Do you believe in the Death Penalty?

[Girly3302]

Same again. AquaFINEa's argument (like all other 'anti-capital punishment' arguments) is irrelevant because he/she is still ignoring what the whole Bible actually does say about capital punishment?!

As for the second argument, it simply is not true that all supporters of capital punishment are 'unfeeling, uncaring sadistic 'sub-human' monsters'?! Anyway, the entire argument is also irrelevant because it is based exclusively on the subjective opinion of one human being instead of the objective Truth of the Word of God, in other words, the argument totally ignores all that God has already said on the subject of capital punishment (does the author of this spurrious argument also think that God is an 'unfeeling, uncaring sadistic 'sub-Divine' monster' for supporting capital punishment)?!

Any and all arguments that ignore the objective evidence of Biblical Truth are, by definition, invalid and false.

Simonline.

I think the second poster made a good argument that the majority of death penalty supporters do not seem to have much humility. Let's pray on the matter.

 

[Girly3302]

Good posts!!!

Originally Posted by WalksWithChrist
Jesus died so we don't have to.

If there is one single cornerstone of Christianity, as many believe, that would be it.

That is the proverbial "elephant in the room" and you can't ignore it.

Read Genesis 4:8-16.

Tell me why God ordered Cain not to be killed.

That chapter speaks to submitting to authority. No one is arguing that. What I and others are arguing for is to have our civil authorities do away with one sentence. Within their own authority to do so.

There is nothing un-Biblical in that whatsoever.

"Many that die deserve to live. And some who live deserve to die. Can you give it to them? Do not be so eager to deal out death and judgment, for even the very wise do not see all ends."

In the cases of Sodom and Gomorrah, and the Noahide deluge, whose hand was it that pulled the switch?

The death penalty is not justice if it is applied unjustly by sinful human beings.

The danger of wrongful execution is too great. The death penalty should not be applied.

Death penalty in the Old Testament:

• A rebellious and disrespectful son. (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
• A bride who cannot prove that she is a virgin on her wedding night. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21)
• An adulterous wife and her lover (but not an adulterous husband!). (Deuteronomy 22:22)
• Two lovers, if the woman was a virgin promised to be another man's wife. (Deuteronomy 22:23,24)
• A fighting man who accidentally kills a pregnant woman. (Exodus 21:22-24)
• Any Israelite who sells a fellow Israelite into slavery. (Deuteronomy 24:7)
• Sabbath-breakers (in this case, one collecting firewood on the Sabbath). (Numbers 15:32-36)
• Witches and spiritists. (Leviticus 20:27)
• Blasphemers of God. (Leviticus 24:16-22)
• Worshippers of other gods. (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)
• Rapists. (Deuteronomy 22:25)
• Murderers. (Numbers 35:31)

 

[Girly3302]

Good posts!!

Originally Posted by seekthetruth909
I can understand why a minority of Christians support the death penalty, especially those who live in countries with high crime rates. Left to my own human reasoning and emotional response I too would like to see quick retribution against people who commit murder, but it’s not for me to question the will of God
I just can’t understand how Christians can use the bible to support their position. If they were Jewish following the Old Covenant I could see why. But the Old Covenant is not applicable to Christians. The problem with Christians who do this is that they only use the Old Covenant to support a few laws they personally agree with and choose to ignore the rest.

I haven’t heard one valid argument of biblical support for Christians under the New covenant of Grace. Only a few that don’t seem logical:

1.Paul forgets to mention on over twenty occasions in the bible that when he was speaking about the abolishment of the law, he was only referring to ceremonial law?

2.The Old covenant moral laws are still in effect but the death penalty for people committing adultery, unsubmissive children, and collecting firewood on Sunday… must be part of the ceremonial law which was abolished…. Committing adultery ceremonial?

3.All of the numerous commands in the New Testament regarding the abolishment of an eye for an eye, loving our neighbor, loving our enemies, and doing violence to no one, do not apply to government employees?

4. The much quoted Romans 13, the basis for ignoring all the other New Testament scriptures on this issue. Lets examine this scripture:3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


No one has answered this question except one person on how does this apply to Hitler, Stalin, Saddam Hussein, and other ruthless rulers throughout history? The one person who answered said that verse 3 and 5 states that this only applies to just governments. Please read the verses a few times. Am I missing something?

Think about verse 4. This is the single verse in the New Testament that proponents of the DP use. “A ruler does not bear a sword for nothing.” Be objective and think of a few different meanings of the word, “Sword” in this context. Weapon, weapon to execute, weapon to intimidate, weapon to threaten submission with, the state’s monopoly on the use of force, a rulers army, or a governments police force. Is the verse, “a ruler does not bear a sword for nothing” concrete evidence to support the DP, or only a governments right to use force?

I also notice people who quote Romans 13 leave out the context of the following verse: Romans 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.

Loving others including criminals is the fulfillment of the law. Is it logical to believe that love = kill? I have asked this question close to a dozen times on this topic but I never get an answer only another question. “If we literally listen to Jesus and love criminals we would have to free them all.” What’s the answer then, should we ignore Jesus because we don’t like what he said, besides we have a responsibility to all our neighbors. Putting criminals in jail protects our law-abiding neighbors and allows us to follow as best as we possibly can, the teachings of Jesus.. We can let God deal with them in the end.

Seek

Does Jesus tell us to love our neighbor, which includes those on death row? Yes. Do I live up to Christ standard and love those on death row? Absolutely not! I fail miserably! As a matter of fact when I hear of some of the crimes they have committed, I feel repulsed by them. I think, how can anyone possibly love these people? It’s impossible! Because I fail, does this mean I should ignore the teachings of Christ? No, because through Christ, all things are possible!
The first step I can take is too not support the death penalty. Maybe one day through the power of The Holy Spirit I can learn to not hate them and one day through the grace of Christ to even love them. Then I will be following the teachings of Jesus. Please pray for me in this regard.

Seek
Instead of an “eye for an eye,” Jesus said, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” —Matthew 5:38,44

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? Matthew 5:46

The entire law is summed up in a single command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
Galatians 5:14

 

[Simonline]

As I said you seem to be implying that anyone who disagrees with you is treating the Messiah with contempt, dishonest, and deceitful. Do you actually think that your interpretation is infallible and anyone who has a different interpretation is dishonest?
You say when Jesus was giving the sermon on the mount that it was only for his present disciples. I think he was talking to everyone when he said an eye for and eye was no more. Does that make me and other Christians who believe his words dishonest and twisting scripture? I admit my theological knowledge is weak but I can recognize a discerning spirit. I don’t have much to offer but I suggest you pray for discernment and listen to more mature Christians like the ones I quoted on this matter. They seem to walk in the spirit.

As I keep saying, it's not about people disagreeing with me since my opinion is as irrelevent as yours. It's about people disagreeing with the Scriptures as the revealed Word of God. People who insist on holding to their own private opinions that are contrary to the truth are the ones who are treating God with contempt (a huge mistake as they will eventually realize).

It simply is NOT true that everyone's subjective opinion about what is and is not true is equally valid. That is just absolute nonesense. There IS such a thing as absolute Truth and relative falsehood. There IS such a thing as a correct interpretation of the Scriptures and there ARE such things as false/wrong interpretations of the Scriptures. Of course I don't believe that 'my interpretation is infalible' but I do believe that, consistent with the Scriptures rather than popular opinion, my interpretation is correct.

If it can be shown that another person's belief is contrary to the Scriptures and yet that person insits on holding to their own subjective opinion in spite of what the Scriptures teach then, yes, that person holding to their own opinion is being less than honest in their interpretation of the Scriptures (1Tim.2:15). It was on this very principle that people have been willing to die as martyrs in defense of absolute truth rather than capitulate and allow falsehood to be promoted and maintained as if it were the truth. If Christians loose the concept of absolute Truth and relative falsehood then they are well and truly lost.

It is not 'I' who say that 'when Jesus was giving the sermon on the mount that it was only for his present disciples' but the Scriptures that say that (Matt.5:1-2). This shows that His 'semon on the mount' was not for society at large but for those who would be part of His kingdom (i.e. the Church). That is the correct context for the Messiah's 'sermon on the mount'. What the Messiah taught as a part of that 'sermon' does not apply to the rest of the world that are NOT a part of His Kingdom (i.e part of the Church) since nowhere in the Bible is it taught that the world and the Church are merged into one so that everyone is treated the same i.e. as if they were all a part of the Church (Jn.17:9)?! According to the Bible the world is governed according to different principles than that of the Church (because unbelievers are unregenerate and cannot live as if they are regenerate). Unbelievers cannot live according to the principles of the kingdom (1Cor.2:6-16; Jas.4:4) and it is totally unfair (verging on downright cruel) to expect them to do so.

The Messiah did NOT say that the principle of 'an eye for an eye' was obsolete (?!) What he said was that the principle of 'an eye for an eye' was not applicable to citizens of the kingdom of God (i.e the Church) which is not the same thing. This is because the principle of 'an eye for an eye' is still very much applicable to people who are not part of the kingdom of God. In seeking retribution for a crime commited against them (which, under the Mosaic Law, people were perfectly entitled to do) people were not allowed to do worse (by degree) than the original crime. So, for example, if someone wounded you in a fight, you were not allowed to kill them by way of retribution (or revenge) [contrary to popular opinion (that is utterly wrong), the principle of 'an eye for an eye' has absolutely nothing to do with 'retribution being compulsory'(?!), instead it is a limiting principle on the degree of retribution permissable for those who wish to exercise their optional right, under the Mosaic Law, to have retribution (because God loves criminals too)]. So, to tenaciously and implacably believe that "the principle of 'an eye for an eye' is about 'compulsory retribution' which the Messiah subsequently 'abolished'" in spite of all the Biblical evidence to the contrary, is both deceitful and dishonest.

Furthermore, I completely reject your assessment that 'Christian maturity' and the ability to 'walk in the Spirit' is determined by whether or not such people agree with your own theological presuppositions. Such an assessment is entirely subjective and therefore is also dishonest (and therefore invalid).

Christian maturity and the ability to walk in the Spirit is determined by one's willingness to live consistently with the Truth, as revealed by God through the Scriptures, not by whether their theological beliefs just happen to coincide with yours?

I don't profess to be perfect but I do profess to be as theologically consistent with the Scriptures as I can be (which is more than can be said for some in these forums).

I will pray for you that God will open your eyes to the Truth.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I think the second poster made a good argument that the majority of death penalty supporters do not seem to have much humility. Let's pray on the matter.

Actually, his point was that he personally has never known any supporters of capital punishment to be humble or to confess that capital punishment is a 'necessary evil' (?!) which is not the same as saying that the majority of the supporters of capital punishment are bereft of humility since the person concerned has not encountered every supporter of capital punishment or even most supporters of capital punishment. For all we know, apart from the people who are supporting capital punishment on this thread, he may only have encountered one other person who supports capital punishment(?!) so it isn't really a good argument. In actual fact, it neither adds nor detracts to the actual debate concerning the ligitimacy of capital punishment and therefore, is invalid as I have already said. The validity of the argument is not determined by the attitude of either its pro or antagonists. The argument must only be settled on the basis of objective truth (what the Bible actually teaches) and not the attitudes of those engaged in the debate. It is no more the 'gentle and gracious' ones who are correct simply because they are 'gentle and gracious' any more that the 'arrogant and aggressive' ones are wrong simply because they are 'arrogant and aggressive'. The debate must only be settled on the basis of the argument itself and nothing else.

I am praying...that God would open eyes and hearts to the Truth.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Good posts!!!

No, they are not, because they all totally ignore what the Bible has to say about capital punishment. They take other passages completely out of context and use them to try and justify their own unscriptural position on the issue of capital punishment.

They are in fact prime examples of the abuse of Scripture (Rom.1:18; 1Tim.2:15).

Just re-posting earlier posts that were wrong the first time does not change the invalidity of the anti-capital punishment argument.

Simonline.

 

[TheReasoner]

No, they are not, because they all totally ignore what the Bible has to say about capital punishment. They take other passages completely out of context and use them to try and justify their own unscriptural position on the issue of capital punishment.

They are in fact prime examples of the abuse of Scripture (Rom.1:18; 1Tim.2:15).

Just re-posting earlier posts that were wrong the first time does not change the invalidity of the anti-capital punishment argument.

Simonline.

Oh, but you supporters of the capital punishment refuse to follow your own argument!
Why do you not call for the execution of homosexuals? People who have sex outside marriage, and so on and so forth?
Why so selective?

 

[*Starlight*]

No, they are not, because they all totally ignore what the Bible has to say about capital punishment. They take other passages completely out of context and use them to try and justify their own unscriptural position on the issue of capital punishment.

They are in fact prime examples of the abuse of Scripture (Rom.1:18; 1Tim.2:15).

Just re-posting earlier posts that were wrong the first time does not change the invalidity of the anti-capital punishment argument.

Simonline.

Can you explain, without referring to the Bible, what's so good about death penalty? Do you think it helps reduce crime, or something like that? If yes, then do you think that it justifies killing innocent people that way sometimes? Would you still support death penalty so much if you were about to be executed by mistake?

 

[seekthetruth909]

As I keep saying, it's not about people disagreeing with me since my opinion is as irrelevent as yours. It's about people disagreeing with the Scriptures as the revealed Word of God. People who insist on holding to their own private opinions that are contrary to the truth are the ones who are treating God with contempt (a huge mistake as they will eventually realize).

It simply is NOT true that everyone's subjective opinion about what is and is not true is equally valid. That is just absolute nonesense. There IS such a thing as absolute Truth and relative falsehood.

In your previous post to refute the proposition that Judaism is broadly opposed to capital punishment. you said that if you put six Jewish scholars in a room together they would all disagree on various topics. These men would be intelligent and highly educated in the Old Testament and Torah, yet their interpretation of various aspects of the law would be different.
I agree with this supposition. {Except when it comes to the death penalty the general Jewish consensus seems to be that it is not applicable to the modern fallen world] The question is which one of them is right? They all believe as you do that their interpretation is consistent with scripture, just as I believe my interpretation is consistent with scripture. You can’t prove that God is speaking the truth to you any more than I can prove God is speaking the truth to me. Where does that leave us in the context of debate? Personal opinion and believing we have a special revelation from God on the topic is irrelevant. In the end we have human reasoning and logic in interpreting the Word of God. Let us reason together and study the Word through our limited human reasoning.

Is their absolute truth? Yes there is absolute truth for us. Christ is our Savior is absolute truth! The core beliefs of Christianity are absolute truth! But other issues such as capital punishment, war, once saved always saved, pre destination, gifts of the spirit are for today, women pastors, etc, are not core beliefs.Christians must decide through prayer and personal study of scripture what they choose to believe in this regard. Telling Christians they dishonor our Savior, or are ignorant in their attitudes because they do not agree with us on these non-essential beliefs in not conductive to Christian growth. We should show respect and patience when addressing these issues and not rebuke each other for a difference of opinion.

There IS such a thing as a correct interpretation of the Scriptures and there ARE such things as false/wrong interpretations of the Scriptures. Of course I don't believe that 'my interpretation is infalible' but I do believe that, consistent with the Scriptures rather than popular opinion, my interpretation is correct.

Popular opinion is relevant to where you live. In America it is unpopular for Christians to be against the DP. In England and the rest of the western world it is unpopular for Christians to be for the death penalty.
I agree there is such a thing as correct interpretation of Scripture, but the question is which denomination or individuals has the correct interpretation? Once again we are only left with human reasoning and logic in presenting our case to others. We can use personal revelation to decide for ourselves, but it is irrelevant in convincing others. Let us reason together in our search for truth.

May God bless you with wisdom.
Seek

PS Please summarize your biblical arguments and I will do the same in my next post.

 

[seekthetruth909]

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While allowing for the death penalty in some hypothetical circumstances, scholars of Judaism are broadly opposed to the death penalty as practiced in the modern world.
Rabbinic law developed a detailed system of checks and balances to prevent the execution of an innocent person, and these were so restrictive as to effectively legislate the penalty out of existence.
it is held that in theory the death penalty is a correct and just punishment for some crimes. However in practice the application of such a punishment can only be carried out by humans whose system of justice is nearly perfect, a situation which has not existed for some time.
So, at least theoretically, the Torah can be said to be pro-capital punishment. It is not morally wrong, in absolute terms, to put a murderer to death ...However, things look rather different when we turn our attention to the practical realization of this seemingly harsh legislation. You may be aware that it was exceedingly difficult, in practice, to carry out the death penalty in Jewish society ...I think it's clear that with regard to Jewish jurisprudence, the capital punishment outlined by the Written and Oral Torah, and as carried out by the greatest Sages from among our people (who were paragons of humility and humanity and not just scholarship, needless to say), did not remotely resemble the death penalty in modern America (or Texas).

It is interesting that Judaism has come to the same conclusion as many Christians.Even if one believes the death penalty is biblically correct, the application to the modern world is not morally right and if we follow the Old Testament requirement in proving guilt it would be almost impossible to do so.

Seek

 

[seekthetruth909]

It is not 'I' who say that 'when Jesus was giving the sermon on the mount that it was only for his present disciples' but the Scriptures that say that (Matt.5:1-2). This shows that His 'semon on the mount' was not for society at large but for those who would be part of His kingdom (i.e. the Church). That is the correct context for the Messiah's 'sermon on the mount'. What the Messiah taught as a part of that 'sermon' does not apply to the rest of the world that are NOT a part of His Kingdom (i.e part of the Church) since nowhere in the Bible is it taught that the world and the Church are merged into one so that everyone is treated the same i.e. as if they were all a part of the Church (Jn.17:9)?! According to the Bible the world is governed according to different principles than that of the Church (because unbelievers are unregenerate and cannot live as if they are regenerate). Unbelievers cannot live according to the principles of the kingdom (1Cor.2:6-16; Jas.4:4) and it is totally unfair (verging on downright cruel) to expect them to do so

.

Good points! The problem I have is that many Christian proponents use a similar argument but then take a pro-active stance politically against issues like abortion and gay marriage. Following your logic the secular government does not have to follow the same rules as Christians. Does that mean we should stay silent on all political issues? Do you believe Christians should vote in a democratic society?

The Messiah did NOT say that the principle of 'an eye for an eye' was obsolete (?) What he said was that the principle of 'an eye for an eye' was not applicable to citizens of the kingdom of God (i.e the Church) which is not the same thing. This is because the principle of 'an eye for an eye' is still very much applicable to people who are not part of the kingdom of God. In seeking retribution for a crime commited against them (which, under the Mosaic Law, people were perfectly entitled to do) people were not allowed to do worse (by degree) than the original crime. So, for example, if someone wounded you in a fight, you were not allowed to kill them by way of retribution (or revenge) [contrary to popular opinion (that is utterly wrong), the principle of 'an eye for an eye' has absolutely nothing to do with 'retribution being compulsory'(?!), instead it is a limiting principle on the degree of retribution permissable for those who wish to exercise their optional right, under the Mosaic Law, to have retribution (because God loves criminals too)]. So, to tenaciously and implacably believe that "the principle of 'an eye for an eye' is about 'compulsory retribution' which the Messiah subsequently 'abolished'" in spite of all the Biblical evidence to the contrary, is both deceitful and dishonest.

Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that an eye for an eye is obsolete for Christian’s citizens of the kingdom, but it is not obsolete for the secular governments of the world?

I still don’t know if I agree with you in regards to Jesus sermon only applying to his disciples. Where do the Disciples of Christ come from? From non-believers. Every citizen of the kingdom was once a non-believer. We are required to spread the good news to non-believers too. Many non-believers in the crowd that day who heard the words of Jesus probably became citizens of the kingdom. So although his first audience was his disciples, it is logical to assume that he teachings had a secondary audience, the crowd of non-believers.

Here is a brief encyclopedia analysis on the intended audience of the sermon.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That Matthew has Jesus sit down might indicate this is not meant to be a public address, and Jewish leaders in schools and synagogues would always sit when delivering a lesson. Matthew also appears to indicate that the disciples were intended to be the main recipients of the address, and so the traditional view, as depicted in art, is that the disciples sat near Jesus, with the crowd beyond but still able to hear, while Lapide feels that Jesus' sermon is directed at three circles of listeners, his disciples, the crowd, and the world in general. John Chrysostom was of the opinion that the sermon itself was delivered to the disciples, but that it was intended for wider distribution, which is why it was written down.

Britannica
Biblical collection of religious teachings and ethical sayings attributed to Jesus, as reported in the Gospel of St. Matthew. The sermon was addressed to disciples and a large crowd of listeners to guide them in a life of discipline based on a new law of love, even of enemies, as opposed to the old law of retribution. It is the source of many familiar Christian homilies and oft-quoted passages from the Bible, including the Beatitudes and the Lord's Prayer. The sermon is often regarded as a blueprint for Christian life.

 

[Girly3302]

Furthermore, I completely reject your assessment that 'Christian maturity' and the ability to 'walk in the Spirit' is determined by whether or not such people agree with your own theological presuppositions. Such an assessment is entirely subjective and therefore is also dishonest (and therefore invalid).

Christian maturity and the ability to walk in the Spirit is determined by one's willingness to live consistently with the Truth, as revealed by God through the .

You miss the whole point!!! Walking in the spirit has nothing to do with disagreeing on issues like this or whose right or wrong. Walking in the spirit is as you said, walking in the truth. The truth is how you live as a christian. This is more important than thinking you are an expert in theology.The truth says we should be patient,gentle, and show love and kindness towards each other. We should treat each other with respect. If we don't do this how can we expect God to bless us with discerment.
In the past post you accused some brothers in Christ of being ignorant and having a mindless attitude. You even asked someone "are you for real'' for disagreeing you. The TRUTH tell us to rebuke a brother or sister if they act this way so I asked you to refrain from speaking to others like this and I asked you to listen to mature christians not me I have a lot to learn, but others who speak with the truth of love,respect, patience, and gentleness towards others.They have true discernment from God.
Please treat others here with respect and I'm sorry if i offended you..

 

[RonnyRulz]

Anyone who agrees with the death penalty doesn't understand the concept of mercy.

This is all I need to say, and there is no debate.
The bible says it very clearly.

Matthew 6:15
But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

 

[Simonline]

.

Good points! The problem I have is that many Christian proponents use a similar argument but then take a pro-active stance politically against issues like abortion and gay marriage. Following your logic the secular government does not have to follow the same rules as Christians. Does that mean we should stay silent on all political issues? Do you believe Christians should vote in a democratic society?

Absolutely (and so they should)! Christians are required to be salt and light in the world whilst remaining entirely separate from the world (it is precisely because our citizenship is primarily of the Kingdom of God and not the world that the Messiah expects us to be a part of the solution and not the problem). If we are not salt and light then we are, by definition, a part of the society that is putrefying all around us?! How can Christians be 'salt and light' in order to act as a social and moral preservative without being political?! In working through the political system in order to abolish slavery, William Wilberforce and the Clapham sect were being obedient to their master in being salt and light in the society in which they lived and working against the putrefying evils of slavery.

The secular government must govern the unbelievers differently than how the Church governs believers. That is because the Church is supposedly animated by the Spirit of God whereas the world is animated by an entirely different spirit and therefore needs to handled differently. Would you, as a Christian parent, treat a disobedient and rebellious child in the same way that you would treat an obedient and willing child (though there would be no question of you not loving both children)?! No, of course not. As long as the child remained disobedient and rebellious you would treat him differently to the way you would treat the obedient and willing child, so why should God be any different with the human race? God has established all human government (on the principle of delegated authority, delegated from Him) for the purpose of governing those people who do not wish to be a part of His Kingdom through the Church. God won't just exterminate them to make His life easier you know, they still need to be governed since they are all potential believers. "God causes the sun to shine on both the righteous and the unrighteous."

I believe that Christians have a duty to participate in all human activities and duties that are not inherently sinful and I believe that the reluctance of many Christians to do so has efectively abandoned ligitimate non-sinful activities and duties (such as participation in democratic government and the military) to the world so that the world (and its god) is free to mold them in its own unGodly image.

Correct me if I am wrong but are you saying that an eye for an eye is obsolete for Christian’s citizens of the kingdom, but it is not obsolete for the secular governments of the world?

Correct. Under the Law people are entitled (should they so desire) to lawful retribution for any crime perpertrated against them though they may NOT exact a greater punishment than the original crime ( hence "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"). But the whole point, that everyone misses, is that under the Law retribution is optional, not compulsory. It is a concession to the hardness of men's hearts. However, in the Kingdom, no one has a hard heart, therefore, no citizen of the kingdom should be interested in seeking retribution, instead they should be interested in repairing the break down in relationship through love (hence "turn the other cheek").

Unlike Greek and Roman Law (on which Western society is based) Hebrew law is not about making the punishment fit the crime (so that the principle is more important than the person) instead the whole basis of Hebraic law was the reparation of damaged relationships, the reconcilliation of estranged parties, the restoration of true shalom (because the true meaning of life is relationship, not abstract principle). From God's perspective, the restoration of relationships between people (made in His likeness) is infinitely more important than conformity to an impersonal abstract principle and the entire Mosaic Law is framed with this in mind.

That being said there are extreme exceptions, such as murder. Because all human beings are made in the likeness of God and therefore our lives are sacrosanct [absolutely 'holy' (in relation to all other life except God's) and of inestimable value], any unlawful killing of a human being is a capital offence. This is why God absolutely insists (and has never changed His mind) that the punishment for murder is lawful execution. There can be no reconcilliation between a muderer and his (or her) victim. The punishment is death. Unfortunately, the Church has lost sight of many things, two of the most important being, the absolute awfulness of sin and the sacrosanctness of ALL human life.

I still don’t know if I agree with you in regards to Jesus sermon only applying to his disciples. Where do the Disciples of Christ come from? From non-believers. Every citizen of the kingdom was once a non-believer. We are required to spread the good news to non-believers too. Many non-believers in the crowd that day who heard the words of Jesus probably became citizens of the kingdom. So although his first audience was his disciples, it is logical to assume that he teachings had a secondary audience, the crowd of non-believers.

Whilst this is true it entirely misses the point. The point being that the World is NOT the Church and the Church is NOT the world (Jn.17:9) "We are in the world but NOT of the world". The way you are arguing completely undermines the fact that there is a massive difference between the World and the Church and the two cannot be governed in exactly the same way?!

Unbelievers MUST NOT be treated as if they are believers because unbelievers are spiritually unregenerate and believers are not (1Cor.2:6-16 Jas.4:4). It is this lesson that has NEVER been learned by Christendom-based denominations (such as Lutheranism, Anglicanism and Episcopalianism) and as a result has destroyed the Church from within by flooding her with countless unregenerate unbelievers who were simply 'baptized' as infants. Whilst I admit that some of those 'baptized' unbelievers became true believers later in life, many. whilst remaining in the Church and, in some cases, even rising to high office within that church, didn't?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

You miss the whole point!!! Walking in the spirit has nothing to do with disagreeing on issues like this or whose right or wrong. Walking in the spirit is as you said, walking in the truth. The truth is how you live as a christian. This is more important than thinking you are an expert in theology.The truth says we should be patient,gentle, and show love and kindness towards each other. We should treat each other with respect. If we don't do this how can we expect God to bless us with discerment.
In the past post you accused some brothers in Christ of being ignorant and having a mindless attitude. You even asked someone "are you for real'' for disagreeing you. The TRUTH tell us to rebuke a brother or sister if they act this way so I asked you to refrain from speaking to others like this and I asked you to listen to mature christians not me I have a lot to learn, but others who speak with the truth of love,respect, patience, and gentleness towards others.They have true discernment from God.
Please treat others here with respect and I'm sorry if i offended you..

The truth is NOT 'how you live as a Christian'. The truth has absolutely nothing to do with 'how we live as Christians'. That is a false 'relative' understanding of truth.

The sole and exclusive basis of Truth is the very Nature and Character of the Immutable God (Mal.3:6; Heb.13:8; Jas,1:17; Jn.1:1, 14; 14:6; 17:17) and as Christians, we live the way that we do because of this fact. Truth is not determined by how we live but by who and what God is. God is still Absolute Immutable Truth even if all Christians become evil murderous Satanists over night?!

It is true, I declared that "having an 'anti-capital punishment' stance is both ignorant and mindless". Tactless, I know, but I still passionately believe that such a stance cannot honestly be substantiated on the basis of Biblical truth, I honestly believe that such a position can only be held on the basis of pure emotionalism, humanism or Biblical ignorance/manipulation and I stand by that position since nothing in this thread has yet convinced me otherwise.

The thing to which I take the greatest exception is your assumption that my argument is wrong simply because it was badly delivered. That shows that you are unwilling to consider my argument on its own merits. What I have said may actually be correct but if you're not willing to even consider that possibility the you will never know.

This is why protagonists of capital punishment get so frustrated with the antagonists because, more often than not, the antagonists, given the slightest excuse not to do so (or sometimes even no excuse), are unwilling to honestly consider the arguments of the protagonists?!

I will endeavour to curb my discourteous outbursts in future and I apologize to all whom I have offended by my discourteous remarks.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Anyone who agrees with the death penalty doesn't understand the concept of mercy.

This is all I need to say, and there is no debate.
The bible says it very clearly.

Matthew 6:15
But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

I am absolutely gob-smacked by your post. You couldn't be more wrong if you'd tried and here's why...

First of all, capital punishment for murder was instigated by God, not man (Gen.9:6). Being Omniscient, God was fully aware of all the honest mistakes and deliberate miscarriages of justice involving capital punishment that would take place throughout the whole of human history (including that 'history' that, from our perspective, is still future) and yet, that knowledge did nothing to pursuade Him not to instigate capital punishment for murder (such is the unbelievably high view that God has of all human beings (irrespective of absolutely any distinction) who are made in His likeness).

Secondly, 'everlasting mercy' isn't 'mercy' it is compromise, something of which God is absolutely incapable. God cannot and will not go soft on sin (which is why He had to incarnate as the Messiah and die upon the cross in order to atone for our sin (1Jn.2:2) so that we did not need to perish forever in perdition (i.e. the everlasting Lake of Fire)).

Thirdly, you have ripped a Biblical text right out of it's original context and 'press-ganged' it into service to try and support your own unscriptural theological presupposition (that capital punishment is contrary to Judeo-Christianity). Matt.6:15 has a very specific application to regenerate believers as citizens of the kingdom of God (i.e. the Church) on a personal basis. It does not apply to civil authorities in the fulfilment of their Divinely appointed role as 'instruments of God's Judgment' upon the sinful acts of unregenerate unbelievers (Rom.13:1-7). The gravity of the sin of murder cannot just be ignored. A human being, made in the likeness of God, has had their life unlawfully taken from them. That is a heinous crime and one which God will not tolerate under any circumstances and there is nothing in the Bible to say that capital punishment for the crime of murder is now no longer in force (even with the advent of the Church). As long as there are unregenerate unbelievers living on the Earth then capital punishment for murder will always be in force because the World is not the Church.

With all due respect, you are unbelievably ignorant of Biblical Truth and throwing out Bible texts, out of context, in support of a spurrious argument (remind you of any one (Matt.4:1-11)?!) does not make that argument true. There is a huge difference between being 'based on the Bible' and being 'consistent with the Bible'.

This is the kind of foolish pseudo-argument with which we protagonists have to deal all the time and then people wonder why we get frustrated when the antagonists insult us by not taking our arguments seriously?!

Simonline.

 

[HexenHammer]

G-d clearly states that not everyone is saved... those who have committed sin, like murder.

If G-d is going to cast these sinners into the fire, then surely it is right for humans to do so as well?

Are we not to emulate G-d in all things? If G-d condems murderers and rapists, so should we.

 

[RonnyRulz]

I am absolutely gob-smacked by your post. You couldn't be more wrong if you'd tried and here's why...

Just to let you know, that's when I stopped reading.
Not a single word more.
If you want to reach people with your righteousness, then please do yourself a favor and learn how to correctly talk to people.
If you do not persist this kind of attitude, no one will read or consider anything you say. The moment you say something like that is the MOMENT they close their mind and ignore you.
Not a single word.

 

[SonOfSophroniscus]

Insolent wretch, would you put yourself alongside God in matters of judgement?

G-d clearly states that not everyone is saved... those who have committed sin, like murder.

If G-d is going to cast these sinners into the fire, then surely it is right for humans to do so as well?

Are we not to emulate G-d in all things? If G-d condems murderers and rapists, so should we.

 

[HexenHammer]

Insolent wretch, would you put yourself alongside God in matters of judgement?

Not at all.

Would you? Because it seems to me that YOU are assuming a higher order than God if you deign to issue mercy where he delivers damnation.