toldailytopic: Is the death penalty unchristian?

[Sum1sGruj]

No, they are revealing what the bible says to you. You hate the Bible so you ignore what it says in favor of your theories and man-made concoctions. I talk to people the way I do, because they pervert what the Bible says, just like you have regarding Romans 13. I do not like self-righteous morons like you preaching their false gospel publicly.

Self-righteous?

:rotfl:
The most hypocritical statement of the day goes to..

Sorry, but your argument is not sufficient. Try again. Maybe you should the post more carefully. I can't tell if what you are saying is just due to your own confusion or if you are really just that ignorant.
*Not putting my money on the former*

 

[S0Z0]

Self-righteous?

Yes, you are. Without question. You are the biggest hypocrite on this site. It is common knowledge to everyone but you.

Sorry, but your argument is not sufficient.

As if any argument could be to you.

You claim that

Christianity and government are not meant to parallel with each other period. Government is a worldly affair, Christianity is not.

Yet, we are told to obey the governing authorities. Paul says that they are there to bring fear to those who practice evil behavior, and to be put to death when they do. Christians are not excluded from justice if they do wrong.

In your little messed up world, no Christian can be an authority. No Christian can fight for his country. No Christian can serve on a jury. No Christian can be a policemen.

You are an idiot. And the more you speak, the sillier you look.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Yes, you are. Without question. You are the biggest hypocrite on this site. It is common knowledge to everyone but you.

Do you even know the definition of 'hypocrite'? If you do, you will see that your statement doesn't make any sense. If I'm a hypocrite, everyone is a hypocrite. If I am not a hypocrite, then you are a hypocrite.
Marinate on that.

The only people who do not like me on here are people of your persuasion and a few female posters who don't like that I don't agree with feminist philosophies.
In which case, look at all the cares I give:




*And your argument still does not suffice. A person can be righteous without playing God*

 

[S0Z0]

The only people who do not like me on here are people of your persuasion

Those who believe that Jesus is God.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Those who believe that Jesus is God.

You and those people know deep down that it's the three fold deliverance from God that matter, not the trinity, which is secondary and merely theological.
Their stubbornness is clearly seen by those who don't have a log in their eye.

 

[Stripe]

I think brutality of the murderous sort was a far different affair a few thousand years ago. I'm not addressing that period and culture. I trust God knew it far better than I ever will.

You're talking a complete reversal of human psychology. We're going to need a little more than your "I think" to accept your analysis over God's.

I'm just talking about why men tend to commit murder in our times. It's rarely premeditated and you won't and don't impact it with a rational approach, which is what the argument from deterrence is.

Yet you have no data, no possible way to obtain your data, no historical precedent and God on the other side of the debate. :idunno:

In our country the justice system works pretty well.

:rotfl:

Lawyer-speak for a good pay package.

The vast majority of the guilty are convicted and the innocent wrongly convicted have a substantial instrument to undo the harm...unless they're killed before that can happen, of course.

The system is overloaded, inefficient, ineffective, expensive beyond belief and regularly fails spectacularly to exact proper justice.

And I don't accept that returning to OT justice is what God has in mind for us. I think Romans stands against it, certainly it gives governments the authority to impose penalty and to do so within the context of an age.

:AMR:

You're going to have to do a whole lot better than this opinion and your opinion that God changed His mind.

Well, no. The contrary actually. Irrationality doesn't respond to rationality.

Sure, it does. And thanks for providing such a fine example.

You're attempting to suggest a consideration in forbearance that simply doesn't follow what we understand is the impulse and emotion driven crime of passion that constitutes the majority of homicides in our time.

If would-be murderers knew a swift and painful execution awaited them, the murder rate would plummet.

Then don't allow for parole and build great prisons.

I prefer a rational, efficient, inexpensive and, most crucially, just approach. :thumb:

It's not that hard to do either. Now how do you feel about the innocent sent to their deaths?

Tragic. Almost as bad as releasing a guilty man. But, within my system, good may come of it.

No. I'd never release a man convicted of murder, or child abuse, or rape, or habitual violent offense. Historically? Barabbas.

And you call the US system "good"?

Other than Jesus? No.

So that's a "Yes" then?

 

[Lighthouse]

Should Christians be so vocal in calling for the death penalty? I think not.

Why not?

I think the death penalty is completely contradictory to Christianity.

Not only are we not subject to the Old Law, we are not even supposed to live by it. In doing so, we pretty much omit any reason for Jesus coming in the first place.
And also, if we say that the Old Law should be followed in any way, then we have already failed because it requires near perfection of following it.

So all one is really left with is the NT, and Jesus said himself to let the one without sin cast the first stone. Adultery was punishable with death, but do we send adulterers to the chair?
Therefore, if one executes murderers and rapists, execute adulterers as well. And homosexuals, and those who use God's name in vain as well.
Otherwise, you are stumbling by that one thing and are guilty.

That's sort of the contradiction with all defenses used for the death penalty, including Acts 25:11 as oatmeal prescribed.
The Bible says to be subject to government. It does not however say that Christians should condone the death penalty. These are two entirely different gambits. And it's not as if God doesn't send signs- the Church got a hold of government and it failed. American Christians are failing at putting their beliefs into government. Two entirely different things- they are meant to be separate.

1. What does any of this have to do with the Law of Moses?
2. What does this have to do with religious laws at all? Murder is a crime, no matter what. Misusing His name is a sin, but was only ever a crime for Israel during the Old Covenant. And not observing the Sabbath was only a sin and a crime for them, at that time, and is neither for anyone now.
3. The woman caught in adultery was let go according to the letter of the law. If you knew the law you'd know that. But you clearly don't. Which is what makes it obvious you don't know Christ, because you've never known the law so it could point you to Him.

 

[This Charming Manc]

No, she didn't. You should read what the law says rather than simply believing the charges of a mob.

That is not the clear and obvious meaning of the text.

If she wasn't guilty and deserving of death Jesus could juts of said that didn't he ?

Life of death would of been an none question?

Your going to have to walk this through on step at the a time, because I think its theological contortions to justify your bloodlust.

 

[Angel4Truth]

That is not the clear and obvious meaning of the text.

Is clear to those who know what the law says.

If she wasn't guilty and deserving of death Jesus could juts of said that didn't he ?

Jesus always spoke in parables as prophesied in the OT.

Life of death would of been an none question?

Come again, i dont understand what you said here.

Your going to have to walk this through on step at the a time, because I think its theological contortions to justify your bloodlust.

You do not know the scriptures or their application here clearly.

 

[Lighthouse]

That is not the clear and obvious meaning of the text.

If she wasn't guilty and deserving of death Jesus could juts of said that didn't he ?

No. Because the law regarding the issues of adultery and of condemning the guilty prevented Him from being able to make a claim either way, as He was not an eyewitness, nor was He an appointed judge or priest.

And have you seriously not read the verses in question? They were trying to trap Him; if He said she was guilty and deserved to die they would be able to accuse Him of ignoring Roman rule which, as we see when Pilate asks why they don't execute Jesus themselves, prohibited the Jews from carrying out executions in such a manner. And if He had said she should not be executed, whether guilty or innocent, they would have been able to accuse Him to His followers of rejecting God's commands.

Would you like to see the relevant verses?

 

[Sum1sGruj]

[*]The woman caught in adultery was let go according to the letter of the law. If you knew the law you'd know that. But you clearly don't. Which is what makes it obvious you don't know Christ, because you've never known the law so it could point you to Him.
[/LIST]

It is clear in the context that Jesus would have saved her anyways, but instead took advantage of the fact that they couldn't to make a point. After all, he did not send the thief on the cross to damnation.

And so you are wrong, and your outrageous statement will be plain to see. Sozo and posters like him will applaud you for it, others will see you for the child that you are.

The only thing that is obvious is that you and a few others on here are simply full of yourselves. I'm 24 years old, one of the youngest posters on here, and have never seen people act like straight up toddlers ALL THE TIME. It is abundantly easy to see who has any competence around here, in other words.

 

[This Charming Manc]

No. Because the law regarding the issues of adultery and of condemning the guilty prevented Him from being able to make a claim either way, as He was not an eyewitness, nor was He an appointed judge or priest.

Therefore why didnt he just say why are you bringing this to me ?

When when faced with the trap did he not use to answer you have articluated ?

And have you seriously not read the verses in question? They were trying to trap Him; if He said she was guilty and deserved to die they would be able to accuse Him of ignoring Roman rule which, as we see when Pilate asks why they don't execute Jesus themselves, prohibited the Jews from carrying out executions in such a manner. And if He had said she should not be executed, whether guilty or innocent, they would have been able to accuse Him to His followers of rejecting God's commands.

I am very aware of the trap, but if it was as simple as him saying im not to person the bring her to, he would and could of used it.

However can you not to see the clear message in jesus teaching here is that those who commit sin should not be quick to seek judgement on others ?

Those without sin cast the first stone.

This is a repeated them of Jesus teaching and its seems strange to me that christians should seem so keen on excercise final judgement when we recieve grace.

Would you like to see the relevant verses?

Yes I would that reffer to the relevant law makers and decison makers.

 

[Frank Ernest]

If you knew God, you wouldn't be talking about executing masses of people.



No, you are just garbage. I'm appalled by some of the things you say. How people on here even say you are somehow a Christian is beyond me. You talk about executing homosexuals and everything else you don't like. You are a Hitler in Christian's clothing.



The only one perverted is you. You are nothing but a skeleton, void of any humility or any kind of Godliness.
Your little buddies are going to come on here and defend you, but who really cares. All they are doing is feeding a fraud and everyone knows it, even them. The way you talk to people on here and the things you say are simply unacceptable. You are not a Christian.

:darwinsm:

 

[Stripe]

If she wasn't guilty and deserving of death Jesus could juts of said that didn't he ?

She was guilty. But try reading the law and then you might understand how the charge was hypocritical.

 

[Stripe]

When when faced with the trap did he not use to answer you have articluated ?

Why should Jesus respond as you think He should? Why can He not respond as He did?

And now that your lame caricature of Christ has been shown false, how about you quit using Him as support for your wrong view?

 

[Nick M]

I think that God rather expects that governments should use it.

Should Christians be so vocal in calling for the death penalty? I think not.

And those opposing it? Aren't they resisiting the authority of God? Yet I haven't seen you complain to them about it.

 

[Town Heretic]

You're talking a complete reversal of human psychology.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about a time of understandable desensitization to human suffering and violence even in the most civilized parts of society.

Yet you have no data, no possible way to obtain your data, no historical precedent and God on the other side of the debate. :idunno:

You're wrong from top to bottom, stripe. The data on crimes of passion and what they constitute in terms of percentages of homocides isn't a matter of speculation and that's all I'm reflecting here.

:rotfl:

Lawyer-speak for a good pay package.

Rather, a reasoned and supportable statement met with nothing much but a cartoon and a tired lawyer joke. It's a simple matter of numbers. Do you have any idea about the percentage of cases ending in convictions? No, you don't or you'd approach this differently. Go look it up.The overwhelming number of people charged with a crime in this country confess and plead. The majority of those that go to trial end in conviction because we insist on pretty damning evidence to go forward with prosecutions. And when the system fails, as any system will, the innocent have built in mechanisms for review to reverse the injustice. It's imperfect, but a system that works and I'll stand it against any functioning model in the world today.

The system is overloaded, inefficient, ineffective, expensive beyond belief and regularly fails spectacularly to exact proper justice.

Any system that turns the volume we have will be expensive. You're just talking out of your hat on the rest. Any system fails. Regularly? Not in relation to the volume, no. But that's why we have the appellate process.

You're going to have to do a whole lot better than this opinion and your opinion that God changed His mind.

You're laboring under a couple of misconceptions. The first is that God changed His mind, that He had in mind that our world should reflect and follow the same Law that governed Israel before Christ. The second notion you have is that I'm attempting to convince anyone to alter their position. I've answered the OP to set out my part. I'm not trying to convert you or anyone else to my understanding.

...If would-be murderers knew a swift and painful execution awaited them, the murder rate would plummet.

If the lion's share of homicides here are crimes of passion it doesn't follow that executions, swift or otherwise, would impact it. And what I can guarantee is the increased likelihood that we'd execute even more innocent men and women as a result.

:thumb: Tragic. Almost as bad as releasing a guilty man. But, within my system, good may come of it.

I'm never surprised at the willingness of anyone not under sentence to sacrifice someone else for the greater good. lain:

And you call the US system "good"?

It's a great system. It works. Like any system, it's imperfect and could use improvement.

So that's a "Yes" then?

No, it's an "Other than Jesus,? No."

 

[Stripe]

No, I'm not. I'm talking about a time of understandable desensitization to human suffering and violence even in the most civilized parts of society.

:AMR:

You're wrong from top to bottom, stripe. The data on crimes of passion and what they constitute in terms of percentages of homocides isn't a matter of speculation and that's all I'm reflecting here.

You've moved the goalposts. "It's rarely premeditated and you won't and don't impact it with a rational approach, which is what the argument from deterrence is." You have no evidence against the idea that knowledge of swift and painful justice will prove a deterrent. You have no evidence, and will never get any, until you realise the failure of the current system and install God's.

Rather, a reasoned and supportable statement met with nothing much but a cartoon and a tired lawyer joke. It's a simple matter of numbers. Do you have any idea about the percentage of cases ending in convictions? No, you don't or you'd approach this differently. Go look it up.The overwhelming number of people charged with a crime in this country confess and plead. The majority of those that go to trial end in conviction because we insist on pretty damning evidence to go forward with prosecutions. And when the system fails, as any system will, the innocent have built in mechanisms for review to reverse the injustice. It's imperfect, but a system that works and I'll stand it against any functioning model in the world today.

Not much competition. lain:

Your system routinely gets things wrong and does nothing to rehabilitate individuals or stabilise society. That you have data points that can be tracked ahead of other nations is to ignore the systemic and inherent failure that comes with rejecting God's standards.

You're laboring under a couple of misconceptions. The first is that God changed His mind, that He had in mind that our world should reflect and follow the same Law that governed Israel before Christ.

Uh .. it's you positing the change in mind. You provide the evidence. lain:

If the lion's share of homicides here are crimes of passion it doesn't follow that executions, swift or otherwise, would impact it.

Evidence. You have none. And cannot have any.

And what I can guarantee is the increased likelihood that we'd execute even more innocent men and women as a result.

That's because you're imagining judges cannot unlearn their current system and learn to judge with righteous and good judgement.

No, it's an "Other than Jesus,? No."

Sounds like lawyer speak for "Yes".

 

[Sum1sGruj]

For centuries the death penalty, often accompanied by barbarous refinements, has been trying to hold crime in check; yet crime persists. Why? Because the instincts that are warring in man are not, as the law claims, constant forces in a state of equilibrium.

~Albert Camus

 

[This Charming Manc]

How exactly have you shown my view wrong?

All you have said is if I knew the law you would know it was wrong.

You haven't even adequately explained your view, let alone shown anything to be false.

Unless you can show me compelling scriptural evidence I need to go for the clear and obvious meaning of the text. Which to me is Jesus preference is to show mercy rather than judgement, and I am to exercise judgement when I am without Sin.

So far you have failed to do this.

I am awaiting further enlightenment from either yourself, lighthouse or angel.

You agree on your interpretation but need to flesh the argument considerably before I would even dream of conceding the point.

And now that your lame caricature of Christ has been shown false,