How can anyone justify not believing in capital punishment?

Jesus3:16 · Sep 25, 2011

Capital Punishment is very biblical. From the very beginning, God has required LIFE FOR LIFE. The death penalty is first mentioned in Genesis 9:6, long before the law of Moses was given, and it stays on God's law books throughout the Bible (Exo. 21:12; Num. 35:16-31; Rom. 13:1-4; Acts 25:11). As you can see from Acts 25:11 and Romans 13:1-4, the death penalty is still God's will for today. God has given man the responsibility of enforcing the death penalty, and justice has not been served until it has been enforced.

God is a Holy God. Justice must be served.

Freedom&Light · Sep 26, 2011

Jesus3:16 said:
Capital Punishment is very biblical. From the very beginning, God has required LIFE FOR LIFE. The death penalty is first mentioned in Genesis 9:6, long before the law of Moses was given, and it stays on God's law books throughout the Bible (Exo. 21:12; Num. 35:16-31; Rom. 13:1-4; Acts 25:11). As you can see from Acts 25:11 and Romans 13:1-4, the death penalty is still God's will for today. God has given man the responsibility of enforcing the death penalty, and justice has not been served until it has been enforced.

God is a Holy God. Justice must be served.

While I agree there are many instances in the Bible, especially the OT, I trust God to mete out justice, not fallen, sinful men. Especially men who are not followers of God.

exalius · Sep 28, 2011

Faith.Man said:
Hebrews 13:8 - Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. [NIV]

John 10:36 - do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?
John 10:37 - "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me;
John 10:38 - but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." [NASB '77]

The Father and the Son as well as the Holy Spirit are all of one essence, but three persons as I understand the trinity. Jesus did the works of His Father. The works of His Father are recorded in the Old Testament. I feel certain that Jesus did not disagree with the laws His Father gave Moses, and those laws certainly included capital punishment executed by man.

But why did he not condemn the adulteress from Jn. 8v1-12? After all the Pharisees rightly quoted Lev. 20v10, and so under OT law she should've been put to death. Paul addresses this, I think, in 2Cor 3v4-6:

"And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Blessings!

underheaven · Sep 28, 2011

BlackSabb said:
Osama become a Christian? Are you kidding? I don't think there's a person on this planet who seriously believes that such a hardline militant Muslim would ever become a Christian. Do you seriously believe that?

I am talking about executing people that there is no doubt about at all of guilt.

Good riddance Osama. Welcome to Hell buddy!!!!

It would be a good idea for you to get an education on your country's
foreign politics,ignorance is not allowed in Heaven . :idea:

jlujan69 · Sep 28, 2011

Freedom&Light said:
While I agree there are many instances in the Bible, especially the OT, I trust God to mete out justice, not fallen, sinful men. Especially men who are not followers of God.

Yet God does expect men and nations to mete out justice, even the death penalty. The Bible makes this clear. Why is the ultimate earthly punishment the exception? The Bible never promises that injustice will never occur, nor does it say that a person will never be mistakenly imprisoned or even executed. However, God does still expect earthly justice for an orderly society to be accomplished. Until He returns and restores this planet to what it was before the fall, all we have are God's instructions for law and order. We'd be wise to heed them. I suppose a more pertinent question for Christians opposed to capital punisment is where do you see in the Bible that it's no longer to be used as a means of justice?

Faith.Man · Sep 28, 2011

exalius said:
But why did he not condemn the adulteress from Jn. 8v1-12? After all the Pharisees rightly quoted Lev. 20v10, and so under OT law she should've been put to death. Paul addresses this, I think, in 2Cor 3v4-6:

"And we have such trust through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

Blessings!

Well, if you want to start a conversation regarding God's sovereignty, free will versus election, etc., we can do that. She was chosen by God to demonstrate that Jesus is the spotless lamb offered as a sin offering for all and any sin. Consider David. David was a cold-blooded, premeditated murderer. And yet, he was a man after God's own heart. Why was that? Because even through David's faults, God saw that his heart desired Him, desired to please God even though he sometimes failed. And this was before Jesus! Many of these types of short passages in the NT are there to illustrate a particular point. You've taken this passage and created a point never intended by the author. You can pretty much prove anything you want by taking scripture out of context. Let's not do that, it's counterproductive and confusing for less knowledgeable Christians.

Yitzchak · Sep 29, 2011

General Mung Beans said:
The exceptions prove the rule. God spared Cain and David because He had use for them and out of mercy (and in David's case his son died), not because they didn't deserve to die.

We all deserve to die. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. All of us have sinned. We all die even if we live a long life span.

I think the more accurate statement would be some deserve to have their life on this earth cut short.

exalius · Oct 1, 2011

Before I start, apologies for the length: I had a lot I wanted to say.

Faith.Man said:
Well, if you want to start a conversation regarding God's sovereignty, free will versus election, etc., we can do that. She was chosen by God to demonstrate that Jesus is the spotless lamb offered as a sin offering for all and any sin. Consider David. David was a cold-blooded, premeditated murderer. And yet, he was a man after God's own heart. Why was that? Because even through David's faults, God saw that his heart desired Him, desired to please God even though he sometimes failed. And this was before Jesus! Many of these types of short passages in the NT are there to illustrate a particular point. You've taken this passage and created a point never intended by the author. You can pretty much prove anything you want by taking scripture out of context. Let's not do that, it's counterproductive and confusing for less knowledgeable Christians.

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure I follow your line of argument, which seems to be:

Jesus was the sinless sin offering >> Agreed
David was sinful man, but desired God >> Agreed
Some NT examples reflect back on OT >> Agreed
Therefore, I've taken Scripture out of context (?)

Your last point seems, to me at least, seems to be a personal attack rather than an attack against my argument... but that's just me. Regardless, I'll try (with my limited understanding of the thinking behind it) to answer your post.

Well, if you want to start a conversation regarding God's sovereignty, free will versus election, etc., we can do that.

How does the question of whether an adulteress should or should not be condemned to death be related to God's sovereignty, or the free will vs. election argument? Genuinely.

She was chosen by God to demonstrate that Jesus is the spotless lamb offered as a sin offering for all and any sin.

Are you implying that for Jesus to condemn her would be sin?

Consider David. David was a cold-blooded, premeditated murderer. And yet, he was a man after God's own heart. Why was that? Because even through David's faults, God saw that his heart desired Him, desired to please God even though he sometimes failed. And this was before Jesus! Many of these types of short passages in the NT are there to illustrate a particular point.

I assume this is to connect the adulteress to David, yes?
I don't think it would matter if it was before or after Jesus; as you said, God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. It, also, feels to me that you're adding evidence to my argument here:
1) David deserved capital punishment, but received none
2) This adulteress also deserved capital punishment, but received none
3) Therefore, we should keep capital punishment (?!)

What point does this passage show do you think? To show that Jesus as the spotless sin offering? To show that we should keep the OT laws? To show God's Grace?

You've taken this passage and created a point never intended by the author. You can pretty much prove anything you want by taking scripture out of context.

I can only half agree with you there, I'm sure you'll see why

When I read that passage I take a plain, simple reading of it all (but that's not to say there are no allusions to OT - such as Jesus writing alluding to Ex. 31:18 (?)). So, I'll tell you what I think the context of this passage is:

1) it starts in the evening but moves quickly on to the "early morning" (8:1-2)
2) some time about mid-September (Lev. 23:23-24)
3) The Festival of the Tabernacles was going on
4) Jesus was in the Temple preaching, seated on a bench (8:2)
5) The Pharisees and Jewish leaders come with the adulteress and explain (perhaps over-zaelously) the situation (8:4-5)

I'm not sure if you can take it any other way without bringing something fallible to the infallible Scriptures. But, if I have been mistaken, plesae do point it out to me

I'm not sure if it was intended, but it came across as patronising/confrontational. I apologies if that wasn't your intent, but I would ask in future, if you wish to tell me that I may have the wrong context, is that you inform me in a slightly more loving manner (1Cor 13).

My reponse to you, Faith Man, would be the entirity of Galatians. But more notably Gal. 3:1-3, 10-13 [The Living Bible]

Gal. 3:1-3
Oh, foolish Galatians! What magician has hypnotized you and case an evil spell upon you? For you used to see the meaning of Jesus Christ's death as clearly as though I had waved a placard in front of you with a picture on it of Christ dying on the cross. Let me ask you one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by trying to keep the Jewish laws? Of course not, for the Holy Spirit came upon you only after you heard about Christ and trusted him to save you. Then have you gone completely crazy? For if trying to obey the Jewish laws never gave you spiritual life in the first place, why do you think that trying to obey them now will make you stronger Christians?"

Gal 3:10-13
"Yes, and those who depend on the Jewish law to save them are under God's curse, for the Scriptures point out very clearly, 'cursed is everyone who at any time breaks a single one of these laws that are written in God's Book of the Law'. Consequently, it is clear that no one can ever win God's favour by trying to keep the Jewish laws, because God has said that the only way we can be right in His sight is by faith. As the prophet Habakkuk says it, 'the man who finds life will find it through trusting God'. How different from this way of faith is the way of law which says that a man is saved by obeying every law of God, without one slip. But Christ has brought us out from under the doom of that impossible system by taking the curse for our wrongdoing upon himself. For it is written in the Scripture, 'anyone who is hanged on a tree is cursed'."

The context of which was Paul sending this letter to the churches in Galatia that he had founded (?) because they were trying to bring back things from the Jewish laws (for example, capital punishment

).

God bless!

jlujan69 · Oct 1, 2011

The pattern in the Bible in God's dealing with individuals and nations is one of justice tempered with mercy. This is quite evident in how He dealt with OT Israel back then. First, warnings, then judgment (justice), then, upon repentance, mercy. Even when He condemned entire nations (justice), there are numerous examples of individuals from those nations whom He spared and they ended up becoming believers and doing great things for the Lord. Jesus' mission to the cross was God's greatest act of mercy, yet justice still looms for those who reject that gift. So, when it comes to earthly justice, man is supposed to pattern it after God's: clearly communicate the law and (just) consequences for violations, warn people from time to time, and finally, enact just punishment. All is to be tempered with mercy, but mercy is not to be solely the rule because it's never solely the rule with God.

Faith.Man · Oct 1, 2011

exalius said:
Before I start, apologies for the length: I had a lot I wanted to say.

Firstly, I'm not entirely sure I follow your line of argument, which seems to be:

Jesus was the sinless sin offering >> Agreed
David was sinful man, but desired God >> Agreed
Some NT examples reflect back on OT >> Agreed
Therefore, I've taken Scripture out of context (?)

Your last point seems, to me at least, seems to be a personal attack rather than an attack against my argument... but that's just me. Regardless, I'll try (with my limited understanding of the thinking behind it) to answer your post.

No personal attack was intended. I am sorry if my word choice, sentence structure, etc. gave that impression.

exalius said:
How does the question of whether an adulteress should or should not be condemned to death be related to God's sovereignty, or the free will vs. election argument? Genuinely.

Okay, this is going to be a long reply and I probably will not get to the rest of your reply until much later.

John 8:1-11 (from the Believers Bible Commentary)

F. The Woman Taken in Adultery (8:1-11)

8:1 - This verse is closely linked with the last verse of chapter 7. The connection is better seen by putting the two verses together as follows: And everyone went to his own house, but Jesus went to the mount of Olives. The Lord had truly said, Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.

8:2 - The Mount of Olives was not far away from the temple. Early in the morning, the Lord Jesus walked down the side of Olivet, crossed the Kidron Valley, and climbed back up into the city, where the temple was located. All the people came to Him, and He sat down and taught them.

8:3 - The scribes (a group of men who copied and taught the Scriptures) and the Pharisees were anxious to trick the Lord Jesus into saying something wrong so that they would have some charge to bring against Him. They had just brought ... a woman caught in the very act of adultery, and they made her stand in the middle of the crowd, probably facing Jesus.

8:4 - The accusation of adultery was made against this woman, and it was doubtless true. There is no reason to question that she was caught while committing this terrible sin. But where was the man? Too often in life women have been punished when men who were also guilty have gone free.

8:5 - The trick was now clear. They wanted the Lord to contradict the Law of Moses. If they could succeed in doing that, then they could turn the common people against Jesus. They reminded the Lord that Moses, in the law commanded that a person taken in the act of adultery should be stoned to death. For their own wicked purposes, the Pharisees hoped the Lord would disagree, and so they asked Him what He had to say on the subject. They thought that justice and the Law of Moses demanded that she should be made an example. As Darby says:

It comforts and quiets the depraved heart of man if he can only find a person worse than himself: he thinks the greater sin of another excuses himself; and while accusing and vehemently blaming another, he forgets his own evil. He thus rejoices in iniquity.

8:6 - They had no real charge against the Lord and were trying to manufacture one. They knew that if He let the woman go free, He would be opposing the Law of Moses and they would accuse Him of being unjust. If, on the other hand, He condemned the woman to death, then they might use this to show that He was an enemy of the Roman government, and they might also say that He was not merciful. Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger. There is absolutely no way of knowing what He wrote. Many people are quite confident that they know, but the simple fact of the matter is that the Bible does not tell us.

8:7 - Dissatisfied, the Jews kept insisting that He make some reply. So Jesus simply stated that the penalty of the law should be carried out, but that it should be done by those who had committed no sin. Thus the Lord upheld the Law of Moses. He did not say that the woman should be free from the penalty of the law. But what He did do was to accuse every one of these men of having sinned themselves. Those who wish to judge others should be pure themselves. This verse is often used to excuse sin. The attitude is that we are free from blame because everyone else has done things that are wrong. But this verse does not excuse sin. Rather, it condemns those who are guilty even though they have never been caught.

8:8 - Once again the Savior stooped down and wrote on the ground. These are the only recorded instances of the Lord Jesus writing anything, and what He wrote has long since been erased from the earth.

8:9 - Those who accused the woman were convicted by their conscience. They had nothing else to say. They began to go away, one by one. They were all guilty, from the oldest to the youngest. Jesus was left alone, with the woman standing nearby.

8:10 - In wonderful grace, the Lord Jesus pointed out to the woman that all her accusers had vanished. They were nowhere to be found. There was not a single person in the entire crowd who dared to condemn her.

8:11 - The word Lord here probably means Sir. When the woman said, No one, Sir, the Lord uttered those wonderful words, Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more. The Lord did not claim to have civil authority in such a matter. This power was vested in the Roman government, and He left it there. He neither condemned nor pardoned her. That was not His function at this time. But He did issue a warning to her that she should refrain from sinning.

In the first chapter of John, we learned that grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. Here was an example of that. In the words neither do I condemn you, we have an example of grace; the words go, and sin no more are words of truth. The Lord did not say, Go, and sin as little as possible. Jesus Christ is God, and His standard is absolute perfection. He cannot approve of sin in any degree. And so He sets before her the perfect standard of God Himself.

In addition to the comments from the commentary, I'd like to add the following:

Hebrews 13:4 - Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. [NASB]

It fairly obvious the scribes and Pharisees were not interested in real justice, but wanted to trap Jesus. If they'd been interested in upholding the Mosaic Law, they would have taken the woman to the appropriate Roman authorities for remedy, as they were given the right of life and death over its subjects. So if Jesus had pronounced a judicial sentence upon the sinful woman, the Jewish leaders would have reported the matter to the Roman authorities.

Since the woman had been caught in the act, where was her male partner? For by the Law, he should be judged by the same standard and receive the same penalty as the woman. The hypocrisy of the accusers was obvious. That is why Jesus answered the way he did.

Some bible scholars have misunderstood the text, such as the Scottish writer William Barclay. He is quoted as saying It was a first principle of Jesus that only the man who himself is without fault has the right to express judgment on the fault of others. This is a misinterpretation of the biblical text.

MysteriumFidei · Oct 3, 2011

Do not rejoice in the death of another. Abolish the death penalty!

exalius · Oct 5, 2011

Faith.Man said:
No personal attack was intended. I am sorry if my word choice, sentence structure, etc. gave that impression.

That's good to hear, Faith Man. I had to do a double-take when reading your reply, just to be sure; but I'm glad I was wrong, and sorry if my previous post was a little biting... I tried to keep it neutral, but sometimes one can't hide one's feelings

It fairly obvious the scribes and Pharisees were not interested in real justice, but wanted to trap Jesus. If they'd been interested in upholding the Mosaic Law, they would have taken the woman to the appropriate Roman authorities for remedy, as they were given the right of life and death over its subjects. So if Jesus had pronounced a judicial sentence upon the sinful woman, the Jewish leaders would have reported the matter to the Roman authorities.

Since the woman had been caught in the act, where was her male partner? For by the Law, he should be judged by the same standard and receive the same penalty as the woman. The hypocrisy of the accusers was obvious. That is why Jesus answered the way he did.

Some bible scholars have misunderstood the text, such as the Scottish writer William Barclay. He is quoted as saying It was a first principle of Jesus that only the man who himself is without fault has the right to express judgment on the fault of others. This is a misinterpretation of the biblical text.

Thanks a lot for the insight, I really appreciate it and am looking forward to the rest of your reply!

Your brother in Christ,
Exalius

Faith.Man · Oct 5, 2011

exalius said:
How does the question of whether an adulteress should or should not be condemned to death be related to God's sovereignty, or the free will vs. election argument? Genuinely.

John 4:1 - Therefore when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John
John 4:2 - (although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),
John 4:3 - He left Judea and went away again into Galilee.
John 4:4 - And He had to pass through Samaria.
John 4:5 - So He *came to a city of Samaria called Sychar, near the parcel of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph;
John 4:6 - and Jacob's well was there. So Jesus, being wearied from His journey, was sitting thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour.
John 4:7 - There *came a woman of Samaria to draw water. Jesus *said to her, "Give Me a drink."
John 4:8 - For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.
John 4:9 - Therefore the Samaritan woman *said to Him, "How is it that You, being a Jew, ask me for a drink since I am a Samaritan woman?" (For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.)
John 4:10 - Jesus answered and said to her, "If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, 'Give Me a drink,' you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water."
John 4:11 - She *said to Him, "Sir, You have nothing to draw with and the well is deep; where then do You get that living water?
John 4:12 - "You are not greater than our father Jacob, are You, who gave us the well, and drank of it himself and his sons and his cattle?"
John 4:13 - Jesus answered and said to her, "Everyone who drinks of this water will again;
John 4:14 - but whoever drinks of the water that I will give him shall never thirst; but the water that I will give him will become in him a well of water springing up to eternal life."
John 4:15 - The woman *said to Him, "Sir, give me this water, so I will not be thirsty nor come all the way here to draw."
John 4:16 - He *said to her, "Go, call your husband and come here."
John 4:17 - The woman answered and said, "I have no husband." Jesus *said to her, "You have correctly said, 'I have no husband';
John 4:18 - for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly."
John 4:19 - The woman *said to Him, "Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.
John 4:20 - "Our fathers worshiped in this mountain, and you people say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship."
John 4:21 - Jesus *said to her, "Woman, believe Me, an hour is coming when neither in this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the Father.
John 4:22 - "You worship what you do not know; we worship what we know, for salvation is from the Jews.
John 4:23 - "But an hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for such people the Father seeks to be His worshipers.
John 4:24 - "God is spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."
John 4:25 - The woman *said to Him, "I know that Messiah is coming (He who is called Christ); when that One comes, He will declare all things to us."
John 4:26 - Jesus *said to her, "I who speak to you am He."
John 4:27 - At this point His disciples came, and they were amazed that He had been speaking with a woman, yet no one said, "What do You seek?" or, "Why do You speak with her?"
John 4:28 - So the woman left her waterpot, and went into the city and *said to the men,
John 4:29 - "Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?"
John 4:30 - They went out of the city, and were coming to Him. [NASB]

There's a hidden nugget of information that the is essential to putting this scripture in context. I had this passage explained to me at a Wesleyan church I attended a couple of months ago. The Believer's Bible Commentary captures much of what I want to say, so I'll start off by quoting from it.

J. The Conversion of a Woman of Samaria (4:1-30)

4:1, 2 The Pharisees had heard that Jesus was baptizing more disciples than John and that John's popularity was evidently declining. Perhaps they had attempted to use this fact to stir up jealousy and contention between the disciples of John and those of the Lord Jesus. Actually, Jesus Himself did not perform the act of baptism. This was done by His disciples. However, the people were baptized as followers or disciples of the Lord.

4:3 By leaving Judea and journeying to Galilee, Jesus would prevent the Pharisees from being successful in their efforts to cause divisions. But there is something else of significance in this verse. Judea was the headquarters of the Jewish religious establishment, whereas Galilee was known as a heavily Gentile region. The Lord Jesus realized that the Jewish leaders were already rejecting Him and His testimony, and so here He turns to the Gentile people with the message of salvation.

4:4 Samaria was on the direct route from Judea to Galilee. But few Jews ever took this direct route. The region of Samaria was so despised by the Jewish people that they often took a very roundabout route through Perea to get north into Galilee. Thus, when it says that Jesus needed to go through Samaria, the thought is not so much that He was compelled to do so by geographical considerations, but rather by the fact that there was a needy soul in Samaria He could help.

4:5 Traveling into Samaria, the Lord Jesus came to a little village called Sychar. Not far from that village was a plot of ground that Jacob had given to his son Joseph (Gen 48:22). As Jesus journeyed over this territory, all the scenes of its past history were constantly before His mind.

4:6 A spring known as Jacob's well was there. This ancient well can still be seen by visitors, being one of the few Biblical sites which can be identified quite positively today.

It was about noon (Jewish time) or 6 p.m. (Roman time) when Jesus reached the well. He was weary as a result of the long walk He had had, and so He sat down by the well. Although Jesus is God the Son, He is also a Man. As God, He could never become weary, but as Man, He did. We find difficulty in understanding these things. But the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ can never be fully understood by any mortal mind. The truth that God could come down into the world and live as a Man among men is a mystery which passes our understanding. [Believer's Bible Commentary]

I included the comment on John 4:1-2 for completeness only. It doesn't really enter in the discussion we're having, it's pertinent to a very different discussion. So beginning at verse 3, we see Jesus leaving Samaria. The Jews had little dealings with the Samaritans, and most of the time the route they would take would be around Samaria even though it would increase their travel time. Jesus purposely went to Samaria. Why? He went to specifically to meet the Samaritan woman. Was this a coincidence? No, far from it. Jesus went there to save a lost soul, the Samaritan woman. He foreknew she would be there and what her situation was. But she was one of the elect given to Jesus by the Father, so Jesus went to Samaria in obedience to the Father.

Ephesians 2:8 - For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
Ephesians 2:9 - not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
Ephesians 2:10 - For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them. [NASB]

God's will be done.

[to be continued]

Faith.Man · Oct 9, 2011

exalius said:
That's good to hear, Faith Man. I had to do a double-take when reading your reply, just to be sure; but I'm glad I was wrong, and sorry if my previous post was a little biting... I tried to keep it neutral, but sometimes one can't hide one's feelings

Thanks a lot for the insight, I really appreciate it and am looking forward to the rest of your reply!

Your brother in Christ,
Exalius

You know, I am getting pretty far away from the intention of the original poster, so maybe I should just reply to any remaining questions you may have, and leave the sermonizing to others more qualified. There's a lot of meat in Holy Scripture, and no one person has all the answers. You have to do some serious digging but it is supremely worth it.

God Bless,
Faith.Man

grahamsnumber · Oct 10, 2011

BlackSabb said:
I am talking about executing people that there is no doubt about at all of guilt.

Since 1979 there have been 178 death row exonerations. Each of those people was sent to death row by a jury who was convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the accused was guilty. We are not perfect. Period. We will execute innocent people. We already have.

Tell me, what is the right number of innocent people to kill, in order to make sure we kill all the guilty ones?

james9900 · Oct 10, 2011

Should we have That obligation to kill the guilty? What of the innocent people that are proven guilty "without a doubt" is that forgiven and by who?Has God given us exemption from the ten commandments?

Faith.Man · Oct 10, 2011

james9900 said:
Should we have That obligation to kill the guilty? What of the innocent people that are proven guilty "without a doubt" is that forgiven and by who?Has God given us exemption from the ten commandments?

Capital punishment is not murder. So what commandment are you referring to? If you say, thou shall not kill (instead of murder), you are condemning God. Is that what you are saying?

james9900 · Oct 11, 2011

Its murder if you kill the wrong person. Can you guarantee that everyone that is sent to death row is and has been guilty with 100% confidence? If not, Is it not murder? As far as capital punishment being murder, by what definition is capital punishment if not murder?

chris4243 · Oct 11, 2011

BlackSabb said:
How can any reasonable person not agree with punishing people like Osama with death?

People tell me that there's no punishment that a suicide bomber fears more than death, and that no one respects someone who is put to death for their beliefs*.

(* not that Osama himself was a suicide bomber, and his beliefs did lead to crimes )

Faith.Man · Oct 11, 2011

james9900 said:
Its murder if you kill the wrong person. Can you guarantee that everyone that is sent to death row is and has been guilty with 100% confidence? If not, Is it not murder? As far as capital punishment being murder, by what definition is capital punishment if not murder?

Didn't God instruct Israel to kill every man, woman and child, even animals in taking over the land God gave them? Were the children guilty? So who are you to judge God?

How can anyone justify not believing in capital punishment?

Newbie

and I will give you rest.

exalius

Guest

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

.

יצחק

exalius

Guest

Well-Known Member

.

Church Militant

exalius

Guest

.

.

Atheist

Newbie

.

Newbie

Advocate of Truth

.

Similar threads