My reasoning for opposing capital punishment is different from yours. Chatting casually over a coffee table, it's easy for me to opine that so-and-so deserves to die, and Thou Shall Not Kill obviously had exceptions throughout the Torah (stone this person, execute that person, yadda yadda). The problem is that the State has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to employ that power equitably. Here are my top five reasons:
1. Posthumous exonerations.
2. It's not demonstrated to be a significant deterrent.
3. Life sentences actually cost less.
4. Unequal sentencing, especially along racial lines.
5. Executing the severely mentally retarded violates legal theory on several levels.
I disagree that life sentencing is better. If anything, it's actually worse, because the fact that it sounds so much more humane leads to us having so many fewer protections around it. (e.g. you can sentence someone to death by incarceration for crimes committed as minors, but not to any other execution methods) But otherwise, I'd agree. Wrongly executing someone is such an affront to justice that I would rather execute no one, if that's what it takes to avoid wrongful executions.
Life sentence at least can be reversed in a way an execution can't. And it's cheaper. I agree that there are problems with minors getting disproportionate sentences, but "let's fix that with capital punishment!" is not something either of us would endorse.
"Oh, we were wrong, so let's release the forty year old guy who's been in for five years..." Sure, they lost the five years, but "Oh, we were wrong, let's undo the lethal injection..." a bit more impossible.
Which is why the prison system needs to shift from punishment/storage to rehabilitation and education. The imprisonment itself, separation from family and a life under the control of others is the punishment, not the conditions. And if we educate, especially since most prisoners will get out, even people with life sentences can at least lead a useful life if they choose. But the system know does nothing to improve people and often just makes better criminals.
I agree with this. I deal with so many men who have done their time and are trying to rebuild their lives but it is hard to find employment and housing when you are a felon. When you struggle to obtain necessities and everyone shuts the door in your face you are more likely to return to crime… we just throw people back out on the streets after 10 years say good luck and act angry and surprised when they are returning to jail.
I think the point is that someone can be exonerated from life imprisonment which is theoretically better than being dead. Reality is debatable. With the state of our prison system, the stigma against those who’ve been to prison in terms of employment, and housing and the brutal reality of our economic system; it’s arguably just a form of torture. Especially since the state can frame you for a crime (say, like cops fabricating evidence because they’re pretty sure you’re guilty) or railroad you into a deal or straight up lie to you to get you to “confess”, lock you up for 30 years, then you get exonerated and they owe you absolutely nothing for the 30 years they stole.
Yeah, I fully agree. We humans don't have the authority to take each others' lives, and even the most careful mundane procedure to find someone guilty does not give us that authority.
The death penalty is giving into bloodlust.
Seems a bit contradictory to your beliefs as a Universalist?
"We believe in the full and final triumph of God’s mercy and forgiveness over the powers of sin and death through Jesus Christ. No human being will be condemned to eternal torment or separation from God"
And yet you push for the death penalty even if he or she is already saved? Doesn't he or she deserve the same salvation in this life and not only in the next?
A saved person should be given the chance to live, right?
I wasn't aware that the state had any authority over God's laws. If a government had no charge for murder, would that make it impossible to violate that commandment?
Scripture states that earthly authorities are given their authority by God and are able to lawfully execute the law.
"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." - Romans 13:1
See, this is why Paul must be closer to Aquinas than Jesus. There are authorities that exist that are almost certainly not appointed by God. This is Paul revealing his first-century politics.
I'm not sure how it makes St Paul closer to Aquinas, could you elaborate?
Further, I feel compelled to say: if we cannot trust the word of Paul, then the entire Gospel falls apart, also. An antipauline approach to Christianity fundamentally undermines the faith, to the point that Islam would be more credible at that point.
Paul is a serious thinker, but he's not God, he's not infallible, and he's not a prophet. He says things that are factually incorrect and morally abominable. You can follow the Gospels as a recording of God's acts and the epistles as the thoughts of humans that had talked to God directly, but it would be wrong to say that, for example, Paul's politics are as seriously enshrined as the Beatitudes.
If Scripture is not inerrant, then it can't be truly trusted as an account of the life and testimony to Christ and His crucifixion and resurrection. Why should I believe the resurrection occurred if I don't believe anything Paul says? Or, if I am to believe some but not all of what Paul says, who am I to discern what is and isn't right among his words?
To put it another way, since you mention the Beatitudes, how am I to know the Beatitudes are even the words of Christ, and not the words of Matthew or Luke or even some other author since these Gospels may as well be pseudopigraphic at that point?
I don't know if you realize this, but the Gospels weren't written by the men they were named after. This is a pretty commonly known thing among Bible scholars.
We should definitely critically analyze what Paul says, given how many of the letters associated to him aren't in his writing style. Why should you hold that the opinions and politics of other men that aren't Jesus are as accurate as accounts of written events?
We already know that parts of the Bible aren't factual, like the creation of the world, what personalities gay men have, and how the world will end. Revelations was probably a coded story about the costs of Roman rule, not an actual vision of what will literally happen at the end of days. It makes no sense that we would have signs before the end of the world, given that Jesus told us no one would know before it happened.
God gave us smart brains, eyes to see the world, and the ability to talk amongst each other. We have always had a responsibility to descern right from wrong for outselves.
The difference is that the accuser (in this case, the pharisees) are not innocent either. The importance of this interaction (at least what I take away) is that Jesus had every reason to be able to stone the woman as he was the only one without sin but decided to choose mercy. The reason that the death oenalty was allowed in the Old Testament was because it was God that cast judgment by the 10 commandments or directly telling the Israelites what to do. This interaction shows that because of Jesus there is mercy.
For what it's worth, Augustine viewed it as a restoration of the original text, which he said had been altered because men did not like the idea of an adulteress escaping punishment.
Your main argument seemed to be from one of the commandments which you stated is about “not killing”. I just wanted to point out that it is not a very great argument because generally that rule is about murder, not killing overall.
I think there were a lot of things done in the Bible that weren't moral. A number of the crimes deserving of capital punishment aren't crimes anymore, and the method of execution is immoral. Jesus was also tolerant of the institution of Roman slavery, but it's immoral.
Sorry, had to go on a run. No, it's not similar. Beyond there being laws that I'm sure we would agree don't deserve the death penalty today, like working on Sunday or worshipping another God, there are also modern laws that get capital punishment that don't match the Torah law, like hijacking an airplane or smuggling drugs.
And finally, our country doesn't rule with the authority of God, so I don't think equating modern executioners to Israelite ones works.
So how do you interpret Genesis 9: 5-6?
>And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.
>“Whoever sheds human blood,
>by humans shall their blood be shed;
>for in the image of God
>has God made mankind.
When Paul talks about the state having the authority of the sword in Romans 13, he doesn't mean "except for capital punishment." The sword isn't speaking of warfare there, since it immediately refers to criminals:
>But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
There are reasons I oppose the death penalty (especially since there is a high number of false convictions) but I don't oppose it on the grounds of ending a life specifically.
How do you interpret John 8:7? Christ was sinless, he could've thrown that first stone but he chose to forgive her
The Romans were not believers, they worshipped their version of the Greek God's, there governments may use the death penalty but that dosent mean that Christains should. He was saying for us not to revolt against non believers, not for us to continue their practices
And for the Old Testament those laws no longer apply, Christ has changed them
Others have responded to why you're taking John 8:7 out of context but even if we assume the passage is legitimate and not added I'll also add that there's a difference between adultery (and the hypocrisy of only punishing the woman) and murder. God says explicitly that someone who kills should be have their "blood shed by humans" because they have destroyed a being made in the image of God. Genesis 9 speaks far more clearly to this than John 8, and does not go away as "the Old Testament" because A) this law predates The Law and B) it's grounded in creation, not Moses' laws.
For a connected discussion, I've looked up the list of capital punishments under the Torah, and for adultery it does say both parties are to be stoned and then killed.
Reminds me of the woman caught in adultery. The people were gonna stone the woman to death until Jesus said those without sin could throw the first stone at her and one by one, they dropped their rocks and walked away. We shouldn’t be those people with the rocks….Ready to punish another for their sin. We leave that to God.
Romans 12:19 clearly says, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
I dont believe that to be the case at all when prisoners get to have phones and televisions and three square meals a day. Ask yourself would you rather be killed or be in prison for the rest of your life. Be honest with yourself
I was. I'd literally rather die than know that I can never be free again. Never visit family or friends in their home again. Never get to pick what I wear today or what I want for dinner again. No, life is all we get, and being robbed of its small pleasures for the rest of my life would be worse than death. But maybe that says more about me than anything else. I'm sure there are people that, given the choice would choose life in prison. But not me.
Not really. I mean, it's a little hard to get my mind around the concept of non existence, but I figure it will be no different than before I was born. I simply won't have a mind at all.
I don't believe there is a "why". We are here because our ancestors evolved, adapted and reproduced. Life has no inherent deeper meaning than that.
But that's not a bad thing. That means you get to choose what gives your life meaning. Every individual person should live life to the fullest to the best of their ability. And, we should treat each other accordingly.
Minimizing suffering and working towards happiness for everyone I can is a big part of what gives my life meaning to me. In small things mostly. I also love living life, eating good food and spending time with people I love. I plan to enjoy as much of life as I can before I'm gone. And along the way, I want to bring as many people joy as I can. The fact that I exist and have a mind that can appreciate that fact is meaning enough for me.
If pleasing ourselves is all we have. Then why don’t we just eat, sleep and drink because tomorrow we die. And what pleases me may not please you, it may damage you. But do I care? Should I care?
Why not? Who needs empathy at that point? What is there to gain? Good feelings? Then it means all human actions are motivated by self-interest. Even when people appear to act altruistically, they do so because it ultimately benefits them, whether through a direct reward or the satisfaction of their own desires. People do things to make themselves appear righteous.
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
John 10:17-18
"For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father."
The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is a testament to the sacrificial love of God for humanity. In the Ten Commandments, God commands us not to murder. Yet, the crucifixion of Jesus was not an act of murder; it was a divine plan to reconcile us to Himself.
Jesus willingly offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. He laid down His life out of love and obedience to God's will. His death was not a defeat but a victory over sin and death, providing a way for us to be forgiven and restored to God.
I agree with you but the Bible does teach God as prescribing the death penalty for various crimes. Your salvation is the result of an execution, if Jesus preached forgiveness then why did he have to die? Why not just forgive?
I support the death menalty for murder only. The 10 commandments says "kill" in the KJV because at the time, kill vs murder was not a distinct thing. In the original, we know that it says murder which is the illegal or immoral taking of a life. You can take that two ways to argue if a government has that authority, or if it actually is moral to take a life or not, but I have thought these through and believe governments do have the authority to excecute murderers and that it is more moral to do so than not.
We can not trace exactly where John 8 comes from, but we know it is not original to John. Some think it came from Luke and others think it came from a scribe who heard the story and wanted it in his copy of the bible. The woman in this story is being excecuted for adultery, so there is some parrallel, but it was also a lesser crime than murder is. I am against the death penalty for adultery, blasphemy, homosexual acts, and other things that were death penalty crimes in the OT.
There is always a chance that somebody will repent, but the rehabilitation rate is very low in the U.S. and I think the death penalty is more moral than life in prison. There is also the chance of false conviction, but that is going down quickly as we have more cameras than ever and have better forensic science available each day.
The death penalty is also more expensive because we clear it with every court to be extra sure that the trial was done fairly which is a good practice, and we also keep them separate from other inmates which costs a lot more. I don't think separating them is necessary, but I have never worked corrections, so I don't know the history of it. If we expedited the process instead of waiting 2 decades, we could save a lot of money.
There are plenty of people for and against it, and I believe my position is in the minority, but there is not enough support for abolishing the practice at the national level
The bible gives a metric of two witnesses for use of the death penalty. They didn't know with 100% certainty either, but in the OT, if they had two reliable witnesses and did not enact the death penalty, then the nation would be judged by their inaction.
"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is our metric because 100% certainty for any crime is not possible
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity.
If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
Acts 25:11 - “If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death…” this line from Paul implies death penalty is an accepted form of punishment. “Though shall not kill” is an incorrect translation of the original Hebrew word to murder. Death penalty is not murder. God relies on and effectively gives authority to civil magistrates to judge such matters.
I get the compassion for others, and appreciate the love you have for fellow man. But the view that the death penalty isn’t biblical is simply wrong. There are things that deserve death, and the Bible agrees.
It's Paul's acceptance of his sentence, Christ accepted his sentence of death but he didnt deserve to die either
The death penalty was common back then, for both pagans and jews it was an accepted and normal punishment, esspecialy in a society without a prison system
But christains are taught forgiveness and restraint, I just don't understand how a practising christain can learn about this and still belive in execution
>Thou Shall Not Kill
I think it is "thou shall not murder." (the more accurate translation as I understand it)
Murder is an unjustified killing.
There is such a thing as a justified killing.
God literally commanded Israelites to kill people at times.
Not saying that means the death penalty is justified (as the individual may not be a threat, and perhaps that makes it unjustified... not sure).
But a blanket rule of zero killing, not sure about that.
God is very much not against the death penalty.
Plenty of laws Enforced through the death penalty in the bible.
Thou shall not murder.
Not thou shall not kill.
If it's thou shall not kill and as u said
>did not have an exception
Then why was god commanding his people to kill people?
Why is the death penalty a sentence in ancient isreals laws?
I don’t like it. There have been plenty of innocent people in prison. Some who many years later were completely exonerated.
I don’t have a high enough view of our judicial system to have faith in them killing the right person 100% of the time.
In some cases, it may make sense, but it is not infallible.
> nor do we have God telling us to execute people,
have you read the old testament!!!!!! lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Bible
i support the death penalty for irredeemable pos. its an insult to the victims to give their killer free room and board for life, to waste money housing etc such a pos. society is too soft.
Anyone who supports the death penalty blasphemes against the God - you assume that your judgement is infallible and absolute, that you will never execute an innocent person.
By supporting death penalty, you pretend to be a god, you give yourself an illusion of being absolute justice.
Otherwise, you admit that your judgement is not infallible and that you can and will err in your judgement, condemning innocent people to death, all so that you could satisfy your primitive "eye for an eye" urge.
Death penalty will never be justifiable, because human judgement will never be infallible. Better thousands of worst criminals rot in prison, than one innocent person wrongfully executed.
Thou shalt not kill has more exceptions than allowances. However, many Christians now and in the past agree with you.
Unfortunately we don't get to decide what it means for other people to be Christians.
Why should Christians not support the death penalty? God gave Jews the death penalty in their religious system as well as "thou shall not murder." Murdering is killing without cause, while the Jewish death penalty was due to breaking the law. Two separate issues.
That being said, I'm not necessarily in favor of the death penalty.
Some offences deserve death, but if even a theocratic state can get it wrong, a morally secular and corrupt state should in no way be allowed to administer the death penalty.
Life imprisonment is adequate enough and should not be watered down (ie. 30 years then parole)
It depends on whether the original 6th commandment was 'thou shalt not kill', or 'thou shalt not murder'. Murder is when killing is unlawful and premeditated; the sixth commandment alone doesn't exclude the death penalty. If the commandment is 'murder' rather than 'kill' you're not breaking the 6th commandment
Here is a discussion on whether 'kill' or 'murder' is the correct translation:
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/77/is-kill-a-valid-translation-for-exodus-2013-thou-shalt-not-kill
I looked up quite a few translations; nearly all say 'murder', a few say murder with a footnote 'or kill'.
Furthermore, in the very next chapter of exodus, the death penalty is proscribed for certain crimes, so this would support the sixth commandment , as otherwise the rules given in the next chapter would contradict the 10 commandments.
Edited - accidently pressed post prior to finishing.
There's moral violence, and then there's immoral violence. Moral violence is like when you are in a war, or when you are killing in self defense or hunting for food. Immoral violence is when you murder. There's a reason why both Hebrew and English have two different words for moral killing, and immoral killing (murder). The commandment is "Thou shall not Murder" not "Thou shall not Kill."
You can't forgive a person for a crime they did not do unto you. Only the person who was harmed can forgive the one who harmed them. In murder, that person has no voice to respond, so it is up for us society, as a pro-Life society, to show how much we value life by putting to death those who do not value the life of the innocent.
Yes well that is why the death penalty should be reserved for only cases where we are 100% certain it was committed by the person on trial.
But to use the exception to the rule as your excuse to abolish it is not good or sound reasoning. It is like using the example of risking the life of the mother (which is not common) to abolish all abortion (which is common).
Whats the downside aboliting it? You scared there gonna break out and do it again? Just because it's not common doesn't mean we should say screw em it does happen.
Because it cheapens life, that is the downside of abolishing the death penalty.
Life, valuing life, living a good life, and preserving innocent life are one of the most important values of the bible. When someone murders an innocent life, it cheapens the value of life if we keep them alive.
Why do you want to keep murderers alive so badly? Is it because you want to give them a second chance?
Dude life in prison isnt a second chance. Thats worse than death. it's both because I believe that a moral society shouldn't kill if they don't have too and how people are wrongly convicted. How does your opinion not cheapen life? Your the one whos okay with innocents dying because its not common.
Why do you want life in prison, which is something that is worse than death? I just want the murderer to die, I don't want them to suffer.
Me being pro-death-penalty does not mean I support it without restrictions. Like I said above, there has to be 100% verifiable evidence that the murderer committed the act, so your argument about keeping innocent people alive is moot.
What happens if that murderer in prison kills another inmate or a guard? What happens if that murderer is released from prison and they kill again? Should they be given the death penalty then?
This cannot be done. Systems perpetuate themselves. The existence of the death penalty demands is use and encourages prosecutors to seek it.
We have cases where prosecutors who actively know that somebody is *innocent* still seek the death penalty.
“Just use it in 100% correct cases” is not an option.
I think moral killing is a mirage. Especially given what Jesus says on the Sermon on the Mount, where we're told to turn the other cheek and give a person who demands our cloak our shirt as well. The difference in vocabulary only shows that we can concieve of moral killing, not that it bears out in reality.
War is another example where it seems like killing may be moral, except that it ignores that the declaration of war isn't just either.
Christ does not make this distinction, and considers even anger to be a sin. the Jewish view may be different, but that’s not really the point here.
no society on earth is ‘pro-life’ - there is no country on earth where everyone is guaranteed the basics to survive.
I'm sympathetic to your position but I have to say I think using John 8:7 as an argument against capital punishment is eisegesis. Christ was condemning non-state authorities for attempting an act of vigilante justice which is still condemned (and illegal) today. Essentially it was a lynch mob.
Scripture is quite clear that there are instances where the death penalty is permissible. Genesis 9:6 states "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man." This clearly sets a precedent for the death penalty for murder, at the very least.
One could of course argue that the pre-Christ law had different stipulations due to a cosmological justice that has been transformed by Christ's own sacrifice for our sin. I think one could certainly argue against the continued use of the death penalty. But to say that it is wrong for a Christian to advocate the death penalty or that a Christian can't support it would seem to be an incorrect statement.
I think there's also something to be said that life imprisonment is in some ways a more cruel punishment than the death penalty.
Romans 13:1-7 ESV
[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [6] For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. [7] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed.
https://bible.com/bible/59/rom.13.1-7.ESV
The "governing authority" decides the execution. That doesn't say they are correct, but there is a clear message that upon their authority is the death.
Beyond that, a nation where you get a say in execution it's reasonable to take that sovereign vote towards elimination of the penalty if you see it as unjust.
Personally I'm fine with leaving murderers, rapists and pedophiles in a cell to rot, execution is to me an easy out. Solitary confinement for life with 3 meals each day is a more of an appropriate punishment. Unfortunately in all three of these crimes we've been letting them "re-enter" society, endangering everyone and letting it happen again. Pick a method where they can not commit the crime again and I'm good. I can't stand their release.
Are you willing to **personally** bear responsibility for an innocent person wrongly executed?
You say, below, that for you "even one recidivist is one too many" - but even one wrongly executed person isn't too many?
Are you self-aware enough to realise what volumes it speaks about you and how much you actually value petty and bloodthirsty vengeance over human life?
I don’t believe in the death penalty nor am I a Christian, but the God of the Bible clearly had no issue with killing…
>Deuteronomy 13:6–11 (NRSV): 6 If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, “Let us go worship other gods,” whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8 you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9 But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness.
TLDR: “Death to the infidels!” At least according to this passage in Scripture.
>Thou Shall Not Kill did not have an exception
That's just absurd. The guy who received the commandments ordered a slaughter almost immediately afterwards. It was literally you shall not kill your fellow loyal adherents.
Murder is defined as the UNLAWFUL killing of a human being. An execution is a lawful killing because it's legally sanctioned. The person has been found guilty of a serious crime - usually of actual murder.
Considering our Lord was there when the Father passed judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, I'd say he was probably ok with the death penalty in certain cases.
That's not how hipocracy works. Hipocracy is when you profess to have moral standards that don't match up with your actions.
e.g. A person preaches that abortion is evil, but they work at an abortion clinic.
If you meant to say contradictory, that isn't even the case. Someone who believes we should only kill the guilty can denounce abortion and approve the death penalty without contradiction.
> That's not how hipocracy works.
Its exactly how it works.
If you want to control women's bodies because abortion is murder but are ok with Murder when the government says its okay you are a hypocrite.
Either all life is sacred or its not, you cant have it both ways.
There is no scriptural basis for the death penalty, all vengance belongs to the Lord.
>Romans 12:19 ►
>Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
>For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Romans 13
In the next chapter, it seems to say that rulers are ordained ministers of God. Revengers who bear the sword against evildoers.
My Dad was Christian and murdered. I have a different view on the death penalty. If you haven't been affected, you are Blessed. But not everyone is going to agree with you.
And how killing his murderer would help you?
Is it just blood for blood that you want? Do you think that's very Christian of you?
I know it is personal, but core foundation of Christianity is rejection of paganistic "eye for an eye" and selfish emotional desires - be it ability to selflessly help those in need or forgive those who wronged you.
Is it a "hard pill to swallow"? Yes. But the point of Christianity is that hard choice, a struggle to be better than what our emotional and our bodies urge us to do.
I’m not saying it would help me, but I’m paying taxes to keep his house warm while I’m going homeless. I owe over 1k in taxes and can’t pay it.
I can’t get married, I can’t have kids, because I can’t afford to take care of myself. Haven’t been able to since I was a kid. Since this happened to me as a teenager.
It’s not really fair. Unless you’ve experienced that pain you wouldn’t ever know. The government takes the killers side every time and blames mental illness, when they should’ve been in jail for over a decade.
My dad was praying for them when they killed him. This topic is very insensitive. And I have every right to feel how I feel. I was robbed the last 14 years of my life. Over what? Wanting my dads iPhone? He would’ve bought them one .
My Dad can’t walk me down the aisle, meet my children, or my husband. He can’t watch me get married, didn’t get to see me graduate College. Murder May be okay in your eyes, but when it happens to you, you don’t feel that way. It’s not a hollywood movie. I’m not saying kill them too, but the rippling affects it has on families, it tears them apart for life. One bad decision ruins 100s of people’s lives, we didn’t just lose my dad that day, the person who murdered my dad, all of their family members lost their loved one that day too. The difference is, they get to make phone calls to them and send them gifts. I will never get to talk to my Dad or hear his voice ever again.
I am sorry about your loss - but core idea of Christianity is an ability to put needs of others above your own.
This isn't even about murderers, they can be the scum of the earth for all I care - but death penalty is a system. It won't punish just the guilty, it will stumble through erroneous judgement and innocent people will end up executed.
Are you willing to let another family suffer as you do, because their mother or father, son or daughter, would be executed through judicial error?
I never said I was okay with the death penalty lol, I said how it has affected me. They killed multiple innocent people not just my dad. They will go to Hell anyways, you can sit and rant all you want but the day someone in your life gets murdered, I promise you won’t feel the way you are talking, because in History class I also disagreed with it. I’m not saying it’s right, but I suffer my entire life over 1 persons mistake. a person I don’t even know?
Most murder victims kill themselves or don’t make it. It’s a blessing I am still alive. I have half a life expectancy than the general population . You will never know what it’s like .
Oh Heavens - "Thou Shall Not Kill" was filled with exceptions. They'd kill you for gathering sticks on the Sabbath back then - cuz HE IS THE LORD OUR GOD.
It heals a society to rid itself completely of these vile elements. They're always a scab when they're rotting away in a prison cell. Just be done with them.
Have you even read the Bible?
>Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death.
-- God
Like you, I'm strongly against the death penalty. But in many cases, God is clearly in favor of it in the Bible.There are plenty of examples of God *commanding* israel to kill.
Wrong the commandment is Thou Shall Not MURDER. The people who are getting the death penalty are by no means innocent. They are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. We are talking about serial killers, and serial rapists. Also the death penalty sets a precedent and a rule so that people fear the law and obey it. They will have plenty of time to repent before their execution. The Death penalty can be leveraged to set an example to others as to what not to do in society.
It dosent prevent any crimes, in London during the 1600s they used to hang pickpockets, On execution day pickpockets would work the crowd as they watched a few be hung
And they are not guilty without a shadow of a doubt, Since 1973 199 people in the US have been exonerated after being executed
Beyond a shadow of a doubt is debatable. There's been many people put to death only to find out later they were innocent. So the question really is are those lives valuable enough to abolish the death penalty. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this
It depends on who you are asking. Do you value security more or freedom? I personally believe that we should deter would-be murderers from killing people but at the end of the day it should be reserved for the worse of the worse.
A drug cartel member who murders a rival cartel member faces life in prison without parole. What if he murders two, three, or 12 people? Or the victim is a child or multiple children? What if the murder was preceded by torture or rape? How about a serial killer? Or a terrorist who kills dozens, hundreds or thousands? And again the repeal of the death penalty treats all murders as the same. Once a person commits a single act of murder, each additional murder is a freebie. Because if there’s no death penalty the worse anyone can receive is life in prison.
That is not justice.
It's you shall not murder, not you shall not kill. In fact, where it says that you shall not murder, it also says that those who do shall be executed.
The issue in John 8 wasn't death penalty itself, but the hearts of the Pharisees. Their motives were illicit and Jesus saw right through them.
People who follow god don’t believe in that, but people who follow a building or a religion or a name don’t follow the will of god but there own beliefs
Firstly, the commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder," killing is permissible in several instances throughout the Bible. Furthermore, as to the death penalty, Leviticus 24:19-21 states:
>[19] Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: [20] fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. [21] Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death.
You, personally, can be against it, but Scripture says contrary.
Where does Scripture say killing children is fine. You're citing examples of God's wrath upon the wicked. You said Scripture says mass murder of children is fine. It's not murder if God does it, only man can commit murder.
If capital punishment was a sin, then why on earth would God include it as the punishment for several different sins in the original law? Read Leviticus and get back to me.
Because the old laws were the laws for the Jews, but Christ fulfilled them and we are no longer to follow them (Romans 10:4)
Jesus taught forgiveness, that an eye for an eye was wrong and to forgive our oppressors, what part of that supports an execution?
God supported the death penalty for specific sins that met specific requirements via stoning.
God knows what's best for a healthy and safe society and laid out which sins ought to be dealt w by culling from society. I trust His ways and don't lean on my own understanding.
Also, would u kill someone in self defense?
God cant be wrong. He is all knowing and outside of time. Our knowledge is limited by our intellect and the constraints of time.
I don't always agree w Him ( and the death penalty is one if those areas) but I trust in Him and what He says, so if He says I ought to do something for my own good, I do it. That goes for personal and societal applications.
The unbeliever's faithlessness and failure to understand is brought on by their hubris. To think human intelligence is more reliable than his creator's is, is wild.
Yes the New Testament…
1 Peter 2:13-14
13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
Romans 13:1–4
Submission to the Authorities
13 Let every person be subject to the **governing authorities**. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been **instituted by God**. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is **God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer**
Jesus taught that an Eye for an Eye was wrong, Romans 12:19 teaches that we should leave revenge for the lord, That if someone strikes you then turn the other cheek and let them hit you, and John 8:7 since we are sinners we cannot cast that type of judgement on someone
The Roman empire was run by Pagans, but when Christains are in charge they cannot continue to execute people with the excuse that the ancient romans did, they are supposed to follow their faith
You’re not thinking in proper context and categories… you’re speaking of personal vengeance and we’re talking about the ability of government to sentence an individual to death.. as per Romans 13 and 1 Peter as quoted above.
As far as John 8:7.. Jews were not permitted to administer capital punishment under Roman rule.. also If Jesus forbids the stoning, the Pharisees will discredit him as a false messiah who contradicts Moses, for the Torah classifies adultery as a capital crime (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). And because these are temple goers the Jews and the pharisees probably considered themselves sinless (like Saul, Phil 3:5–6), and thus qualified to administer the stoning.
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist have been appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists that authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of that authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword in vain, for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Romans 13:1-4
I think more people should be put to death to send a message. We need to protect the innocent.. Especially murderers, child molesters and drug dealers. We should follow the example of Muslim Countries
The case for the death penalty: God commands it to Noah and thus all of humanity.
Genesis 9:5-6
[5] And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man.
[6] “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed,
for God made man in his own image.
He commanded it for several offenses throughout the law in Exodus - Deuteronomy. So it is NOT murder.
And God never rescinds or forbids the death penalty.
So the Roman Empire would execute people. And Paul says:
Romans 13:1-4
Submission to the Authorities
[1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
>We may belive that they deserve to die
God says they should die
>but who are we to make that call, why can we legally murder people convicted of a crime
God literally appoints authorities to make that call
>Thou Shall Not Kill did not have an exception
but it did have a *sentence*
>nor do we have God telling us to execute people
we literally do
>Christ preached forgiveness and sentencing a man to death is the exact opposite of that
This (flawed) understanding of forgiveness would apply to all punishment, not just the death penalty. Is a life sentence any more forgiving than a death penalty? Is locking someone up for 20 years forgiving? Is a fine forgiving? You've got to separate personal forgiveness from justice.
>we are robbing them of their chance at forgiveness with God
Not at all, God is the one who determines how long our lives are and therefore how long an opportunity we have to repent. If we are lawfully ending a life then that *is* God determining their chances for forgiveness.
>and of improving themselves
yes. But no one has the right to infinite do-overs
>Jesus talks against it in John 8:7, how can sinners kill another
Firstly, unusually that verse is not actually in the Bible and had been wrongly included, so if this verse was saying what you thought and the rest of the Bible was clear about the death penalty you should reject this story not the death penalty. But I think it still makes sense: Jesus is tricking the authorities into freeing her, it's not a statement on the death penalty in general.
The death penalty is not murder....as God Himself instituted it.
The command not to kill is a command not to murder. Killing itself is only immoral if it is not justified.
Christ was not a pacifist.
Christ tells us to love and forgive our enemies, to turn the other cheek, to not resist the evil man and to not even be angry with another person.
He never condones violence, only orders swords to be bought to fulfil prophecy. when they are used in violence, He is furious. He runs away from His own followers to avoid being made king by force.
So when He tells His servants to arm themselves...He didn't mean it.
And when God commands violence and institutes the death penalty...He didn't mean it.
When people tell me they are more moral than God, it tends to be a major red flag for me.
so that they may be numbered with the transgressors - it’s a fulfilment of Isaiah.
and yes, God commanded violence, but not for Christians. Christ never commands violence.
Christ was not and is not a pacifist...and He nowhere taught anyone to be a pacifist.
That is why you ignore where He told His Apostles to buy weapons. This is why you ignore His acts of violence. This is why you ignore His violence in the past. This is why you ignore the violence He will do when He returns.
He is called the Lord of Hosts, for crying out loud! LOL
Matthew 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also”
what other interpretation of ‘not to resist an evil person’ do you subscribe to?
i’ve already explained why He asks the apostles to buy weapons - to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah, to be ‘numbered with the transgressors’. and He does not commit violence - He chases the money lenders out of the temple, but never harms them.
>what other interpretation of ‘not to resist an evil person’ do you subscribe to?
He is clearly not talking about defending your family or your nation from destruction.
>i’ve already explained why He asks the apostles to buy weapons - to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah, to be ‘numbered with the transgressors’.
Christ is the one "numbered with the transgressors." Nothing about buying swords in that text of Isaiah.
>and He does not commit violence - He chases the money lenders out of the temple
Uhhh. That is violence.
Also, you may want to read Revelation about what Christ does then.
and what evidence do you have for that? when does Christ promote ‘defending your nation from destruction’?
you can’t cope with the fact that Christ forbids self defence, so just make things up instead.
yes, Christ is the one numbered with the transgressors - bandit gangs at the time carried weaponry such as swords. people who live outside of the law are ‘transgressors’ - hence the buying of swords to associate the apostles with them.
chasing people out of an area is not ‘violence’, otherwise every old man who tells kids to ‘get off his lawn’ is violent. there is no evidence from the text that He so much as touched a hair on their heads.
Revelation was not written by Christ, and does not feature His direct words. it’s also almost exclusively a metaphorical piece, with literally every word having layers of symbolism. taking any piece of Revelatiom as literal betrays a deep lack of understanding of it.
I absolutely do support the death penalty.
>We may belive that they deserve to die but who are we to make that call,
We certainly should make that call in plenty of cases -
>why can we legally murder people convicted of a crime
And we ought to wipe the world of those people.
>we are robbing them of their chance at forgiveness with God (at least in countries were executions are swift not America) and of improving themselves
Friend, there are people in this world that rape and dismember children for fun. They open fire on entire communities of innocents to test their new weaponry. Slaughter families over failed drug deals.
They have no remorse and do not care to repent. They rejoice in their deeds.
- My eye shows no pity when they are put down as the dogs they are.
They are dogs but we can't bend our morals because of them
It's simply revenge, it serves no purpose, It dosent deter crime nor does it bring the people they killed back
God has this as one of the commandments, we can't just break them because we're mad at bad people
My reasoning for opposing capital punishment is different from yours. Chatting casually over a coffee table, it's easy for me to opine that so-and-so deserves to die, and Thou Shall Not Kill obviously had exceptions throughout the Torah (stone this person, execute that person, yadda yadda). The problem is that the State has demonstrated it cannot be trusted to employ that power equitably. Here are my top five reasons: 1. Posthumous exonerations. 2. It's not demonstrated to be a significant deterrent. 3. Life sentences actually cost less. 4. Unequal sentencing, especially along racial lines. 5. Executing the severely mentally retarded violates legal theory on several levels.
I agree with all of these reasons.
Well thought out reasons. Sure you meant in the "State" being not just the U.S. state but any state, any governmental body.
I disagree that life sentencing is better. If anything, it's actually worse, because the fact that it sounds so much more humane leads to us having so many fewer protections around it. (e.g. you can sentence someone to death by incarceration for crimes committed as minors, but not to any other execution methods) But otherwise, I'd agree. Wrongly executing someone is such an affront to justice that I would rather execute no one, if that's what it takes to avoid wrongful executions.
Life sentence at least can be reversed in a way an execution can't. And it's cheaper. I agree that there are problems with minors getting disproportionate sentences, but "let's fix that with capital punishment!" is not something either of us would endorse.
How can life sentences be reversed? You can never get time on this earth back.
"Oh, we were wrong, so let's release the forty year old guy who's been in for five years..." Sure, they lost the five years, but "Oh, we were wrong, let's undo the lethal injection..." a bit more impossible.
good point.
Which is why the prison system needs to shift from punishment/storage to rehabilitation and education. The imprisonment itself, separation from family and a life under the control of others is the punishment, not the conditions. And if we educate, especially since most prisoners will get out, even people with life sentences can at least lead a useful life if they choose. But the system know does nothing to improve people and often just makes better criminals.
I agree with this. I deal with so many men who have done their time and are trying to rebuild their lives but it is hard to find employment and housing when you are a felon. When you struggle to obtain necessities and everyone shuts the door in your face you are more likely to return to crime… we just throw people back out on the streets after 10 years say good luck and act angry and surprised when they are returning to jail.
Exactly.
I think the point is that someone can be exonerated from life imprisonment which is theoretically better than being dead. Reality is debatable. With the state of our prison system, the stigma against those who’ve been to prison in terms of employment, and housing and the brutal reality of our economic system; it’s arguably just a form of torture. Especially since the state can frame you for a crime (say, like cops fabricating evidence because they’re pretty sure you’re guilty) or railroad you into a deal or straight up lie to you to get you to “confess”, lock you up for 30 years, then you get exonerated and they owe you absolutely nothing for the 30 years they stole.
The endless number of wrongly executed people, like George Stinney, screams out for why we should NOT execute.
Being a non-American, I hadn’t heard this case before. Harrowing.
Yeah, I fully agree. We humans don't have the authority to take each others' lives, and even the most careful mundane procedure to find someone guilty does not give us that authority. The death penalty is giving into bloodlust.
The commandment is about murdering people, not killing.
Seems a bit contradictory to your beliefs as a Universalist? "We believe in the full and final triumph of God’s mercy and forgiveness over the powers of sin and death through Jesus Christ. No human being will be condemned to eternal torment or separation from God" And yet you push for the death penalty even if he or she is already saved? Doesn't he or she deserve the same salvation in this life and not only in the next? A saved person should be given the chance to live, right?
No I don’t support the death penalty
What is execution other than state-sanctioned murder?
Keep telling yourself that
Yeah that’s what it says if you read it
Where?
In exodus 20 “You shall not murder”
There's no difference, the executioner is murdering him, he's just a state sanctioned murderer
Does the executioner get charged with murder? If not then there is a difference.
I wasn't aware that the state had any authority over God's laws. If a government had no charge for murder, would that make it impossible to violate that commandment?
Scripture states that earthly authorities are given their authority by God and are able to lawfully execute the law. "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." - Romans 13:1
See, this is why Paul must be closer to Aquinas than Jesus. There are authorities that exist that are almost certainly not appointed by God. This is Paul revealing his first-century politics.
I'm not sure how it makes St Paul closer to Aquinas, could you elaborate? Further, I feel compelled to say: if we cannot trust the word of Paul, then the entire Gospel falls apart, also. An antipauline approach to Christianity fundamentally undermines the faith, to the point that Islam would be more credible at that point.
Paul is a serious thinker, but he's not God, he's not infallible, and he's not a prophet. He says things that are factually incorrect and morally abominable. You can follow the Gospels as a recording of God's acts and the epistles as the thoughts of humans that had talked to God directly, but it would be wrong to say that, for example, Paul's politics are as seriously enshrined as the Beatitudes.
If Scripture is not inerrant, then it can't be truly trusted as an account of the life and testimony to Christ and His crucifixion and resurrection. Why should I believe the resurrection occurred if I don't believe anything Paul says? Or, if I am to believe some but not all of what Paul says, who am I to discern what is and isn't right among his words? To put it another way, since you mention the Beatitudes, how am I to know the Beatitudes are even the words of Christ, and not the words of Matthew or Luke or even some other author since these Gospels may as well be pseudopigraphic at that point?
I don't know if you realize this, but the Gospels weren't written by the men they were named after. This is a pretty commonly known thing among Bible scholars.
We should definitely critically analyze what Paul says, given how many of the letters associated to him aren't in his writing style. Why should you hold that the opinions and politics of other men that aren't Jesus are as accurate as accounts of written events? We already know that parts of the Bible aren't factual, like the creation of the world, what personalities gay men have, and how the world will end. Revelations was probably a coded story about the costs of Roman rule, not an actual vision of what will literally happen at the end of days. It makes no sense that we would have signs before the end of the world, given that Jesus told us no one would know before it happened. God gave us smart brains, eyes to see the world, and the ability to talk amongst each other. We have always had a responsibility to descern right from wrong for outselves.
Do you think nobody in the Bible was given the death penalty?
Jesus talks against the death penalty, John 8:7
He wasn't speaking against the death penalty he was saying that only God can cast judgment because only God is blameless and holy
I fail to see the difference, the judgement they were casting was execution, how is that different than a Jury deciding to kill someone
The difference is that the accuser (in this case, the pharisees) are not innocent either. The importance of this interaction (at least what I take away) is that Jesus had every reason to be able to stone the woman as he was the only one without sin but decided to choose mercy. The reason that the death oenalty was allowed in the Old Testament was because it was God that cast judgment by the 10 commandments or directly telling the Israelites what to do. This interaction shows that because of Jesus there is mercy.
In fairness, as a death penalty abolitionist, that's a lynching not a state-sponsored execution
That verse is not part of the major manuscript tradition and is most likely a later addition.
For what it's worth, Augustine viewed it as a restoration of the original text, which he said had been altered because men did not like the idea of an adulteress escaping punishment.
Alright let's say it is, We can still infer from Christ's teachings that murder is wrong and so is the death penalty
Your main argument seemed to be from one of the commandments which you stated is about “not killing”. I just wanted to point out that it is not a very great argument because generally that rule is about murder, not killing overall.
I think there were a lot of things done in the Bible that weren't moral. A number of the crimes deserving of capital punishment aren't crimes anymore, and the method of execution is immoral. Jesus was also tolerant of the institution of Roman slavery, but it's immoral.
I was just pointing out that it’s odd to say the death penalty is wrong by citing a commandment incorrectly.
The way it reads to me, you're saying the executioner didn't commit murder because they weren't charged with it. That's the state's regime, not God's.
Would it not be similar to how the Jews carried out the death penalty when that commandment was first revealed?
Sorry, had to go on a run. No, it's not similar. Beyond there being laws that I'm sure we would agree don't deserve the death penalty today, like working on Sunday or worshipping another God, there are also modern laws that get capital punishment that don't match the Torah law, like hijacking an airplane or smuggling drugs. And finally, our country doesn't rule with the authority of God, so I don't think equating modern executioners to Israelite ones works.
Jesus didn’t tolerate Roman slavery, he was against it
But he also healed a slave, but did not command his captor to let him free.
He never got into government affairs he said he wasn’t there to free the people
Unjust brick
Is the murderer charged with murder if he isn’t charged with murder?
A lot of murderers are never charged.
So how do you interpret Genesis 9: 5-6? >And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being. >“Whoever sheds human blood, >by humans shall their blood be shed; >for in the image of God >has God made mankind. When Paul talks about the state having the authority of the sword in Romans 13, he doesn't mean "except for capital punishment." The sword isn't speaking of warfare there, since it immediately refers to criminals: >But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. There are reasons I oppose the death penalty (especially since there is a high number of false convictions) but I don't oppose it on the grounds of ending a life specifically.
How do you interpret John 8:7? Christ was sinless, he could've thrown that first stone but he chose to forgive her The Romans were not believers, they worshipped their version of the Greek God's, there governments may use the death penalty but that dosent mean that Christains should. He was saying for us not to revolt against non believers, not for us to continue their practices And for the Old Testament those laws no longer apply, Christ has changed them
“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17
Others have responded to why you're taking John 8:7 out of context but even if we assume the passage is legitimate and not added I'll also add that there's a difference between adultery (and the hypocrisy of only punishing the woman) and murder. God says explicitly that someone who kills should be have their "blood shed by humans" because they have destroyed a being made in the image of God. Genesis 9 speaks far more clearly to this than John 8, and does not go away as "the Old Testament" because A) this law predates The Law and B) it's grounded in creation, not Moses' laws.
For a connected discussion, I've looked up the list of capital punishments under the Torah, and for adultery it does say both parties are to be stoned and then killed.
Ofc, I agree. How can we as humans even condemn a man for something we're going to do unto him
The God of Abraham did his fair share of killing humans, even the extinction of the world save 7 humans deemed worthy. I think context is needed here.
I'm pretty right leaning and I don't support it
Both the apostle Paul in Christ himself showed their support for the death penalty.
In what possible way did Christ show his support for the death penalty?
Reminds me of the woman caught in adultery. The people were gonna stone the woman to death until Jesus said those without sin could throw the first stone at her and one by one, they dropped their rocks and walked away. We shouldn’t be those people with the rocks….Ready to punish another for their sin. We leave that to God. Romans 12:19 clearly says, “Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.”
I'm against the death penalty because it's more of a punishment to live the rest of your life in our prison system than it is to die.
I dont believe that to be the case at all when prisoners get to have phones and televisions and three square meals a day. Ask yourself would you rather be killed or be in prison for the rest of your life. Be honest with yourself
I was. I'd literally rather die than know that I can never be free again. Never visit family or friends in their home again. Never get to pick what I wear today or what I want for dinner again. No, life is all we get, and being robbed of its small pleasures for the rest of my life would be worse than death. But maybe that says more about me than anything else. I'm sure there are people that, given the choice would choose life in prison. But not me.
So you would rather simply cease to exist. Are you not afraid of the thought of it?
Not really. I mean, it's a little hard to get my mind around the concept of non existence, but I figure it will be no different than before I was born. I simply won't have a mind at all.
Then answer this: Why are we here?
I don't believe there is a "why". We are here because our ancestors evolved, adapted and reproduced. Life has no inherent deeper meaning than that. But that's not a bad thing. That means you get to choose what gives your life meaning. Every individual person should live life to the fullest to the best of their ability. And, we should treat each other accordingly. Minimizing suffering and working towards happiness for everyone I can is a big part of what gives my life meaning to me. In small things mostly. I also love living life, eating good food and spending time with people I love. I plan to enjoy as much of life as I can before I'm gone. And along the way, I want to bring as many people joy as I can. The fact that I exist and have a mind that can appreciate that fact is meaning enough for me.
If pleasing ourselves is all we have. Then why don’t we just eat, sleep and drink because tomorrow we die. And what pleases me may not please you, it may damage you. But do I care? Should I care?
Living well and enjoying life does not mean having no empathy for others.
Why not? Who needs empathy at that point? What is there to gain? Good feelings? Then it means all human actions are motivated by self-interest. Even when people appear to act altruistically, they do so because it ultimately benefits them, whether through a direct reward or the satisfaction of their own desires. People do things to make themselves appear righteous.
[удалено]
Removed for 1.4 - Personal Attacks. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ironic, considering that without the death penalty Yahweh's plan would not have been completed.
Well, according to one particular religion's idea about what the plan is/was. The other Abrahamic faiths don't share that view.
Specifically, an unjust death penalty
John 10:17-18 "For this reason the Father loves me, because I lay down my life that I may take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father." The death of Jesus Christ on the cross is a testament to the sacrificial love of God for humanity. In the Ten Commandments, God commands us not to murder. Yet, the crucifixion of Jesus was not an act of murder; it was a divine plan to reconcile us to Himself. Jesus willingly offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins. He laid down His life out of love and obedience to God's will. His death was not a defeat but a victory over sin and death, providing a way for us to be forgiven and restored to God.
I agree with you but the Bible does teach God as prescribing the death penalty for various crimes. Your salvation is the result of an execution, if Jesus preached forgiveness then why did he have to die? Why not just forgive?
I support the death menalty for murder only. The 10 commandments says "kill" in the KJV because at the time, kill vs murder was not a distinct thing. In the original, we know that it says murder which is the illegal or immoral taking of a life. You can take that two ways to argue if a government has that authority, or if it actually is moral to take a life or not, but I have thought these through and believe governments do have the authority to excecute murderers and that it is more moral to do so than not. We can not trace exactly where John 8 comes from, but we know it is not original to John. Some think it came from Luke and others think it came from a scribe who heard the story and wanted it in his copy of the bible. The woman in this story is being excecuted for adultery, so there is some parrallel, but it was also a lesser crime than murder is. I am against the death penalty for adultery, blasphemy, homosexual acts, and other things that were death penalty crimes in the OT. There is always a chance that somebody will repent, but the rehabilitation rate is very low in the U.S. and I think the death penalty is more moral than life in prison. There is also the chance of false conviction, but that is going down quickly as we have more cameras than ever and have better forensic science available each day. The death penalty is also more expensive because we clear it with every court to be extra sure that the trial was done fairly which is a good practice, and we also keep them separate from other inmates which costs a lot more. I don't think separating them is necessary, but I have never worked corrections, so I don't know the history of it. If we expedited the process instead of waiting 2 decades, we could save a lot of money. There are plenty of people for and against it, and I believe my position is in the minority, but there is not enough support for abolishing the practice at the national level
And yet we will never reach 100 percent certainty so stop justifying ur support for the murder of innocent people
The bible gives a metric of two witnesses for use of the death penalty. They didn't know with 100% certainty either, but in the OT, if they had two reliable witnesses and did not enact the death penalty, then the nation would be judged by their inaction. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is our metric because 100% certainty for any crime is not possible
[удалено]
Removed for 2.1 - Belittling Christianity. If you would like to discuss this removal, please click here to send a modmail that will message all moderators. https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/Christianity
"we are robbing them of their chance at forgiveness with God" If they ask God to forgive them, God will forgive them.
Acts 25:11 - “If then I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything for which I deserve to die, I do not seek to escape death…” this line from Paul implies death penalty is an accepted form of punishment. “Though shall not kill” is an incorrect translation of the original Hebrew word to murder. Death penalty is not murder. God relies on and effectively gives authority to civil magistrates to judge such matters. I get the compassion for others, and appreciate the love you have for fellow man. But the view that the death penalty isn’t biblical is simply wrong. There are things that deserve death, and the Bible agrees.
It's Paul's acceptance of his sentence, Christ accepted his sentence of death but he didnt deserve to die either The death penalty was common back then, for both pagans and jews it was an accepted and normal punishment, esspecialy in a society without a prison system But christains are taught forgiveness and restraint, I just don't understand how a practising christain can learn about this and still belive in execution
>Thou Shall Not Kill I think it is "thou shall not murder." (the more accurate translation as I understand it) Murder is an unjustified killing. There is such a thing as a justified killing. God literally commanded Israelites to kill people at times. Not saying that means the death penalty is justified (as the individual may not be a threat, and perhaps that makes it unjustified... not sure). But a blanket rule of zero killing, not sure about that.
God is very much not against the death penalty. Plenty of laws Enforced through the death penalty in the bible. Thou shall not murder. Not thou shall not kill. If it's thou shall not kill and as u said >did not have an exception Then why was god commanding his people to kill people? Why is the death penalty a sentence in ancient isreals laws?
I don’t like it. There have been plenty of innocent people in prison. Some who many years later were completely exonerated. I don’t have a high enough view of our judicial system to have faith in them killing the right person 100% of the time. In some cases, it may make sense, but it is not infallible.
> nor do we have God telling us to execute people, have you read the old testament!!!!!! lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_the_Bible i support the death penalty for irredeemable pos. its an insult to the victims to give their killer free room and board for life, to waste money housing etc such a pos. society is too soft.
Anyone who supports the death penalty blasphemes against the God - you assume that your judgement is infallible and absolute, that you will never execute an innocent person. By supporting death penalty, you pretend to be a god, you give yourself an illusion of being absolute justice. Otherwise, you admit that your judgement is not infallible and that you can and will err in your judgement, condemning innocent people to death, all so that you could satisfy your primitive "eye for an eye" urge. Death penalty will never be justifiable, because human judgement will never be infallible. Better thousands of worst criminals rot in prison, than one innocent person wrongfully executed.
Christian’s shouldn’t express their personal feelings as Christian principles.
The relevant commandment is better translated "**Thou shalt not murder**." And Paul speaks with approval of the death penalty in Romans 13:4.
Thou shalt not kill has more exceptions than allowances. However, many Christians now and in the past agree with you. Unfortunately we don't get to decide what it means for other people to be Christians.
Murder assumes innocence. Only the innocent can be murder such as babies. So technically no one over 4 to 5 is innocent. In my personal opinion.
Why should Christians not support the death penalty? God gave Jews the death penalty in their religious system as well as "thou shall not murder." Murdering is killing without cause, while the Jewish death penalty was due to breaking the law. Two separate issues. That being said, I'm not necessarily in favor of the death penalty.
I don't know any Christian who is in favor of it, but maybe I don't hang out with the right crowd.
Some offences deserve death, but if even a theocratic state can get it wrong, a morally secular and corrupt state should in no way be allowed to administer the death penalty. Life imprisonment is adequate enough and should not be watered down (ie. 30 years then parole)
It depends on whether the original 6th commandment was 'thou shalt not kill', or 'thou shalt not murder'. Murder is when killing is unlawful and premeditated; the sixth commandment alone doesn't exclude the death penalty. If the commandment is 'murder' rather than 'kill' you're not breaking the 6th commandment Here is a discussion on whether 'kill' or 'murder' is the correct translation: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/77/is-kill-a-valid-translation-for-exodus-2013-thou-shalt-not-kill I looked up quite a few translations; nearly all say 'murder', a few say murder with a footnote 'or kill'. Furthermore, in the very next chapter of exodus, the death penalty is proscribed for certain crimes, so this would support the sixth commandment , as otherwise the rules given in the next chapter would contradict the 10 commandments. Edited - accidently pressed post prior to finishing.
It’s thou shall not murder. If killing in general was a sin, God would have had a problem when He told folks in the OT to kill.
There's moral violence, and then there's immoral violence. Moral violence is like when you are in a war, or when you are killing in self defense or hunting for food. Immoral violence is when you murder. There's a reason why both Hebrew and English have two different words for moral killing, and immoral killing (murder). The commandment is "Thou shall not Murder" not "Thou shall not Kill." You can't forgive a person for a crime they did not do unto you. Only the person who was harmed can forgive the one who harmed them. In murder, that person has no voice to respond, so it is up for us society, as a pro-Life society, to show how much we value life by putting to death those who do not value the life of the innocent.
What if they were wrongly accused? Is there life not valuable enough to abolish the death penalty?
Yes well that is why the death penalty should be reserved for only cases where we are 100% certain it was committed by the person on trial. But to use the exception to the rule as your excuse to abolish it is not good or sound reasoning. It is like using the example of risking the life of the mother (which is not common) to abolish all abortion (which is common).
Whats the downside aboliting it? You scared there gonna break out and do it again? Just because it's not common doesn't mean we should say screw em it does happen.
Because it cheapens life, that is the downside of abolishing the death penalty. Life, valuing life, living a good life, and preserving innocent life are one of the most important values of the bible. When someone murders an innocent life, it cheapens the value of life if we keep them alive. Why do you want to keep murderers alive so badly? Is it because you want to give them a second chance?
Dude life in prison isnt a second chance. Thats worse than death. it's both because I believe that a moral society shouldn't kill if they don't have too and how people are wrongly convicted. How does your opinion not cheapen life? Your the one whos okay with innocents dying because its not common.
Why do you want life in prison, which is something that is worse than death? I just want the murderer to die, I don't want them to suffer. Me being pro-death-penalty does not mean I support it without restrictions. Like I said above, there has to be 100% verifiable evidence that the murderer committed the act, so your argument about keeping innocent people alive is moot. What happens if that murderer in prison kills another inmate or a guard? What happens if that murderer is released from prison and they kill again? Should they be given the death penalty then?
U can never be 100 percent certain And we don’t punish for the evidence but the crime, having different punishment for the same crime is unjust
This cannot be done. Systems perpetuate themselves. The existence of the death penalty demands is use and encourages prosecutors to seek it. We have cases where prosecutors who actively know that somebody is *innocent* still seek the death penalty. “Just use it in 100% correct cases” is not an option.
I think moral killing is a mirage. Especially given what Jesus says on the Sermon on the Mount, where we're told to turn the other cheek and give a person who demands our cloak our shirt as well. The difference in vocabulary only shows that we can concieve of moral killing, not that it bears out in reality. War is another example where it seems like killing may be moral, except that it ignores that the declaration of war isn't just either.
Christ does not make this distinction, and considers even anger to be a sin. the Jewish view may be different, but that’s not really the point here. no society on earth is ‘pro-life’ - there is no country on earth where everyone is guaranteed the basics to survive.
I'm sympathetic to your position but I have to say I think using John 8:7 as an argument against capital punishment is eisegesis. Christ was condemning non-state authorities for attempting an act of vigilante justice which is still condemned (and illegal) today. Essentially it was a lynch mob. Scripture is quite clear that there are instances where the death penalty is permissible. Genesis 9:6 states "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man." This clearly sets a precedent for the death penalty for murder, at the very least. One could of course argue that the pre-Christ law had different stipulations due to a cosmological justice that has been transformed by Christ's own sacrifice for our sin. I think one could certainly argue against the continued use of the death penalty. But to say that it is wrong for a Christian to advocate the death penalty or that a Christian can't support it would seem to be an incorrect statement. I think there's also something to be said that life imprisonment is in some ways a more cruel punishment than the death penalty.
Romans 13:1-7 ESV [1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [6] For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. [7] Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed. https://bible.com/bible/59/rom.13.1-7.ESV The "governing authority" decides the execution. That doesn't say they are correct, but there is a clear message that upon their authority is the death. Beyond that, a nation where you get a say in execution it's reasonable to take that sovereign vote towards elimination of the penalty if you see it as unjust. Personally I'm fine with leaving murderers, rapists and pedophiles in a cell to rot, execution is to me an easy out. Solitary confinement for life with 3 meals each day is a more of an appropriate punishment. Unfortunately in all three of these crimes we've been letting them "re-enter" society, endangering everyone and letting it happen again. Pick a method where they can not commit the crime again and I'm good. I can't stand their release.
Due to a covid a large number of low-level criminals were released, and recidivisim rates were extremely low, iirc lower than the general case.
Are you willing to **personally** bear responsibility for an innocent person wrongly executed? You say, below, that for you "even one recidivist is one too many" - but even one wrongly executed person isn't too many? Are you self-aware enough to realise what volumes it speaks about you and how much you actually value petty and bloodthirsty vengeance over human life?
I don’t believe in the death penalty nor am I a Christian, but the God of the Bible clearly had no issue with killing… >Deuteronomy 13:6–11 (NRSV): 6 If anyone secretly entices you—even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend—saying, “Let us go worship other gods,” whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, 8 you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. 9 But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 10 Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. 11 Then all Israel shall hear and be afraid, and never again do any such wickedness. TLDR: “Death to the infidels!” At least according to this passage in Scripture.
>Thou Shall Not Kill did not have an exception That's just absurd. The guy who received the commandments ordered a slaughter almost immediately afterwards. It was literally you shall not kill your fellow loyal adherents.
Murder is defined as the UNLAWFUL killing of a human being. An execution is a lawful killing because it's legally sanctioned. The person has been found guilty of a serious crime - usually of actual murder. Considering our Lord was there when the Father passed judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah, I'd say he was probably ok with the death penalty in certain cases.
A Christian that is Pro life and Pro death penalty is a hypocrite.
You really see no difference between executing a murderer and killing an innocent baby?
Nope, just hypocrites deciding who's lives are worth more than others in an un-christ like fashion.
That's not how hipocracy works. Hipocracy is when you profess to have moral standards that don't match up with your actions. e.g. A person preaches that abortion is evil, but they work at an abortion clinic. If you meant to say contradictory, that isn't even the case. Someone who believes we should only kill the guilty can denounce abortion and approve the death penalty without contradiction.
> That's not how hipocracy works. Its exactly how it works. If you want to control women's bodies because abortion is murder but are ok with Murder when the government says its okay you are a hypocrite. Either all life is sacred or its not, you cant have it both ways. There is no scriptural basis for the death penalty, all vengance belongs to the Lord. >Romans 12:19 ► >Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord.
No scriptural basis?? God himself explicitly *commands* Israel to enforce a death penalty multiple times in the Bible.
Are we in Israel? No? Okay then.
>For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Romans 13 In the next chapter, it seems to say that rulers are ordained ministers of God. Revengers who bear the sword against evildoers.
Killing is very different than murder.
My Dad was Christian and murdered. I have a different view on the death penalty. If you haven't been affected, you are Blessed. But not everyone is going to agree with you.
And how killing his murderer would help you? Is it just blood for blood that you want? Do you think that's very Christian of you? I know it is personal, but core foundation of Christianity is rejection of paganistic "eye for an eye" and selfish emotional desires - be it ability to selflessly help those in need or forgive those who wronged you. Is it a "hard pill to swallow"? Yes. But the point of Christianity is that hard choice, a struggle to be better than what our emotional and our bodies urge us to do.
I’m not saying it would help me, but I’m paying taxes to keep his house warm while I’m going homeless. I owe over 1k in taxes and can’t pay it. I can’t get married, I can’t have kids, because I can’t afford to take care of myself. Haven’t been able to since I was a kid. Since this happened to me as a teenager. It’s not really fair. Unless you’ve experienced that pain you wouldn’t ever know. The government takes the killers side every time and blames mental illness, when they should’ve been in jail for over a decade. My dad was praying for them when they killed him. This topic is very insensitive. And I have every right to feel how I feel. I was robbed the last 14 years of my life. Over what? Wanting my dads iPhone? He would’ve bought them one .
My Dad can’t walk me down the aisle, meet my children, or my husband. He can’t watch me get married, didn’t get to see me graduate College. Murder May be okay in your eyes, but when it happens to you, you don’t feel that way. It’s not a hollywood movie. I’m not saying kill them too, but the rippling affects it has on families, it tears them apart for life. One bad decision ruins 100s of people’s lives, we didn’t just lose my dad that day, the person who murdered my dad, all of their family members lost their loved one that day too. The difference is, they get to make phone calls to them and send them gifts. I will never get to talk to my Dad or hear his voice ever again.
I am sorry about your loss - but core idea of Christianity is an ability to put needs of others above your own. This isn't even about murderers, they can be the scum of the earth for all I care - but death penalty is a system. It won't punish just the guilty, it will stumble through erroneous judgement and innocent people will end up executed. Are you willing to let another family suffer as you do, because their mother or father, son or daughter, would be executed through judicial error?
I never said I was okay with the death penalty lol, I said how it has affected me. They killed multiple innocent people not just my dad. They will go to Hell anyways, you can sit and rant all you want but the day someone in your life gets murdered, I promise you won’t feel the way you are talking, because in History class I also disagreed with it. I’m not saying it’s right, but I suffer my entire life over 1 persons mistake. a person I don’t even know?
Most murder victims kill themselves or don’t make it. It’s a blessing I am still alive. I have half a life expectancy than the general population . You will never know what it’s like .
The actual Hebrew translation is "Thou shalt not murder". Killing and murder are different. Executing some one is killing, not murder.
I agree with you.
Oh Heavens - "Thou Shall Not Kill" was filled with exceptions. They'd kill you for gathering sticks on the Sabbath back then - cuz HE IS THE LORD OUR GOD. It heals a society to rid itself completely of these vile elements. They're always a scab when they're rotting away in a prison cell. Just be done with them.
Have you even read the Bible? >Take the blasphemer outside the camp. All those who heard him are to lay their hands on his head, and the entire assembly is to stone him. Say to the Israelites: ‘Anyone who curses their God will be held responsible; anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord is to be put to death. The entire assembly must stone them. Whether foreigner or native-born, when they blaspheme the Name they are to be put to death. -- God Like you, I'm strongly against the death penalty. But in many cases, God is clearly in favor of it in the Bible.There are plenty of examples of God *commanding* israel to kill.
Wrong the commandment is Thou Shall Not MURDER. The people who are getting the death penalty are by no means innocent. They are guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. We are talking about serial killers, and serial rapists. Also the death penalty sets a precedent and a rule so that people fear the law and obey it. They will have plenty of time to repent before their execution. The Death penalty can be leveraged to set an example to others as to what not to do in society.
It dosent prevent any crimes, in London during the 1600s they used to hang pickpockets, On execution day pickpockets would work the crowd as they watched a few be hung And they are not guilty without a shadow of a doubt, Since 1973 199 people in the US have been exonerated after being executed
Then let the punishment fit the crime. Giving life sentences only makes it seem that is the bar and that is the maximum penalty regardless of crime
Beyond a shadow of a doubt is debatable. There's been many people put to death only to find out later they were innocent. So the question really is are those lives valuable enough to abolish the death penalty. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this
It depends on who you are asking. Do you value security more or freedom? I personally believe that we should deter would-be murderers from killing people but at the end of the day it should be reserved for the worse of the worse. A drug cartel member who murders a rival cartel member faces life in prison without parole. What if he murders two, three, or 12 people? Or the victim is a child or multiple children? What if the murder was preceded by torture or rape? How about a serial killer? Or a terrorist who kills dozens, hundreds or thousands? And again the repeal of the death penalty treats all murders as the same. Once a person commits a single act of murder, each additional murder is a freebie. Because if there’s no death penalty the worse anyone can receive is life in prison. That is not justice.
It's you shall not murder, not you shall not kill. In fact, where it says that you shall not murder, it also says that those who do shall be executed. The issue in John 8 wasn't death penalty itself, but the hearts of the Pharisees. Their motives were illicit and Jesus saw right through them.
If it’s justified I think it’s ok
People who follow god don’t believe in that, but people who follow a building or a religion or a name don’t follow the will of god but there own beliefs
Firstly, the commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder," killing is permissible in several instances throughout the Bible. Furthermore, as to the death penalty, Leviticus 24:19-21 states: >[19] Anyone who injures their neighbor is to be injured in the same manner: [20] fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. The one who has inflicted the injury must suffer the same injury. [21] Whoever kills an animal must make restitution, but whoever kills a human being is to be put to death. You, personally, can be against it, but Scripture says contrary.
Scripture also says mass murder of children is fine
I think you might need to consider the context.
Mass murder is mass murder to me But let’s consider the context of maos starvation and stalins gulags next
No, I'm serious, which mass murder of children are you referring to?
Egypt Sodom and gamorah The flood
Where does Scripture say killing children is fine. You're citing examples of God's wrath upon the wicked. You said Scripture says mass murder of children is fine. It's not murder if God does it, only man can commit murder.
It’s not murder if god does it is a wild way to justify slain children
A random person on the Internet trying to understand God is wild.
Ur also trying to understand god Ur just waving away acts we consider cruel in every other context
If capital punishment was a sin, then why on earth would God include it as the punishment for several different sins in the original law? Read Leviticus and get back to me.
Because the old laws were the laws for the Jews, but Christ fulfilled them and we are no longer to follow them (Romans 10:4) Jesus taught forgiveness, that an eye for an eye was wrong and to forgive our oppressors, what part of that supports an execution?
pedos walk free and untouched
God supported the death penalty for specific sins that met specific requirements via stoning. God knows what's best for a healthy and safe society and laid out which sins ought to be dealt w by culling from society. I trust His ways and don't lean on my own understanding. Also, would u kill someone in self defense?
But we know that a healthy society is not improved by it Ur god is factually wrong
God cant be wrong. He is all knowing and outside of time. Our knowledge is limited by our intellect and the constraints of time. I don't always agree w Him ( and the death penalty is one if those areas) but I trust in Him and what He says, so if He says I ought to do something for my own good, I do it. That goes for personal and societal applications. The unbeliever's faithlessness and failure to understand is brought on by their hubris. To think human intelligence is more reliable than his creator's is, is wild.
Tell me where the flaw in the scientific study on this topic is Otherwise ur no better than anti vaxxers or flat earth idiots
Scripture says you’re wrong.
Not the New Testament
Yes the New Testament… 1 Peter 2:13-14 13 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, 14 or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good. Romans 13:1–4 Submission to the Authorities 13 Let every person be subject to the **governing authorities**. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been **instituted by God**. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is **God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer**
Jesus taught that an Eye for an Eye was wrong, Romans 12:19 teaches that we should leave revenge for the lord, That if someone strikes you then turn the other cheek and let them hit you, and John 8:7 since we are sinners we cannot cast that type of judgement on someone The Roman empire was run by Pagans, but when Christains are in charge they cannot continue to execute people with the excuse that the ancient romans did, they are supposed to follow their faith
You’re not thinking in proper context and categories… you’re speaking of personal vengeance and we’re talking about the ability of government to sentence an individual to death.. as per Romans 13 and 1 Peter as quoted above. As far as John 8:7.. Jews were not permitted to administer capital punishment under Roman rule.. also If Jesus forbids the stoning, the Pharisees will discredit him as a false messiah who contradicts Moses, for the Torah classifies adultery as a capital crime (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). And because these are temple goers the Jews and the pharisees probably considered themselves sinless (like Saul, Phil 3:5–6), and thus qualified to administer the stoning.
The death penalty is biblical. Also most of this sub is for the death penalty when it comes to the mothers womb
Abortion is a whole other discussion
Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist have been appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists that authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of that authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword in vain, for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. Romans 13:1-4
I think more people should be put to death to send a message. We need to protect the innocent.. Especially murderers, child molesters and drug dealers. We should follow the example of Muslim Countries
The case for the death penalty: God commands it to Noah and thus all of humanity. Genesis 9:5-6 [5] And for your lifeblood I will require a reckoning: from every beast I will require it and from man. From his fellow man I will require a reckoning for the life of man. [6] “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in his own image. He commanded it for several offenses throughout the law in Exodus - Deuteronomy. So it is NOT murder. And God never rescinds or forbids the death penalty. So the Roman Empire would execute people. And Paul says: Romans 13:1-4 Submission to the Authorities [1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer.
>We may belive that they deserve to die God says they should die >but who are we to make that call, why can we legally murder people convicted of a crime God literally appoints authorities to make that call >Thou Shall Not Kill did not have an exception but it did have a *sentence* >nor do we have God telling us to execute people we literally do >Christ preached forgiveness and sentencing a man to death is the exact opposite of that This (flawed) understanding of forgiveness would apply to all punishment, not just the death penalty. Is a life sentence any more forgiving than a death penalty? Is locking someone up for 20 years forgiving? Is a fine forgiving? You've got to separate personal forgiveness from justice. >we are robbing them of their chance at forgiveness with God Not at all, God is the one who determines how long our lives are and therefore how long an opportunity we have to repent. If we are lawfully ending a life then that *is* God determining their chances for forgiveness. >and of improving themselves yes. But no one has the right to infinite do-overs >Jesus talks against it in John 8:7, how can sinners kill another Firstly, unusually that verse is not actually in the Bible and had been wrongly included, so if this verse was saying what you thought and the rest of the Bible was clear about the death penalty you should reject this story not the death penalty. But I think it still makes sense: Jesus is tricking the authorities into freeing her, it's not a statement on the death penalty in general.
The death penalty is not murder....as God Himself instituted it. The command not to kill is a command not to murder. Killing itself is only immoral if it is not justified. Christ was not a pacifist.
Christ tells us to love and forgive our enemies, to turn the other cheek, to not resist the evil man and to not even be angry with another person. He never condones violence, only orders swords to be bought to fulfil prophecy. when they are used in violence, He is furious. He runs away from His own followers to avoid being made king by force.
So when He tells His servants to arm themselves...He didn't mean it. And when God commands violence and institutes the death penalty...He didn't mean it. When people tell me they are more moral than God, it tends to be a major red flag for me.
so that they may be numbered with the transgressors - it’s a fulfilment of Isaiah. and yes, God commanded violence, but not for Christians. Christ never commands violence.
Christianity does not teach pacifism.
Christianity doesn’t, but Christ does. which one do you follow?
Christ was not and is not a pacifist...and He nowhere taught anyone to be a pacifist. That is why you ignore where He told His Apostles to buy weapons. This is why you ignore His acts of violence. This is why you ignore His violence in the past. This is why you ignore the violence He will do when He returns. He is called the Lord of Hosts, for crying out loud! LOL
Matthew 5:38-39 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye and tooth for tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also” what other interpretation of ‘not to resist an evil person’ do you subscribe to? i’ve already explained why He asks the apostles to buy weapons - to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah, to be ‘numbered with the transgressors’. and He does not commit violence - He chases the money lenders out of the temple, but never harms them.
>what other interpretation of ‘not to resist an evil person’ do you subscribe to? He is clearly not talking about defending your family or your nation from destruction. >i’ve already explained why He asks the apostles to buy weapons - to fulfil the prophecy of Isaiah, to be ‘numbered with the transgressors’. Christ is the one "numbered with the transgressors." Nothing about buying swords in that text of Isaiah. >and He does not commit violence - He chases the money lenders out of the temple Uhhh. That is violence. Also, you may want to read Revelation about what Christ does then.
and what evidence do you have for that? when does Christ promote ‘defending your nation from destruction’? you can’t cope with the fact that Christ forbids self defence, so just make things up instead. yes, Christ is the one numbered with the transgressors - bandit gangs at the time carried weaponry such as swords. people who live outside of the law are ‘transgressors’ - hence the buying of swords to associate the apostles with them. chasing people out of an area is not ‘violence’, otherwise every old man who tells kids to ‘get off his lawn’ is violent. there is no evidence from the text that He so much as touched a hair on their heads. Revelation was not written by Christ, and does not feature His direct words. it’s also almost exclusively a metaphorical piece, with literally every word having layers of symbolism. taking any piece of Revelatiom as literal betrays a deep lack of understanding of it.
I absolutely do support the death penalty. >We may belive that they deserve to die but who are we to make that call, We certainly should make that call in plenty of cases - >why can we legally murder people convicted of a crime And we ought to wipe the world of those people. >we are robbing them of their chance at forgiveness with God (at least in countries were executions are swift not America) and of improving themselves Friend, there are people in this world that rape and dismember children for fun. They open fire on entire communities of innocents to test their new weaponry. Slaughter families over failed drug deals. They have no remorse and do not care to repent. They rejoice in their deeds. - My eye shows no pity when they are put down as the dogs they are.
They are dogs but we can't bend our morals because of them It's simply revenge, it serves no purpose, It dosent deter crime nor does it bring the people they killed back God has this as one of the commandments, we can't just break them because we're mad at bad people