capital punishment in America

death penalty?

  • yay

  • nay


Results are only viewable after voting.

Colin

Senior Veteran
Jun 9, 2010
11,093
6,889
✟122,403.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK - SNP
If you use that view then how do you reconcile yourself to the fact that God has capital punishment in the bible for the same offenses?

And should we be stoning adulterers and carrying out all the other OT punishments ?
Should we be fullfilling all the OT rituals and ceremonies ?
We live in NT times .
 
Upvote 0

KarrieTex

HOOK EM HORNS
Supporter
Nov 2, 2006
11,880
788
52
Houston, Texas
✟38,214.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Republican
And should we be stoning adulterers and carrying out all the other OT punishments ?
Should we be fullfilling all the OT rituals and ceremonies ?
We live in NT times .


Oh please. Another one who takes what they want from the Bible to suit their needs
 
Upvote 0

CoachR64

Awesome, with a side order of amazing
Jul 2, 2007
7,292
673
45
Oklahoma City, OK
✟25,977.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It was in the NT where God struck down that couple in church for lying about the money they made from their land sale in their tithing... It was in the NT where Jesus claimed he did not come to bring peace, but a sword.... It was in the NT where the Bible tells us to be weary of our leaders, for they do not carry the sword for nothing....

Killing, specifically in a Godly manner, is not something exclusive to OT nor was it abolished with with the NT.

Coach
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
And should we be stoning adulterers and carrying out all the other OT punishments ?
Should we be fullfilling all the OT rituals and ceremonies ?
We live in NT times .

The death penalty isn't limited to the Law of Moses, though. It was introduced with Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:6), meaning it is for Jews and Gentiles. And the Apostle Paul of all people says there's a place for it in Romans 13:4.
 
Upvote 0

overit

Veteran
Sep 26, 2006
5,058
735
✟17,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It was in the NT where God struck down that couple in church for lying about the money they made from their land sale in their tithing... It was in the NT where Jesus claimed he did not come to bring peace, but a sword.... It was in the NT where the Bible tells us to be weary of our leaders, for they do not carry the sword for nothing....

Killing, specifically in a Godly manner, is not something exclusive to OT nor was it abolished with with the NT.

Coach

In reality-it's actually not condemning or condoning in the NT. It can be taken both ways-it's not a black/white issue...thereforth both groups can find support for their position. Her'es some interesting links
Christianity and the Death Penalty - How Does Christianity Look at the Death Penalty

WHAT THE CHRISTIAN SCRIPTURES SAY ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY - CAPITAL PUNISHMEN

Against the Death Penalty: Christian Stance in a Secular World

And as well this country is not a theocracy...if we were to abolish it we are simply obeying the new rules of the land-just like many other countries do as well.

But so we can also get into the discussion about "the gvmnt in place" being established by Him when we have dictators as gvmnts that opress, kill and hurt their own as well.
 
Upvote 0

overit

Veteran
Sep 26, 2006
5,058
735
✟17,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The death penalty isn't limited to the Law of Moses, though. It was introduced with Noah after the flood (Genesis 9:6), meaning it is for Jews and Gentiles. And the Apostle Paul of all people says there's a place for it in Romans 13:4.

I guess we're lucky Paul didn't meet that fate for his crimes or else we wouldn't have a good portion of the NT to even refer to huh?
 
Upvote 0

Tamara224

Well-Known Member
Jan 13, 2006
13,285
2,396
Wyoming
✟40,734.00
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
And should we be stoning adulterers and carrying out all the other OT punishments ?
Should we be fullfilling all the OT rituals and ceremonies ?
We live in NT times .


That doesn't really answer the question, though.

No one ever answers this question. IMHO because it's unanswerable.

Did right and wrong change between the OT and the NT?

If it was right for God to institute the death penalty in the OT, then when did it become evil?

Also... it's true that we don't follow the Law of Moses. It's not true that we don't all follow many of the commandments in the OT.

We are still not to worship other gods.

We are still not to covet, commit adultery, murder, or steal.

The NT didn't make wrong things right or right things wrong. Jesus atoned for our sin, He didn't change the definition of sin.
 
Upvote 0

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I guess we're lucky Paul didn't meet that fate for his crimes or else we wouldn't have a good portion of the NT to even refer to huh?
In that case, yes. But if he of all people can support the death penalty, then that's good enough for me.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

overit

Veteran
Sep 26, 2006
5,058
735
✟17,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That makes no sense since the entire Bible is God breathed and worthy for teaching, correcting and rebuking. yet another way to exclude this and that for your own reasons.

What doesn't make sense....actually Jesus is silent on many issues...or doesn't take a hard stand either way.

Just because they obeyed the laws of the land after His atonement does not mean something is "approved of" or "dissaproved of"-Paul had LOTS of disclaimers on things he said by "I , not the Lord" etc...

I honestly cannot comprehend how some of you cannot accept that others cannot find hard evidence to support either direction and thereforth make their own decision on it. It seems some want to insist this is commanded, approved of in the NT from Christ and so we should ALL agree that the death penalty is inherently the right/good thing.

I'm not arguing for you or anyone to agree w/my position on it. I'm saying it's a grey area...like many other moral issues. Which leaves people to support/oppose as they feel led/convicted.
 
Upvote 0

MacFall

Agorist
Nov 24, 2007
12,726
1,170
Western Pennsylvania, USA
✟25,688.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
But why would you not want them killed after the fact if you wouldn't mind them being killed in the act? If they deserve death, they deserve death.

I believe that only those who have attempted to take a life owe a life. But it is not the responsibility of the victim of or witness to a crime in progress to ascertain the level of violence intended by the criminal. Such responsibility would come afterward in a trial, however.

But those committing "treason" against the United States in this modern era are collaborating with America's enemies - who want to kill and/or oppress American citizens.
More often they just want to get the US government out of their business. And hey guess what, I share that goal with them. You're right though that they often mean American citizens harm, because they are collectivists who, just like most Americans, identify people with the organization that taxes and regulates them. But in that, I find them guilty only of malice toward individuals. Treason is a collectivist notion that reifies an abstraction. I don't care about governments; I care about individual persons.

Don't say anything you can't take back, the Bill of Rights was specifically constructed to keep this government from the flagrant abuses of the English crown.
Not really. It was more of a last-ditch effort by the Jeffersonian radicals to protect the American people against the power-grabbing Federalists under Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris. The Crown never had an explicit power to tax or legislate. Those powers were assumed as royal prerogatives, but since they were not constituted powers they were ineffective more often than not. The constitution created the first government in history with explicit powers of confiscation and the ability to create "law".

I'm not a big fan of the Constitution. To paraphrase Spooner (whom I referenced in that other post of mine), those tyrannies which it has not directly authorized, it has utterly failed to prevent. I don't want us to "go back to the Constitution". I'm holding out for something that actually respects individual rights and takes seriously the idea of the consent of the governed, to start with. And until I get it, I'm not going to passively accept whatever exists in its place.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sketcher

Born Imperishable
Feb 23, 2004
38,978
9,399
✟377,931.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
In reality-JESUS did not comment directly on the issue actually....so for us to argue our positions as "what God commanded" or black/white is not logical.
It makes sense - but a conservative reading of what Jesus said will indicate he was in agreement with what God commanded in the Old Testament unless he said otherwise. And that John 8:1-11 was an individual act of mercy, rather than a blanket abrogation of the death penalty. I can honestly see both sides of the issue here, but I have shared what's the nail in the coffin for me.

I believe that only those who have attempted to take a life owe a life. But it is not the responsibility of the victim of or witness to a crime in progress to ascertain the level of violence intended by the criminal. Such responsibility would come afterward in a trial, however.
And I believe that rape and slave trading are heinous enough acts to warrant execution.

More often they just want to get the US government out of their business. And hey guess what, I share that goal with them. You're right though that they often mean American citizens harm, because they are collectivists who, just like most Americans, identify people with the organization that taxes and regulates them. But in that, I find them guilty only of malice toward individuals. Treason is a collectivist notion that reifies an abstraction. I don't care about governments; I care about individual persons.
And those terrorists are willing to kill and oppress individual people in order to reach that goal. Helping them is helping those who want to kill and enslave in their mission to kill and enslave. It deserves death.

Not really. It was more of a last-ditch effort by the Jeffersonian radicals to protect the American people against the power-grabbing Federalists under Alexander Hamilton and Robert Morris. The Crown never had an explicit power to tax or legislate. Those powers were assumed as royal prerogatives, but since they were not constituted powers they were ineffective more often than not. The constitution created the first government in history with explicit powers of confiscation and the ability to create "law".
Yeah, it enumerated explicit powers in order to limit government. Where you have a king or a dictator, you don't need to enumerate powers, since he just takes them by force rather than by obeying a contract with the people.

I'm not a big fan of the Constitution. To paraphrase Spooner (whom I referenced in that other post of mine), those tyrannies which it has not directly authorized, it has utterly failed to prevent. I don't want us to "go back to the Constitution". I'm holding out for something that actually respects individual rights and takes seriously the idea of the consent of the governed, to start with. And until I get it, I'm not going to passively accept whatever exists in its place.
Well, you won't get it unless you move to some nowhere island out in the Pacific. Might as well start packing your bags if you really don't like the benefits of government.
 
Upvote 0

MacFall

Agorist
Nov 24, 2007
12,726
1,170
Western Pennsylvania, USA
✟25,688.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Oh yes, the old "love it or leave it" argument. Sorry, this is my home, and I'll no more give it to an abusive state than I would to a gang of mobsters. I intend to ignore them where I can, circumvent them when they can't be ignored, and fight them if I must. That's why I'm an agorist.
 
Upvote 0

Luther073082

κύριε ἐλέησον χριστὲ ἐλέησον
Apr 1, 2007
19,202
840
41
New Carlisle, IN
✟31,326.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I think Jesus being merciful to the woman caught in adultry is ment to set a precident that the new covenant is about mercy and not about punishment for sins.

Now in terms of what that has to say about the death penalty, all I can say is that Jesus knew and acknowledged that by the law that woman deserved death. But by the law we all deserve death hence the "Those of you who have not sinned may cast the first stone."

For me Jesus wasn't making any comment on the use of the death penalty by the government he was only making an indication of how the new covenant deals with sins as opposed to the old. Its interesting to note that it wasn't really the government who wanted to stone the woman anyways. It was a group of Jewish leaders (Who had no governmental authority under the Romans) who wanted to put her to death to maintain the law of the old covenent. And more so then that, they where interested in trapping Jesus who was stealing all their thunder.

Basic Sunday school lesson about this is that if Jesus had said "no you can't execute her" then they could get him by claiming he was denying the law of Moses. (Heresy, Apostacy)

If he had said "Go ahead and stone her" they could turn him into the Roman authorties by saying he told a mob to put her to death without Roman permission.

Jesus's response of "Those who have not sinned may cast the first stone." is a excellent answer as saying that does not indicate his approval of the execution, nor does it indicate his disapproval. Only that he makes the point that all people who are sinners also deserve death.

In fact the leaders and the Jews could not in any way let the Roman government discover what they had intended to do because the Romans did not allow them to put people to death without the permission of the Roman Authorties. (What kind of authority would you be if you let every John Doe vigilantie run around dispensing justice?) So the people who wanted to put the woman to death where more of a mob then a government. If anything Jesus is commenting against mob/vigilante justice.

Jesus had no designs on any sort of government theocracy. Civil and temporal righteousness are the domain of the government. And as part of that domain the power/authority to use the death penalty if necessary. Jesus was concerned with eternal righteousness with God, which is far more important.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Colin

Senior Veteran
Jun 9, 2010
11,093
6,889
✟122,403.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK - SNP
Oh please. Another one who takes what they want from the Bible to suit their needs

To come back to what you and I wrote yesterday .
You make a sweeping statement supposedly related to what I had written .
So that you can put me on the right track , please would you quote my words showing where I am another one who takes what they want from the Bible to suit their needs .
Note I am asking you to quote my words to justify your words .
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

overit

Veteran
Sep 26, 2006
5,058
735
✟17,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
To come back to what you and I wrote yesterday .
You make a sweeping statement supposedly related to what I had written .
So that you can put me on the right track , please would you quote my words showing where I am another one who takes what they want from the Bible to suit their needs .
Note I am asking you to quote my words to justify your words .

I suspect crickets. It can't be backed up.
 
Upvote 0