Should Children Be Executed If They've...

[eider]

God says otherwise.

God trumps eider, despite eider's pride.

I have very little pride, and I don't mind admitting that I needed help with this thread in mind.
And I received help..... and this was the answer that I listened to.....

God has banned any person from carrying out any execution by any means.
Jesus has made this law...... there are no exceptions.
Jesus said it and wrote it in the dust, and it is written in the bible:-

John {8:7} So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. {8:8} And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

Or did you think you are free of sin?
God trumps JudgeRightly?

 

[eider]

Hmm, for starters, nobody was endorsing that cutting a child to bits in a birth canal was a "good thing" here so thanks for that bit of predictable irrelevance...Oh, and stoning or stabbing a six year old to death? Abhorrent either way.

If you think that a six year old child has the same mental acuity as an adult then you are bonkers. You're in no position to talk about people knowing right from wrong although at least you're not despicable enough to support the likes of which some advocate on here.

Hi Arthur...... you sent the above to another...... I just clicked on it....

I think that all Christians are banned from actually carrying out any execution upon any body. Jesus made that abundantly clear.......... unless, of course, they could find an executioner who is free of sin. Any and every applicant would automatically disqualify themselves simply by applying.

From a secular point of view I think we got it right when we ended all executions..... we just kept on killing innocents and those who had been beyond reason.

 

[7djengo7]

It wouldn't be an execution so no and the abortion issue is one that needs sober discussion, not sound bites or triviality.

Of course murdering a baby in utero (what you try (in utter futility) to palliate by your use of the word, "abortion", and by your spurning of accurate words like "murder" and "execution") is an execution of that baby. Why do you imagine that it would not be an execution? By all means, let's hear your special pleading for your denial.

"the abortion issue...needs sober discussion"

LOL

The baby murder issue needs "sober discussion" in order for what to occur? Before you and your fellow Nazi leftard baby-murder advocates and empowerers decide to cease and desist from advocating, and empowering, the murder of babies?

Here's the catch: Anything that is in opposition to your Nazi leftard worldview--to your Nazi leftard advocacy of the murder of babies in utero--is what (Surprise! Surprise!) happens to fall in with your classification of "sound bites", of "triviality", of "not sober discussion", because it is in opposition to your Nazi leftard view. If you really thought that the baby murder issue needs to be discussed more, and more, and more, indefinitely on into the future, you would advocate that the practice of baby murder you call "abortion" come to a universal, screeching halt until only after you feel it has been discussed as much, and as "soberly", as you feel it ever could be discussed.

What your idea of a "leftist" is is anyone's guess but when you call people like me "Nazi Leftards" it only shows a complete ignorance. I despise what the Nazis stood for and did, from their totalitarian regime inflicted on people to the butchery of people from race to creed to orientation and belief including people who were on the "left".

LOL

You cherish, and desire to see continue, the murder of babies in utero--you obviously do not despise the butchery of people.

 

[7djengo7]

If you think that a six year old child has the same mental acuity as an adult then you are bonkers. You're in no position to talk about people knowing right from wrong although at least you're not despicable enough to support the likes of which some advocate on here.

But it's right and good to kill an in utero child, for the same reason it is wrong and bad to kill the six years old child, eh? That is, because his/her mental acuity is not the same as that of an adult.

Since, in your view, the less-than-adult mental acuity of the six years old child should debar the six years old child from being put to death, then how is it that the less-than-six-years-old mental acuity of the in utero child should not debar the in utero child from being put to death?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Of course murdering a baby in utero (what you try (in utter futility) to palliate by your use of the word, "abortion", and by your spurning of accurate words like "murder" and "execution") is an execution of that baby. Why do you imagine that it would not be an execution? By all means, let's hear your special pleading for your denial.

"the abortion issue...needs sober discussion"

LOL

The baby murder issue needs "sober discussion" in order for what to occur? Before you and your fellow Nazi leftard baby-murder advocates and empowerers decide to cease and desist from advocating, and empowering, the murder of babies?

Here's the catch: Anything that is in opposition to your Nazi leftard worldview--to your Nazi leftard advocacy of the murder of babies in utero--is what (Surprise! Surprise!) happens to fall in with your classification of "sound bites", of "triviality", of "not sober discussion", because it is in opposition to your Nazi leftard view. If you really thought that the baby murder issue needs to be discussed more, and more, and more, indefinitely on into the future, you would advocate that the practice of baby murder you call "abortion" come to a universal, screeching halt until only after you feel it has been discussed as much, and as "soberly", as you feel it ever could be discussed.



LOL

You cherish, and desire to see continue, the murder of babies in utero--you obviously do not despise the butchery of people.

No, I don't and you simply aren't worth talking with. Go pester elsewhere.

 

[7djengo7]

No, I don't and you simply aren't worth talking with. Go pester elsewhere.

If you don't cherish, and desire to see continue, the murder of babies in utero, then why do you go out of your way to palliate it by denying that it is murder, and by denying that it is execution?

 

[Arthur Brain]

If you don't cherish, and desire to see continue, the murder of babies in utero, then why do you go out of your way to palliate it by denying that it is murder, and by denying that it is execution?

Well, I don't go "out of my way" to do anything of the sort as it is so take your gormless garbage and shove it in a skip somewhere.

 

[eider]

If you don't cherish, and desire to see continue, the murder of babies in utero, then why do you go out of your way to palliate it by denying that it is murder, and by denying that it is execution?

Do you accept that Jesus has banned executions?
He said quite clearly, and write it in the dust that only a 'person without sin' could execute someone...... so nobody can do such a thing.

Yes?
No?

 

[ok doser]

Do you accept that Jesus has banned executions?
He said quite clearly, and write it in the dust that only a 'person without sin' could execute someone...... so nobody can do such a thing.

Yes?
No?

:darwinsm:


:mock: satan

 

[JudgeRightly]

Where?

Are you blind? or just stupid?

Go read post #358 again.

Please leave the Old Testament out of this

This is called special pleading.

It's a logical fallacy for a reason.

unless you want to discuss keeping all of its laws (less ceremonial/sacrificial).

:yawn:

We've had that discussion before, and it ended up with you refusing to list the laws you think should be brought up when discussing moral laws for today's governments.

In any case, the topic is murder, not the entirety of the law. If you want to talk about the rest of the law in addition to the punishment for murder, start another thread, and stop trying to derail this one.

Where?

Ezekiel 13:19

Eider is not proud.

Yes, you are.

This is why:

Eider just believes that the death penalty is wrong.

God says the just punishment for murderers is the death penalty.

Eider says the death penalty is wrong.

You place yourself above God. It's idolatry, and pride.

It makes too many mistakes.

Define "too many mistakes."

Because the way I see it, and what God says in the Bible, is that when you DON'T have a properly enforced death penalty, you end up with a higher murder rate. In other words, you end up with MORE people dead with no death penalty than you would if you had the death penalty.

Are you?

No.

There may be some cases where a released murderer has killed again, or killed in prison.

Not just "may be." There are PLENTY of cases where such is the case.

And do you know how many of them would have been prevented had the convicted murderer been executed shortly after sentencing?

ALL OF THEM.

In fact, had just the first murderer been put to death, MOST IF NOT ALL of the following murders would never have happened.

maybe we should focus more carefully upon their supervision.

Because we don't already?

I've said it before (perhaps in another thread), and I'll say it again:

Locking criminals up in cages like they're animals is (by definition) NOT humane, and is unjust to both the criminals AND the victims, because it violates God's (who is just) commands to punish crimes accordingly.

God authorized three forms of punishment that are just, restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty, and those three swiftly and painfully executed upon the wicked will, guaranteed, keep the level of crime at almost zero.

Like anybody.

And to suggest that I'm proud because I disagree with the death penalty, especially for minors, is strange.

You're proud because you place yourself above God, who commanded that murderers be put to death.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! - Isaiah 5:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah5:20&version=NKJV

 

[JudgeRightly]

Where does it say that any of them committed premeditated murder?

Premeditated murder? Why focus on only that?

We're talking about ALL kinds of murder, where one person intentionally and unjustly kills another person.

I don't think it's been discussed much on TOL, and I only recently was made aware of it, but the law against coveteousness isn't a law against the sin of coveting, but it should ALSO be used in a criminal court to determine intent.

This ties in to what Jesus said regarding adultery:

But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. - Matthew 5:28 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew5:28&version=NKJV

If there was an INTENT to kill the person, it becomes murder.

Whether it was premeditated (thought out beforehand) makes little to no difference other than determining if there were others involved.

This is how the Bible differentiates murder from accidental killing, and repeatedly reinforces this difference.

An example being intentionally swinging your axe blade at a man, versus swinging your axe and the head flies off and hits a man in the head, killing him, such a difference determines whether the man is guilty or not guilty of murder.

The Bible does mention premeditated murder, but focuses on the intent, rather than the premeditation.

A child is capable of killing, just as much as a venomous snake is. Neither are culpable of murder

Because you say so?

and as your feeble defence of a link stipulates, they weren't charged with such.

Oh?

They weren't?

Seriously, do you need a 'join the dots' book or something?

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

Is a five year old as physiologically developed as an adult?

Who said such?

Is a baby capable of making moral decisions outside of crying to be fed or for having its nappy changed?

Scenario A: Little Timmy (6yo) gets into a fight with Bobby his play mate because Bobby wouldn't give Timmy the toy he wanted, and strangles Bobby to death, that is murder.

Tommy coveted the toy that Bobby had, and because Bobby wouldn't give him the toy, Tommy strangled Bobby.

That's murder.

Scenario B: Little Timmy and Bobby start wrestling, but because of Timmy holding Bobby the wrong way while they play, Bobby dies of strangulation.

There was no intent to kill Bobby, just the intent to have fun with Timmy's friend. Timmy strangled Bobby, but Timmy would be found innocent of murder, because there was no intent to kill him

A tragedy, but not murder.

Do the math here JR.

:yawn:

Oh, maybe they're meant for three year old's and zygotes as well?

Appeal to extremes is another logical fallacy, Arthur.

This is as lame as anything.

Appeal to the stone.

It's downright obvious

Another divine fallacy.

Also known as question begging.

they're addressed to an adult audience and not children and certainly not ones six and under.

Sorry, but there is no indication that it's addressed to any specific age group.

Your argument is unfounded.

Naive and pompous posturing.

Calling you out on your use of fallacies isn't naive nor is it pompous.

Of murder? Yes. Even your own link doesn't support that.

Which ones, specifically?

It sure doesn't involve stabbing six year old children to death.

You didn't answer the question.

Do you know what the term "avenger of blood" means?

Six year old children aren't murderers,

Question begging.

they're children.

Of course they are. But that doesn't preclude them from being murderers.

All you seem to have is this constant and feeble "emotional appeal" as if having an emotive reaction to the repulsive is something wrong in itself.

The problem isn't that you're having an emotional reaction.

It's that you're using that emotional reaction to define what is right and wrong.

In other words, you aren't being objective and rational. Don't let your emotions cloud your judgment.

Was Jesus being emotional when He was moved with compassion when witnessing the suffering of people?

Pretty sure Jesus is as objective as it gets. And besides, Jesus wasn't debating the morality of the death penalty. In fact, He's the one who wrote in stone "Do not murder" and told Moses that those who murder should be put to death.

God is rational.

Don't be irrational.

Using emotional appeals to defend your position is irrational and fallacious.

What did Paul say when he was accused of doing things worthy of the death penalty?

Do you know?

So, ya know what, you're damned right I have emotions where it comes to the suggestion that there's something "righteous" about putting kids to death and stabbing six year olds.

And are those emotions justified by what the Bible says? or are they simply a knee jerk reaction to being told what is good and just?

It's downright evil beyond words.

God says put the murderer to death.

That includes children, if they murder.

There is no way you can provide any Biblical support for such an abomination.

See Post #358, where I have already done so.

Anyone who advocates children as young as six being stabbed to death as "execution" is in no position to lecture anyone about evil or hypocrisy.

Because you say so?

Even the majority on the far religious right

There's your favorite fallacy again, the appeal to popularity.

would balk at any suggestion of stabbing six year old children to death JR. You are out there and then some.

I don't call myself a right-wing religious fanatic for nothing, you know. :banana:

You do not speak for God by any stretch.

Says the one opposing what God says.

You, like the serpent, tell murderers they will not surely die, when God commands that they be put to death.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I have very little pride,

Supra.

and I don't mind admitting that I needed help with this thread in mind.
And I received help..... and this was the answer that I listened to.....

God has banned any person from carrying out any execution by any means.

Sorry, but God didn't need to repeal the death penalty to forgive someone of murder who has repented of it.

David, for example, committed adultery AND murdered the woman's husband. But because David repented, God forgave him and was merciful. And yet, the death penalty was still in effect for both.?

And even if a murderer HAD repented, he was and is still to be put to death.

Jesus has made this law......

Saying it doesn't make it so.

there are no exceptions.

There can't be exceptions to something that isn't a law to begin with.

Jesus said it and wrote it in the dust,

Sorry, but this is unverifiable at best, and false at worst.

We don't know what Jesus wrote in the dust.

We know what He spoke, however, but what he said was not to everyone everywhere everywhen.

He said it to the ones who had brought the woman before Him.

Huge difference.

Oh, and let's not forget that God wrote in STONE, "Thou shalt not murder," and "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and then described the punishment for both as putting those guilty of those crimes to death.

and it is written in the bible:-

John {8:7} So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. {8:8} And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

"He said unto them..."

Not, "He wrote in the dust and said unto them..."

Did you notice the "among you" bit?

I certainly don't claim to be "among [them]."

Or did you think you are free of sin?

Never claimed to be such.

I do claim, however, to be free from the law, because Christ has set me free, and where there is no law, sin is not imputed.

God trumps JudgeRightly?

Always.

However, I agree with God on this one. You don't.

God says put the murderer (and the adulterers) to death. I completely agree.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I think that all Christians are banned from actually carrying out any execution upon any body.

God authorized governments to execute wrath upon the wicked, for they do not bear the sword in vain. (Romans 13)

A sword is used for killing, not beating, not for locking up.

Jesus made that abundantly clear..........

Well, no, that's just what you want to believe He said...

unless, of course, they could find an executioner who is free of sin.

... And it's because you rip the verse out of context that you have come to that conclusion.

Any and every applicant would automatically disqualify themselves simply by applying.

From a secular point of view I think we got it right when we ended all executions..... we just kept on killing innocents and those who had been beyond reason.

How many innocents, I wonder, could have been saved had you kept the death penalty?

Any government that repeals the death penalty is partly to blame for any murders, adulteries, rapes, or other capital crimes, that happen afterwards, and will be held accountable on judgment day, because God said to put such criminals to death, to show no mercy, to not let one's eye pity, that life shall be for life.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Do you accept that Jesus has banned executions?

This is a loaded question.

It assumes Jesus did ban executions.

Since Jesus did not ban executions, your question is, itself, invalid.

If He HAD, then Paul should have objected to being put to death if he had committed a crime worthy of death, and he would not have written Romans 13.

He said quite clearly,

... to those who had brought the woman before him. When you rip verses out of their context, you can make them say anything you want them to!

and write it in the dust

Again, completely unverifiable. We don't know what He wrote.

that only a 'person without sin' could execute someone...... so nobody can do such a thing.

No, not "someone."

The woman who was brought before Him.

Context, context, context!

 

[eider]

Are you blind? or just stupid?

Go read post #358 again.



This is called special pleading.

It's a logical fallacy for a reason.



:yawn:

We've had that discussion before, and it ended up with you refusing to list the laws you think should be brought up when discussing moral laws for today's governments.

In any case, the topic is murder, not the entirety of the law. If you want to talk about the rest of the law in addition to the punishment for murder, start another thread, and stop trying to derail this one.



Ezekiel 13:19



Yes, you are.

This is why:



God says the just punishment for murderers is the death penalty.

Eider says the death penalty is wrong.

You place yourself above God. It's idolatry, and pride.



Define "too many mistakes."

Because the way I see it, and what God says in the Bible, is that when you DON'T have a properly enforced death penalty, you end up with a higher murder rate. In other words, you end up with MORE people dead with no death penalty than you would if you had the death penalty.



No.



Not just "may be." There are PLENTY of cases where such is the case.

And do you know how many of them would have been prevented had the convicted murderer been executed shortly after sentencing?

ALL OF THEM.

In fact, had just the first murderer been put to death, MOST IF NOT ALL of the following murders would never have happened.



Because we don't already?

I've said it before (perhaps in another thread), and I'll say it again:

Locking criminals up in cages like they're animals is (by definition) NOT humane, and is unjust to both the criminals AND the victims, because it violates God's (who is just) commands to punish crimes accordingly.

God authorized three forms of punishment that are just, restitution, corporal punishment, and the death penalty, and those three swiftly and painfully executed upon the wicked will, guaranteed, keep the level of crime at almost zero.



You're proud because you place yourself above God, who commanded that murderers be put to death.

Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! - Isaiah 5:20 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah5:20&version=NKJV

All wrong. The whole post.
Jesus demanded that only a person without sin could execute another
That's his command clear as day.

Case closed.

 

[eider]

Supra.



Sorry, but God didn't need to repeal the death penalty to forgive someone of murder who has repented of it.

David, for example, committed adultery AND murdered the woman's husband. But because David repented, God forgave him and was merciful. And yet, the death penalty was still in effect for both.?

And even if a murderer HAD repented, he was and is still to be put to death.



Saying it doesn't make it so.



There can't be exceptions to something that isn't a law to begin with.



Sorry, but this is unverifiable at best, and false at worst.

We don't know what Jesus wrote in the dust.

We know what He spoke, however, but what he said was not to everyone everywhere everywhen.

He said it to the ones who had brought the woman before Him.

Huge difference.

Oh, and let's not forget that God wrote in STONE, "Thou shalt not murder," and "Thou shalt not commit adultery," and then described the punishment for both as putting those guilty of those crimes to death.



"He said unto them..."

Not, "He wrote in the dust and said unto them..."

Did you notice the "among you" bit?

I certainly don't claim to be "among [them]."



Never claimed to be such.

I do claim, however, to be free from the law, because Christ has set me free, and where there is no law, sin is not imputed.



Always.

However, I agree with God on this one. You don't.

God says put the murderer (and the adulterers) to death. I completely agree.

Nope.
Jesus made a law, he spoke it and it was obeyed.
Nobody has the right to execute any other.
It's no good writing long rants, picking at one OT law but ignoring the next, deciding what you think can happen.
It was down to Jesus and made himself quite clear. You just want to dismiss what he said, I think.

 

[eider]

God authorized governments to execute wrath upon the wicked, for they do not bear the sword in vain. (Romans 13)

A sword is used for killing, not beating, not for locking up.



Well, no, that's just what you want to believe He said...



... And it's because you rip the verse out of context that you have come to that conclusion.



How many innocents, I wonder, could have been saved had you kept the death penalty?

Any government that repeals the death penalty is partly to blame for any murders, adulteries, rapes, or other capital crimes, that happen afterwards, and will be held accountable on judgment day, because God said to put such criminals to death, to show no mercy, to not let one's eye pity, that life shall be for life.

And now you want to quote Paul over Jesus.
Its no good.
I don't believe you on this matter.
And to think that you want to execute children, the mentally ill and others beyond reason. That's just dreadful.

Jesus said it, and why you would think he wrote anything else on that dust is beyond me.

 

[eider]

This is a loaded question.

It assumes Jesus did ban executions.

Since Jesus did not ban executions, your question is, itself, invalid.

If He HAD, then Paul should have objected to being put to death if he had committed a crime worthy of death, and he would not have written Romans 13.



... to those who had brought the woman before him. When you rip verses out of their context, you can make them say anything you want them to!



Again, completely unverifiable. We don't know what He wrote.



No, not "someone."

The woman who was brought before Him.

Context, context, context!

The more rants you post, so the more sure I feel.

Jesus banned you and any others from believing that they have a tight to execute people, and as for killing people in maximum pain I have no doubts at all what Jesus would have said about that.

Jesus spoke clearly about this, and he never showed any change of mind.

 

[ok doser]

Jesus banned you ...

Jesus spoke clearly about this, and he never showed any change of mind.

How adorable - satan telling the Christian about Jesus


:mock: satan

 

[JudgeRightly]

All three of these posts are appeals to the stone and to ridicule, by the way. There's nothing of substance to them.

Why can't you respond rationally to any of the things I say, eider?

All wrong.

Prove it.

The whole post.

Yet you won't go into detail why.

I wonder why...

Jesus demanded that only a person without sin could execute another

False.

Again, when you rip verses, phrases, sentences, out of the context they are in, you can make the Bible say anything.

For example:

"curse God and die"
[Jesus]"Go and do likewise"[/Jesus]

See?

When you ignore the context of something, it's very easy to twist it to fit your ideology.

Don't do that.

That's his command clear as day.

Now you're just lying.

Don't lie, eider.

Case closed.

Sorry, but it's not closed, because

Nope.
Jesus made a law, he spoke it and it was obeyed.

No, He didn't, eider. Don't ignore the context just because it doesn't fit your beliefs.

Nobody has the right to execute any other.

Romans 13. "Sword," not "prison."

It's no good writing long rants,

Are you accusing me of ranting?

Bearing false witness is a sin too, eider.

picking at one OT law but ignoring the next, deciding what you think can happen.

Again, if you would like to discuss the entirety of the subject of Law, you can start a new thread.

Please do not attempt to derail this thread.

If you do so again, I will remove you from it. This thread is about murder and capital punishment. Nothing more.

It was down to Jesus

More true than you think, which you would realize if you would just read the context of the verse you took out of context.

and [He] made himself quite clear.

Yes He did. But to burst your bubble, He didn't say what you think or wanted Him to say.

He said what He said to the people He said it to about one specific person, and to no one else about anyone else.

You just want to dismiss what he said, I think.

Prove it. You won't.

And now you want to quote Paul over Jesus.

I quote Paul because He followed Christ.

Its no good.

Paul's epistles are in the Bible for a reason.

Deal with it.

I don't believe you on this matter.

I don't care if you don't believe me.

Believe what the Bible actually says, and not your preconceived notions about it, without removing verses from their context.

And to think that you want to execute children,

Only if they commit a capital crime.

the mentally ill

Only if they commit a capital crime.

and others

Only if they commit a capital crime.

beyond reason.

It's not unreasonable to have justice served.

That's just dreadful.

:yawn:

Jesus said it,

Yes He did. And?

and why you would think he wrote anything else on that dust is beyond me.

More bearing false witness. Reread what I said.

He may very well have.

But to assert that He in fact did is to go beyond what the text says.

As I said, it is unverifiable at best, and false at worst, and God apparently didn't feel it was necessary to have it recorded in scripture what He wrote on the ground in the dust.

It is likely, however, that what He wrote were the sins of those standing before Him who had brought the woman to Him.

But as I said before, we don't know, because Scripture doesn't say one way or the other.