:first: POTDTurbo said:
Why the death penalty for some sexual sins.
- Thread starter Delmar
- Start date
julie21
New member
Thankyou for that Crow...I understood that the Jews fell under Roman rule, but was waylaid by Mark 14:54 where it is said , " And they all condemned him to be guilty of death", in reference to the High Priests and his Jewish council.Crow said:
Of course, that was merely condemnation of His guilt according to their Jewish Law. They pressured Pilate into releasing Barabbas and called for crucifixion, which of course Pilate decreed with his acting as Rome's proxy in Jerusalem.
julie21
New member
It would deter those who had been executed 100% from doing it again, and would also cut them off from the grace of Christ in being able to repent of their sin!Turboo you agree that although it would not deter 100%, a government that swiftly and consistently executes murderers will have a considerably lower murder rate than one that doesn't, assuming all else equal?
I don't have stats for whether the level of capital crime , [we'll say 'murder' of a premeditated kind], has gone down in those US states where the death penalty is incorporated into individual State law.
I will concede that yes, it would probably have a lowering effect on some in society who have the mind to weigh up the consequences of their actions, ahead of the event. Of course, we know that in a fit of rage, there are those so overcome with emotion that common sense and any time for consideration of the penalty would not come into play at all in their thinking.
There are also those in society who have a lowered mental capacity, and therefore would not be capable of this ability to determine such things as cause and effect, and rational logic in halting their actions.
I stand corrected on this statement [ he died at the hand of an inmate?]
Was it Timothy McVeigh I was thinking of then?
I could not see people of the same ilk as Charles Manson worrying about the Death Penalty waiting for them. As I stated, there will always be individuals who will thumb their nose at the law, and even go harder at it as in a game of Russian Roulette. People still tend to play that game, don't they, even knowing what their chances are? The same as with those who get into the heavy drug scene...there are always the percentage who will still do it...no matter what the penalty is.
[I guess that this can be shown, in an abstract way, even through those who are atheists being told that they will end up in eternal Hell if they do not accept Christ...but still not caring what the ultimate penalty is]
But see, death is ONLY certain for them IF THEY GET CAUGHT, and are found guilty in a juried court system, after having the luxuryof a lawyers defence, as given by the governing authorities of our day.
Mobsters, as far as I can determine, are usually executed without having the chance for a fair hearing by a jury of their peers, and certainly not within the Legal system...a bit like the Sanhedrin pulling the adultress up to Jesus, isn't it, except that Jesus was full of grace and knew of their ulterior motives. Now they were of a mobster mentality!
Matthew 5:31-33 (King James Version)
31It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement:
32But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.
I know this passage has had problems with the translation of two major words re fornication/ adultery in the original text..and will not argue on that point as I am not schooled in Old Greek , but I can, having only my mere Bible translations to look to, take it as translated above. Therefore, to me it reads that if a married woman is divorced by her husband is committing adultery if not divorced for the right reason...and that any man who marries her is guilty of that crime as well. Not so?
julie21
New member
He did infact repeal the death penalty for these two instances..the meaning of the word 'repeal' is to revoke...which He chose to do in these cases.
Repeal: To cancel (normally a law)...from http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/history/glossary.html#r
God repealed the Law for them and instigated grace and mercy for their crimes.
Of course, this does not mean that the Biblical law's penalty that you refer to and argue for was repealed overall and forever more.
"Even in "OT times" God commanded against not just stealing and committing adultery, but coveting"
EXACTLY! St Paul "confessed" to the one sin (commandment) that could not be prosecuted under the Mosiac Covenant because there was no way to know what a person was thinking. Now there is a way to know what people are thinking.
Say, for example, a simpler version of the lie detector was invented. One that analyzes speach. When a candidate for church member ship is interviewed he could be asked about his covetous and adulterous thoughts. Of course this wouldn't apply to the elders.
EXACTLY! St Paul "confessed" to the one sin (commandment) that could not be prosecuted under the Mosiac Covenant because there was no way to know what a person was thinking. Now there is a way to know what people are thinking.
Say, for example, a simpler version of the lie detector was invented. One that analyzes speach. When a candidate for church member ship is interviewed he could be asked about his covetous and adulterous thoughts. Of course this wouldn't apply to the elders.
Balder said:
No. Paul pointed out that we as believers are subject to the laws of our government. Our government does not prosecute by stoning.
Check out Jesus's trial. The Sanhedrin did not execute Him because they were forbidden to by the ruling Roman government, so they took Him to Pilate to plead their case for execution.
Balder
New member
If we're going to do it, it should be painful and horrific, no? Really humiliating and physically excruciating, 1) so that the offenders really grasp what they have done (adultery, homosexuality, etc), 2) so we can have the feeling of satisfaction that evil is getting its just reward by being really inflicted with evil itself, and 3) so people witnessing it can have some sense of the real torment that is in store for them if they do not obey the law and God's commands.
The traditional Biblical methods seem well-suited for the above, but maybe someone can improve on them, if that's Biblically permissible.
The traditional Biblical methods seem well-suited for the above, but maybe someone can improve on them, if that's Biblically permissible.
Agape4Robin
Member
I
So, both of you were married when you met?
Congrats on the 18 years! :BRAVO:
Never say never......
I'm not questioning your heart's intent or your husbands, I just stated what the marriage statistics say. When it comes down to it, it's the level of commitment that both people in a marriage have to have for it to be successful according to God's standards.
This is the key here......
No? Hhmmm.....sin without consequence? :think: None?
With all due respect, I have been through severe issues of dependency in my marriage and we worked very hard at getting through those issues. God was the only thing that held us together. I am convinced of that. Yes, there were times when my children would have rather we split up than go through the hell that they went through watching their parents hurt each other, but if you ask them now, they would tell you that they have seen the lives of their friends whose families have fractured and splintered off and they feel grateful that we stuck it out and worked like crazy through pain and anger and resentment and came out of it with a stronger and more blessed life for it. If you asked them, they would tell you they are blessed to have both parents who love them and each other.
Like another poster pointed out, where was the man she was caught with? The illustration was not so much about the adultery as the intent of the Pharisees in seeking to trap Jesus. But I do see your point.
Incorrect! The Biblical standard for invoking the death penalty is to be convicted by the testimony of two or more witnesses. In John:8 the witnesses all took off when Jesus wrote in the sand. No witness no conviction. In 2 Samuel the only witness against David was Nathan and he could only testify to what God had revealed to him. He did not witness the crime or the physical evidence that we know of.julie21 said:
julie21
New member
Okay...the witnesses took off after Jesus asked that he who had no sin cast the first stone, and whilst He wrote in the sand, the eldest moved away first then the youngest, for as with us all, they were not perfectly sinless. They were still witnesses...more than one of them...and they 'testified' to Jesus what the woman had done. Jesus knew the reasons for their bringing her to them - without the male, as we know- and so took the stand he did. The matter did not go to a court/council for official ruling. Jesus grace came into play against the self-righteousness of the Sanhedrin.deardelmar said:
Yes you are correct re the parable of 2 Samuel as well...
I'll get back to you with more soon....
julie21
New member
Deardelamar...you stated that their were no witnesses, therefore no conviction.
I tell you now that Jesus did convict the adulteress...Jesus refused to condemn the woman.
After the scribes and Pharisees drift away (probably because Jesus wrote their sins in the sand!), our Lord stands up and he says to her, "Has no one condemned you?" She replies, "No one, sir." To which Jesus responds, Neither do I condemn you
But he still does convict her.
He convicts her of her sin by what he says in the very next line of the text. Immediately after our Lord says to her, "Neither do I condemn you,’ he adds the instruction, ‘Go, and from now on do not sin anymore."
He labels the deed a sin, and commands her not to do it again.
There is a big difference between "convicting" and "condemning"?
Simply put, to convict is to identify or expose a particular sin;
to condemn is to say or imply that someone is damned. During his earthly life, Jesus very often did the first, but he never, ever did the second—as we see evidenced in this Gospel. But Jesus is God—which means that on the Day of Judgment he will do the second. Or, to be a little more accurate, he will ratify the fact that certain people have condemned themselves.
You are not God! And neither am I!
Consequently, because we are imperfect, fallible human beings, we never have the right to condemn! Only God is qualified to do that, because only God knows the heart [ and that is how he will judge those guilty of 'lusting in the mind' a woman who is not their wife- thus committing 'adultery]; only God knows how culpable a person is for his or her sins. We do not—even if we think we do, have the right to throw that first stone or switch or whatever...for neither you, nor I, are free from sin.
And that is what the Gospel tells us, throughout.
Another point in this argument re punishment by stoning to death adulterers etc, according to Deuteronmy law, is that these laws were a Covenant Law between God and Israel [ the Laws and the punishments to be meted out],
I don't really think that I am Israel...would I not , along with a heap of other people in society today, be considered as Gentile...that is if we are looking at the OT Laws of Deuternomy? Whereas Christ came with His new Covenant of redemption forgiveness through the act of His grace and mercy, and this Covenant is now for all, Jew- as in Israel, and Gentile?:think:
I tell you now that Jesus did convict the adulteress...Jesus refused to condemn the woman.
After the scribes and Pharisees drift away (probably because Jesus wrote their sins in the sand!), our Lord stands up and he says to her, "Has no one condemned you?" She replies, "No one, sir." To which Jesus responds, Neither do I condemn you
But he still does convict her.
He convicts her of her sin by what he says in the very next line of the text. Immediately after our Lord says to her, "Neither do I condemn you,’ he adds the instruction, ‘Go, and from now on do not sin anymore."
He labels the deed a sin, and commands her not to do it again.
There is a big difference between "convicting" and "condemning"?
Simply put, to convict is to identify or expose a particular sin;
to condemn is to say or imply that someone is damned. During his earthly life, Jesus very often did the first, but he never, ever did the second—as we see evidenced in this Gospel. But Jesus is God—which means that on the Day of Judgment he will do the second. Or, to be a little more accurate, he will ratify the fact that certain people have condemned themselves.
You are not God! And neither am I!
Consequently, because we are imperfect, fallible human beings, we never have the right to condemn! Only God is qualified to do that, because only God knows the heart [ and that is how he will judge those guilty of 'lusting in the mind' a woman who is not their wife- thus committing 'adultery]; only God knows how culpable a person is for his or her sins. We do not—even if we think we do, have the right to throw that first stone or switch or whatever...for neither you, nor I, are free from sin.
And that is what the Gospel tells us, throughout.
Another point in this argument re punishment by stoning to death adulterers etc, according to Deuteronmy law, is that these laws were a Covenant Law between God and Israel [ the Laws and the punishments to be meted out],
I don't really think that I am Israel...would I not , along with a heap of other people in society today, be considered as Gentile...that is if we are looking at the OT Laws of Deuternomy? Whereas Christ came with His new Covenant of redemption forgiveness through the act of His grace and mercy, and this Covenant is now for all, Jew- as in Israel, and Gentile?:think:
Last edited: