantly teaches him that doing so is bad. He does it again, you give him a slightly harder tap. Usually, the infant will stop after the first or second time, because doing so brings physical consequences. It's called positive punishment.

A "slight tap" is not spanking, beating, belting (e.g. using "blows that hurt").



I said: "All you're teaching the child is that it's okay to hit someone as long as the one doing the hitting is in charge.

You replied:

This is simply not true.

It most certainly is true.

It teaches that authority naturally flows downhill, and that disobeying the authority results in consequences, just as disobeying God has eternal consequences.

No, it means if you belt your sibling, it's wrong. If your dad belts you for belting your sibling, it's an awesome display of God's love.

A child does wrong, and he experiences physical pain as a consequence. It teaches him that if he does wrong, it will be painful. And that makes it easier to relate to him that disobeying God and not repenting will result in eternal suffering.

I recommend reading https://kgov.com/pain as it is somewhat related.

Also https://kgov.com/spanking and https://kgov.com/bel/20010607.

I don't need recommendations, I've experienced the joy of lovingly raising my children without violence, and they're now amazing adults and I am so proud of them.

I think that Kathy and her husband BOTH need to read this:

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment.For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. - 1 Corinthians 7:1-7 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Corinthians7:1-7&version=NKJV

Considering they were supposedly a Godly couple, let's assume they did.

Now what? What do you make of such a horribly twisted relationship that's supposedly God-led?

 

[ok doser]

... I've experienced the joy of lovingly raising my children without violence, and they're now amazing adults and I am so proud of them.

are they indwelt with the HS?

 

[Idolater]

From https://kgov.com/pope:

- By claiming that "in the light of the Gospel, the death penalty is inadmissible", the Pope rebuked Jesus for the Lord's support of the death penalty. But Francis himself is condemned by the teachings of the Lord, for Jesus said, "Why do you transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying '...let him be put to death.' But you say [insert Franics quote here]" (Mat. 15:3-4; Mark 7:8-11). The Apostle Paul volunteered support for execution: "If I am an offender or have committed anything deserving of death I do not object to dying" (Acts 25:11), and on God's principles of governence, "give place to wrath" for "the governing authorities" are "a terror... to evil" for the governing authority "is God's minister... 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" (Rom. 12:19, 13:1, 3-4). And anyone guilty of a capital crime "dies without mercy" (Heb. 10:28). For the Apostle John wrote, "he who kills with the sword must be killed with the sword" (Rev. 13:10). Etc. Thus Francis shows himself to be nicer than God.

Oh.

 

[annabenedetti]

are they indwelt with the HS?

I have many, many reasons to be proud of them, but you don't get any more than that.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So... Violence involves "physical force intending to hurt" yet spanking - using "blows that hurt" - isn't violence?

Correct.

The intent of violence is to do harm.

The intent of spanking is to instruct.

That makes no sense.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

A "slight tap" is not spanking, beating, belting (e.g. using "blows that hurt").

Allow me to phrase it better: a slight tap that causes momentary pain.

I said: "All you're teaching the child is that it's okay to hit someone as long as the one doing the hitting is in charge.

You replied:

It most certainly is true.

Was referring to the highlighted word, mostly.

Your perspective on this is flawed, however.

Again: authority flows downhill from God. To the government, to the man, to his wife, to her children, and even the kid can kick the cat off the couch.

Spanking a child teaches him to respect that flow of authority.

No,

You say that, yet you agree with me with your very next words.... :liberals:

it means if you belt your sibling, it's wrong. If your dad belts you for belting your sibling, it's an awesome display of God's love.

Right, because you don't have the authority to discipline your sibling.

I don't need recommendations,

So, you're not interested in hearing what my position is and how I got to it. Got it.

I've experienced the joy of lovingly raising my children without violence,

I should hope so...

and they're now amazing adults and I am so proud of them.

To say nothing of them loving and respecting and cherishing you for raising them...

Considering they were supposedly a Godly couple, let's assume they did.

Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they didn't?

Now what?

Then the wife, after they both read the above, should read:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. - Ephesians 5:22-24 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians5:22-24&version=NKJV

And the husband should read:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her,that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word,that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. - Ephesians 5:25-29 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians5:25-29&version=NKJV

And they should both read:

For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones.“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. - Ephesians 5:30-33 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians5:30-33&version=NKJV

What do you make of such a horribly twisted relationship that's supposedly God-led?

See above.

It's interesting that none of that requires divorce...

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh.

Fixed the formatting.

 

[ok doser]

I have many, many reasons to be proud of them, but you don't get any more than that.

which is a shame, because that's the only thing that truly matters, the most important thing to be proud of as a parent

 

[ok doser]

It's interesting that none of that requires divorce...

or adultery

 

[annabenedetti]

Correct.

The intent of violence is to do harm.

The intent of spanking is to instruct.

Oh, please. The intent of spanking/beating/belting is to inflict pain.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense. Your words are inconsistent.

Allow me to phrase it better: a slight tap that causes momentary pain.

That's not a spanking/beating/belting.

Was referring to the highlighted word, mostly.

Your perspective on this is flawed, however.

Again: authority flows downhill from God. To the government, to the man, to his wife, to her children, and even the kid can kick the cat off the couch.

No, the kid can't kick the cat off the couch. That's your whole thing in a nutshell. According to you, each in power does violence to the lesser in power, all the way down to the poor animal? Might makes right?

Spanking a child teaches him to respect that flow of authority.

No it doesn't. It teaches him to fear the one who can hurt him.

Right, because you don't have the authority to discipline your sibling.

You're missing the point.

So, you're not interested in hearing what my position is and how I got to it. Got it.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not interested in your recommendations. My parenting job is complete.

To say nothing of them loving and respecting and cherishing you...

They do as I do them. They are my joy.

Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they didn't?

Makes no difference either way, they're not part of this discussion, obviously.

See above.

Eh. Never mind. We're not getting anywhere on this.

 

[annabenedetti]

which is a shame, because that's the only thing that truly matters, the most important thing to be proud of as a parent

No, it's not a shame that I don't share personal information about my kids with someone who treats their mom the way you've treated me all these years. Family is off limits.

 

[Idolater]

Fixed the formatting.

So it is your position then that Exodus 21:17 KJV should be the law of the land? " . . . he that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death." Or is it just "kgov's" position, and not yours?

 

[ok doser]

...the way you've treated me all these years....

:baby:

 

[JudgeRightly]

Oh, please. The intent of spanking/beating/belting is to inflict pain.

In order to correct a behavior.

Again, it's called positive punishment.

If it doesn't make sense, it doesn't make sense.

Again, saying it doesn't make it so.

Your words are inconsistent.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

That's not a spanking/beating/belting.

It IS positive punishment.

No, the kid can't kick the cat off the couch.

Sure he can, and he has every right to.

That's your whole thing in a nutshell. According to you, each in power does violence to the lesser in power, all the way down to the poor animal? Might makes right?

Oh, I see what you're saying.

NO, I DON'T MEAN LITERALLY KICKING THE CAT.

Do you not know what a figure of speech is?

Even a child can push the cat off the couch because he wants to sit there.

No it doesn't. It teaches him to fear the one who can hurt him.

You seriously need to stop agreeing with me. It's kinda creepy.

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.Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves.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.Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. - Romans 13:1-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans13:1-5&version=NKJV

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding. - Proverbs 9:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs9:10&version=NKJV

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. - Matthew 10:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew10:28&version=NKJV

“And I say to you, My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear Him who, after He has killed, has power to cast into hell; yes, I say to you, fear Him! - Luke 12:4-5 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke12:4-5&version=NKJV

You're missing the point.

And you're ignoring mine.

Don't put words in my mouth.

I'm not interested in your recommendations. My parenting job is complete.

That wasn't why I recommended those links.

It was so that you could understand where I'm coming from with my position.

They do as I do them. They are my joy.

Makes no difference either way, they're not part of this discussion, obviously.

Eh. Never mind. We're not getting anywhere on this.

:idunno: