Public beheadings in Saudi Arabia

[jamesrwright3]

That is the very definition of retaliation.

Retailiation is primarily used in situations in which there are two parties directly involved in a matter. The state, a neutral third party for all intents and purposes, can't retailiate against someone if it was not directly involved in the matter. It can punish them to uphold law and order and to make sure justice is served. There is a difference.

This argument is totally irrelevant. If we had the death penalty for rejecting the Roman gods, you could say "People know when they are going to a non-Roman temple that there could be potentially serious consequences for their actions."
That people know what the penalty is does not make it a just penalty.

No it is relevant. If someone makes a conscious decision to kill someone in cold blood, and they know their state has the death penalty, they should be prepared to accept the full consequences of their actions. Maybe if they thought they could be put to death, they wouldn't commit the crime.

And the state is not perfect, but it is about as close as we are going to get to a fair, just, and neutral third party. You are entitled to your opinion regarding the DP. Go out and campaign against it if you think it's unfair.

 

[Ninja Turtles]

I indeed have not. I have listed the arguments given in this thread from those on your side. THEY are the ones who presented them as arguments, not me.

And you haven't responded to those arguments. You just called them immature and when shown something you ignored you did not defend the statements or provide evidence to support your stance.

Same old, same old...

Jesse Tafero, executed for a crime he didn't commit.

 

[CaDan]

Yes. I also denounce killing by starvation, removing arms and legs, flaying, evisceration and numerous others. What does that have to do with anything?

You see, all those and more were within the power of "those who bear the sword" in Paul's time. You are willing to denounce these methods of punishment and discipline, all of which are implictly approved by Paul. Yet you heartily affirm that Paul's writings grant the State the right to kill. What makes no sense to me is if the State has the right to kill, then by what right do you put limits upon the means and manner it uses to do so?

 

[k]

AMEN ....
I so often hear WWJD... please do tell do you think that our Christ would support the DP?

The same Christ who allowed himself to be mocked, spit on, humiliated, flogged, tortured, and CRUCIFIED? The same Christ who, while all that was happening, NEVER UTTERED A SINGLE ILL WORD TOWARDS HIS ABUSERS? The same Christ who forgave his murderers AS THEY WERE MURDERING HIM? The same Christ who knew WE WERE ALL GUILTY AND DESERVING OF DEATH that spared OUR lives?

If I even try to imagine Jesus advocating the DP I get nauseous both physically and spiritually.

How about this...for any Christian who supports the DP by virtue of guilt, why do they accept Salvation?

 

[seebs]

There is nothing specifically in the NT which rescinds the DP.

[bible]Matthew 5:38-39[/bible]

Eye for eye was the Jewish justice system under which the death penalty could be imposed. It's in the OT. Jesus tells us that it's wrong.

It doesn't get much simpler.

 

[k]

There is nothing specifically in the NT which rescinds the DP.

You have already admitted that Jesus recanted the DP for adultery.

 

[seebs]

Retailiation is primarily used in situations in which there are two parties directly involved in a matter. The state, a neutral third party for all intents and purposes, can't retailiate against someone if it was not directly involved in the matter. It can punish them to uphold law and order and to make sure justice is served. There is a difference.

There would be, except that the state is not a neutral third party in criminal law; it is the prosecution.

If I sue you, the state is a neutral third party.

If the state charges you with a crime, the state is an involved party seeking redress for wrongs done to the state.

In the case where a wrong cannot be redressed, inflicting equivalent harm on the wrongdoer is exactly retaliation.

No it is relevant. If someone makes a conscious decision to kill someone in cold blood, and they know their state has the death penalty, they should be prepared to accept the full consequences of their actions. Maybe if they thought they could be put to death, they wouldn't commit the crime.

Sure. And if someone makes a conscious decision not to bow to the Roman emperor as a god, and they know Rome has the death penalty, they should be prepared to accept the full consequences of their actions. Maybe if they thought they could be put to death, they wouldn't commit the crime.

But that doesn't make the state right.

The question of whether or not people should consider the consequences of their actions has no implication on whether or not we should punish them, or how.

And the state is not perfect, but it is about as close as we are going to get to a fair, just, and neutral third party. You are entitled to your opinion regarding the DP. Go out and campaign against it if you think it's unfair.

I am doing so. I am merely pointing out that there is simply no way to reconcile Christ with support for the death penalty, and that every argument we've seen for it so far has been specious.

 

[Heiroglyph]

I hope our government can one day realise that it needs to set this example for its people. By showing that even a murdering scum's life is too precious to end our country's citizens will hold that as one of their values. Right now the only message the government sends ont he matter is negative. "If you are bad you should die" " If you can't take care of yourself you should die" "If you are unwanted you should die"

 

[jamesrwright3]

[bible]Matthew 5:38-39[/bible]

Eye for eye was the Jewish justice system under which the death penalty could be imposed. It's in the OT. Jesus tells us that it's wrong.

It doesn't get much simpler.

That was obviously not the intent of the passage.
Is someone not allowed to use force to defend themselves or their family?
Should people just not do anything?

 

[k]

I hope our government can one day realise that it needs to set this example for its people. By showing that even a murdering scum's life is too precious to end our country's citizens will hold that as one of their values. Right now the only message the government sends ont he matter is negative. "If you are bad you should die" " If you can't take care of yourself you should die" "If you are unwanted you should die"

Unlike ancient Rome, our government is a reflection of the desires by those who hold the most power in our society. I can absolutely guarantee that if the DP became a taboo issue then politicians would fall right in line with that. Most politicians say what they need to say to get the votes, regardless of their own views.

I hear ya though...it would be a great message to send.

 

[k]

That was obviously not the intent of the passage.
Is someone not allowed to use force to defend themselves or their family?
Should people just not do anything?

It's actually quite the opposite for Christians. We are to do EVERYTHING we possibly can to obey Christ, but the toughest part of that is to actually FULLY trust the Holy Spirit.

I have easily been in over a hundred fist fights in my life, but after I accepted Christ I realized there was a better way.

What did Jesus tell us? If someone makes you walk one mile, go with him two miles. If someone demands your cloak, give him your tunic as well. It is not about doing nothing, it is about getting out of Love's way.

 

[seebs]

That was obviously not the intent of the passage.

"Obvious", here, means "it would be inconvenient to my position were it otherwise".

Jesus revoked the retaliatory law. What else is there? What "intent" do you think He had in specifically describing the exact law you use to justify condemning people?

How many examples do we see of the death penalty in the NT? Many. Are any of them committed by Christians? No. By the Christ? No.

Is one of them condoned by the Christ? Yes, and what a story it was. Man usurps God's role, appointing himself the judge of a man's worthiness to live... But in fact, he judges not another man, but God himself. And God, for His part, assumes the role given to us; to meekly accept judgment.

The irony is beautiful.

And yet, if ever any people deserved death for their actions, it was the men who killed Jesus. And what did they get? His sincere prayer for their forgiveness.

God has shown us His judgment.

Nonetheless... The power of life and death is God's alone. Until we can restore life, we have no right to condemn anyone to death. God showed us this by giving us an opportunity to understand just how deeply wrong our arrogant usurpation of His role was. We can learn from this, or we can repeat the lesson as often as we want. We can keep crucifying Him in our hearts every day, as we judge His creations worth killing.

His judgment is that we are worth dying for. Against this, any claim that a man deserves to be killed is inconceivable.

 

[seebs]

That was obviously not the intent of the passage.
Is someone not allowed to use force to defend themselves or their family?
Should people just not do anything?

Oops, this got edited.

What do you think "resist not the evil man" means?

Do you want to know what God really thinks? Let me tell you a story.

I'll just repost this, since I wrote it before. You're proposing that we exercise pragmatic judgment on when we do or don't do what Jesus said to do. I am not sure it is my calling to follow Jesus only when it is practical to do so.

Let me tell you about defending your family. There was a guy, and he ended up in a conflict with some people, and they were gonna kill him. And his dad heard about this. Now, he knew his boy, and he knew his boy hadn't done anything wrong; it's not as if this was capital punishment for a murder case, or anything. His boy just made some people uncomfortable or scared, and they decided to kill him. And his dad, he coulda done something. Pulled some strings, exercised some influence, just come in and killed 'em. Something. He coulda... But he didn't. He let them kill his son. Just stood by and watched.

Now, you may think this sounds crazy. But the fact is, when his son got up again the next sunday, general consensus is that maybe He was right all along.

That is what God teaches us about "defending" our family. Don't like it? No one's making you do this. You do not have to follow Jesus. The world is full of religions that teach retaliation. The world is full of spiritual paths that encourage active self-defense. Christianity's just not one of them.

 

[jamesrwright3]

There would be, except that the state is not a neutral third party in criminal law; it is the prosecution.

If I sue you, the state is a neutral third party.

If the state charges you with a crime, the state is an involved party seeking redress for wrongs done to the state.

In the case where a wrong cannot be redressed, inflicting equivalent harm on the wrongdoer is exactly retaliation.

The state is a neutral third party for all intents and purposes. You can keep on disputing it, but it is the truth. Unless the murder involves an officer of the law or some other official, the state doesn't take the murder personally as a private individual would.

You are right that nothing can be done to bring an individual back, but that is why God insituted the DP in the Old Testament for murder, to show the seriousness of the crime and hopefully send to others message regarding the sanctity of life. God made man in his image.

The question of whether or not people should consider the consequences of their actions has no implication on whether or not we should punish them, or how.

Yes it should. Hopefully people will think seriously about their actions and won't commit them. They should know if they are taking the life of an innocent individual, they could potentially lose their own. It is the state's job to uphold law and order and to protect the lives of innocent people.

No one doubts there are universals regarding some aspects of human morality Murder is a crime against humanity regardless of time or place. The DP has been used as a punishment for murder throughout history. You can try to cloud the argument by throwing in examples about Roman emperors, but it really doesn't fit in this instance.

 

[jamesrwright3]

What did Jesus tell us? If someone makes you walk one mile, go with him two miles. If someone demands your cloak, give him your tunic as well. It is not about doing nothing, it is about getting out of Love's way.

So what if someone wants to take the life of or harm a love one? Should you just accept it?

 

[PACKY]

So what if someone wants to take the life of or harm a love one? Should you just accept it?

Let God have his vengence he has taught us that it is his and only his to have, To imprison a person for life is enough, Trust me I know I work with Lifers every day. You dont accept it you pray for that person and you do the christ like thing and forgive that person ( easier said then done at times)

 

[jamesrwright3]

, general consensus is that maybe He was right all along.

That is what God teaches us about "defending" our family. Don't like it? No one's making you do this. You do not have to follow Jesus. The world is full of religions that teach retaliation. The world is full of spiritual paths that encourage active self-defense. Christianity's just not one of them.

I disagree One has the right to use force to defend his/her family from evildoers.

Taking your philosiphy, why do we even need a police force? Just let the criminals run wild and do what they want because its the right thing to do.
We shouldn't use any type of force to defend the innocent, and we should let the criminals have what they want.

 

[seebs]

The state is a neutral third party for all intents and purposes. You can keep on disputing it, but it is the truth. Unless the murder involves an officer of the law or some other official, the state doesn't take the murder personally as a private individual would.

The state doesn't do anything personally. The prosecution may take it personally.

You are right that nothing can be done to bring an individual back, but that is why God insituted the DP in the Old Testament for murder, to show the seriousness of the crime and hopefully send to others message regarding the sanctity of life. God made man in his image.

Wrong. God does not impose an irreperable harm to prevent irreperable harms. Moses instituted the death penalty, and easy divorce, and eye-for-eye. God, when He actually got here, undid all of that.

Yes it should. Hopefully people will think seriously about their actions and won't commit them. They should know if they are taking the life of an innocent individual, they could potentially lose their own. It is the state's job to uphold law and order and to protect the lives of innocent people.

Here you almost have the genesis of an argument which might be some good.

However: This argument would also support the death penalty for stealing. After all, the state should protect our property. And the death penalty for jaywalking. After all, the state's job is to uphold law and order.

In short, you need to show why we must ourselves commit this gravest of crimes to protect against it... And there is no reason.

No one doubts there are universals regarding some aspects of human morality. Murder is a crime against humanity regardless of time or place. The DP has been used as a punishment for murder throughout history.

Yes. And what is the Christian view of human history? That it comes from the flesh, not the spirit, and reflects our fallen nature.

You can try to cloud the argument by throwing in examples about Roman emperors, but it really doesn't fit in this instance.

I am not clouding the argument. I am pointing out that we have a clear historical precedent, which your argument does not address.

Your argument is "If the penalty for crime X is death, that is acceptable because people should consider their actions before committing that crime."

And yet, you accept this argument only when it matches your prejudices.

The argument is invalid; it produces obviously ludicrous results.

Your real argument is eye-for-eye (which Christ explicitly condemned) and human history (which we all recognize is full of flaws).

Neither is compelling.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Same old, same old...

Jesse Tafero, executed for a crime he didn't commit.

Jesse Tafero actually is not the best example because of the felony murder rule and the laws of conspiracy, by which all members of a group that plans a crime together is responsible for that crime and other crimes carried out by their co-conspirators while carrying out the plan.

We may want to change or abolish the felony murder rule, but that discussion would be :topic: for this thread. The point is that Tafero is not the best example because he could be held responsible for the crime on a basis other than being the shooter. His case is not a clear-cut example of execution of an innocent person.

Please don't take this post as evidence that I'm changing sides and advocating the death penalty. I just think when a thread has gotten this massive it may be helpful to narrow and sharpen the arguments on both sides.

 

[seebs]

I disagree One has the right to use force to defend his/her family from evildoers.

The One does. We don't.

God showed us an example. Do you wish to follow it?

Taking your philosiphy, why do we even need a police force? Just let the criminals run wild and do what they want because its the right thing to do.
We shouldn't use any type of force to defend the innocent, and we should let the criminals have what they want.

Interesting questions which sincere Christians have wrestled with for two thousand years.