Support for the death penalty

I know these verses. There may be others I am unaware of, but they will do. I know of no modern state which goes beyond 'a life for a life. They all stop at an eye for an eye etc; while it is Biblical it is not practised anywhere.

But the substance of your support for the death penalty, qualified as it is, is that it will be possible for an expert to assess remorse. I should have thought the real remorse specialists would be religious - ministers, priests and pastors; all British prisons have psychologists working in them. However, I doubt if anybody could be certain that expressions of regret, remorse or repentance were sincere.

My question about how long a convicted murderer should be given beforehand is unanswered. It is an important question for anybody with a religious viewpoint on the death penalty. (It is possible to find an answer; thousands of convicted murderers have been released from prison on parole having served the custodial part of their sentences.) We could ask them about their own attitudes to their crimes. We do know that many people leave prison and never commit any further crimes.

A life sentence makes regret, remorse or repentance a possibility; it may come years after the crime.

Whyayeman said:

There is little doubt (at least among informed people) that the death penalty is not a deterrent, yet the idea persists that it is; I don't know why.

Click to expand...

I had basically assumed it's pretty simple - It makes the mob feel good to kill someone who they say "did a bad thing". Even if they all know the victim is innocent.

All the chatter about morality / deterrent / crime / justice / statistics etc is just a smokescreen for what is really - basically - making people "feel" better about bad things. Same as the animal sacrifices / human sacrifices in older times. e

I heard an SAS Operative describe how his enemy was engaging in a lot of "comfort firing".
Comfort firing was basically wildly shooting, not hitting a bloody thing, or aiming, just shooting. Apparently it didn't matter whether they were achieving anything by firing.

That's the purpose I assumed the death penalty served - just makes you feel better and feel safe (even though you know you aren't actually achieving anything).

Carol Walker said:

...
There are a few things I would like to make clear: to kill a murderer is not to become a murderer yourself.

Click to expand...

Morally - I'm having trouble distinguishing
"you"
from the people you want to kill

Morally I mean - you're behaving as badly as those people you wish to punish? ????

Killers killing killers for killing hahah

That's the bit I don't get about the death penalty. You can't (morally) kill people for killing??

CaroleGriffin said:

I cannot form my absolutely radical opinion on whether to support or prohibit the death penalty.

Click to expand...

It is perfectly OK to have an open mind about this.

From the Guardian today:

The US attorney general has issued a moratorium on all federal executions while the justice department carries out a review of capital punishment policies and procedures.

Criminal charges brought against Trump family business | First Thing

(This reverses the Trump resumption of capital punishment, making his presidency the most prolific period for executions in 120 years.)

Whyayeman said:

I know these verses. There may be others I am unaware of, but they will do. I know of no modern state which goes beyond 'a life for a life. They all stop at an eye for an eye etc; while it is Biblical it is not practised anywhere.

But the substance of your support for the death penalty, qualified as it is, is that it will be possible for an expert to assess remorse. I should have thought the real remorse specialists would be religious - ministers, priests and pastors; all British prisons have psychologists working in them. However, I doubt if anybody could be certain that expressions of regret, remorse or repentance were sincere.

My question about how long a convicted murderer should be given beforehand is unanswered. It is an important question for anybody with a religious viewpoint on the death penalty. (It is possible to find an answer; thousands of convicted murderers have been released from prison on parole having served the custodial part of their sentences.) We could ask them about their own attitudes to their crimes. We do know that many people leave prison and never commit any further crimes.

A life sentence makes regret, remorse or repentance a possibility; it may come years after the crime.

Click to expand...

It is a question to be taken very seriously, to be sure. In Numbers 35:9-34, it states

Then the Lord spoke to Moses: “Speak to the Israelites and tell them, ‘When you cross over the Jordan River into the land of Canaan, you must then designate some towns as towns of refuge for you, to which a person who has killed someone unintentionally may flee. And they must stand as your towns of refuge from the avenger in order that the killer may not die until he has stood trial before the community. These towns that you must give shall be your six towns for refuge.
“‘You must give three towns on this side of the Jordan, and you must give three towns in the land of Canaan; they must be towns of refuge. These six towns will be places of refuge for the Israelites, and for the resident foreigner, and for the settler among them, so that anyone who kills any person accidentally may flee there.
“‘But if he hits someone with an iron tool so that he dies, he is a murderer. The murderer must surely be put to death. If he strikes him by throwing a stone large enough that he could die, and he dies, he is a murderer. The murderer must surely be put to death. Or if he strikes him with a wooden hand weapon so that he could die, and he dies, he is a murderer. The murderer must surely be put to death. The avenger of blood himself must kill the murderer; when he meets him, he must kill him.
“‘But if he strikes him out of hatred or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies, or with enmity he strikes him with his hand and he dies, the one who struck him must surely be put to death, for he is a murderer. The avenger of blood must kill the murderer when he meets him.
“‘But if he strikes him suddenly, without enmity, or throws anything at him unintentionally, or with any stone large enough that a man could die, without seeing him, and throws it at him, and he dies, even though he was not his enemy nor sought his harm, then the community must judge between the slayer and the avenger of blood according to these decisions. The community must deliver the slayer out of the hand of the avenger of blood, and the community must restore him to the town of refuge to which he fled, and he must live there until the death of the high priest, who was anointed with the consecrated oil. But if the slayer at any time goes outside the boundary of the town to which he had fled, and the avenger of blood finds him outside the borders of the town of refuge, and the avenger of blood kills the slayer, he will not be guilty of blood, because the slayer should have stayed in his town of refuge until the death of the high priest. But after the death of the high priest, the slayer may return to the land of his possessions. So these things must be a statutory ordinance for you throughout your generations, in all the places where you live.
“‘Whoever kills any person, the murderer must be put to death by the testimony of witnesses, but one witness cannot testify against any person to cause him to be put to death. Moreover, you must not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death; he must surely be put to death. And you must not accept a ransom for anyone who has fled to a town of refuge, to allow him to return home and live on his own land before the death of the high priest.
“‘You must not pollute the land where you live, for blood defiles the land, and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed there, except by the blood of the person who shed it. Therefore do not defile the land that you will inhabit, in which I live, for I the Lord live among the Israelites.’”

Although we live in a very different time and culture from the Israelites of that time period, this kind of judgement could still be employed. That being said, it could be argued that Jesus said something different in the New Testament. Matthew 5:38-41. "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist the evildoer. But whoever strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other to him as well. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your coat also. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two."

These verses could be understood as saying that you do not repay back in kind what you receive. But I think the two contexts(Numbers and Matthew) are very different. While Matthew appears to be speaking on a personal, individual level, Numbers seems to be more generally applied. In other words, when someone is trying to oppress you personally, do not fight back because violence is not the Lord's way. But if someone has already committed an act of violence they could never take back(murder) they shall be punished according to their crime. Provided their crime is understood in the truest sense.
Does this answer your question, or did I mis-speak?

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Your earlier post suggested that unrepentant murderers should be executed only if we could be sure that they were without repentance. (Let us assume that guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.) I wondered about how much time should be allowed for murderers to express remorse.

Your Old Testament reference makes no allowance for remorse at all and does not bother with niceties such as a trial or judge and jury. The New Testament reference seems to rule out capital punishment altogether.

It seems to be a problem with many issues; the Bible points both ways. I do not really understand the distinction you make about the Old and New Testament versions. The law on murder is general but it is always applied to individual cases. I thought that when it comes to deciding between Old Testament laws and the direct word of Christ a declared Christian would accept the latter.

Carol Walker said:

The murderer must surely be put to death. The avenger of blood himself must kill the murderer; when he meets him, he must kill him.

Click to expand...

In my view we really can't have the law being taken into the hands of avengers. That strikes at the very heart of justice which is meant to be impartial and removed from ideas of revenge. That strikes me as barbaric.

Of course I go further; I consider that capital punishment is always barbaric in all circumstances. It seems that this view has a wide acceptance among advanced countries since a great number of them have stopped executing murderers.

Whyayeman said:

Thank you for your thoughtful post.

Your earlier post suggested that unrepentant murderers should be executed only if we could be sure that they were without repentance. (Let us assume that guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt.) I wondered about how much time should be allowed for murderers to express remorse.

Your Old Testament reference makes no allowance for remorse at all and does not bother with niceties such as a trial or judge and jury. The New Testament reference seems to rule out capital punishment altogether.

It seems to be a problem with many issues; the Bible points both ways. I do not really understand the distinction you make about the Old and New Testament versions. The law on murder is general but it is always applied to individual cases. I thought that when it comes to deciding between Old Testament laws and the direct word of Christ a declared Christian would accept the latter.



In my view we really can't have the law being taken into the hands of avengers. That strikes at the very heart of justice which is meant to be impartial and removed from ideas of revenge. That strikes me as barbaric.

Of course I go further; I consider that capital punishment is always barbaric in all circumstances. It seems that this view has a wide acceptance among advanced countries since a great number of them have stopped executing murderers.

Click to expand...

I understand how it appears that the Bible points both ways in many areas. I had a great deal of problems with that myself before becoming a Christian. What I came to understand is that in the areas where my Lord seems to contradict Himself, I must look further and understand that there is a wider context His words can apply to. What I'm trying to say is that in this case, the case of punishment by death, the Old Testament says one thing and the New Testament says another, yes? Or at least that's how it looks. In the Old Testament it's all like "When the murderer is judged (there is an actual trial spoken of, it's right at the beginning of my last post) and found guilty, he shall surely die!" Meanwhile the New Testament talks about "Don't lash back at those who hurt you, that's not Christ-like!"

I would argue that these are different situations requiring different responses. The New Testament speaks of conflict coming at you, the reader. That's what I meant about a more personal level. In this context, even if your attacker were to kill you, you wouldn't do anything about it(partly 'cause you'd be dead) because so far nothing he's done warrants any response from you but submission and love. There's a lot to be said here however. Suppose he beats you? Suppose he abuses you? Suppose he mistreats you in some way that you feel needs to be answered. Well, that, I believe, is where the ruling of Numbers can come in.

I'm going to use a different verse than the ones in Numbers now, however, as it has occurred to me that there is a better, more straight-forward section I could implement. Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God's image God has made humankind." That gets across my Lord's view of murder and it's appropriate punishment pretty clearly, I think.

Honestly, I understand to some degree why people think capital punishment is barbaric and should be stopped. But to me, it doesn't matter whether the world decides that they're stopping capital punishment. I am basing my ideas and decisions on the Word of God and that is more solid a foundation than any group of political brains this world possesses.

I have to respect your position, though of course I do not share it. I will not try to argue against your view any further, in part because I think I detect some conflict in reconciling the Old and New Testaments.

Carol Walker said:

Honestly, I understand to some degree why people think capital punishment is barbaric and should be stopped.

Click to expand...

If you look beyond the USA you see that the death penalty has already been put aside in nearly every advanced country in the world, in most cases decades ago and in some, more than a century.

Well, is there any interest you have in discussing the conflict you said you detected? If not, I understand and I'll sign off, as my point has been made.

Carol Walker said:

I would argue that these are different situations requiring different responses.

Click to expand...

They look the same to me. I do not understand the distinction you tried to make. The Old Testament insists on the death penalty and makes no bones about it. This is true of your Numbers and Genesis quotations. The New Testament, especially the Gospels, urges mercy and restraint.

I want to respect your Christianity; if there is a difference between the Old and New Testaments I would have thought the Words of Christ in the Gospels over-ruled Genesis and Numbers. I do not share your faith yet I still prefer the Gospels' humane stance to the barbarism of ancient nomadic tribes with the blood lust expressed in those OT quotations.

Whyayeman said:

They look the same to me. I do not understand the distinction you tried to make. The Old Testament insists on the death penalty and makes no bones about it. This is true of your Numbers and Genesis quotations. The New Testament, especially the Gospels, urges mercy and restraint.

I want to respect your Christianity; if there is a difference between the Old and New Testaments I would have thought the Words of Christ in the Gospels over-ruled Genesis and Numbers. I do not share your faith yet I still prefer the Gospels' humane stance to the barbarism of ancient nomadic tribes with the blood lust expressed in those OT quotations.

Click to expand...

Okay, here's something else then. You say you see a difference between the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament, the Lord condones the death of a murderer while in the New Testament, He tells us not to take vengeance for our wrong, correct?

In Matthew 5:17-18 it says "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things, but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place."
Genesis 9:6, "Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God's image God has made humankind."
Hebrews 13:8, "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever."
Exodus 21:12-14, "Whoever strikes someone so that he dies must surely be put to death. But if he does not do it with premeditation, but it happens by accident, then I will appoint for you a place where he may flee. But if a man willfully attacks his neighbor to kill him cunningly, you will take him even from my altar that he may die."
These are a few verses concerning both God's Word on murder and His unchanging ways.

Job 34:10-12, "Therefore, listen to me, you men of understanding. Far be it from God to do wickedness, from the Almighty to do evil. For He repays a person for his work, and according to the conduct of a person, He causes the consequences to find Him. Indeed, in truth, God does not act wickedly, and the Almighty does not pervert justice."
Acts 5:1-11, "Now a man named Ananias, together with Sapphira his wife, sold a piece of property. He kept back for himself part of the proceeds with his wife’s knowledge; he brought only part of it and placed it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and keep back for yourself part of the proceeds from the sale of the land? Before it was sold, did it not belong to you? And when it was sold, was the money not at your disposal? How have you thought up this deed in your heart? You have not lied to people but to God!” When Ananias heard these words he collapsed and died, and great fear gripped all who heard about it. So the young men came, wrapped him up, carried him out, and buried him. After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, but she did not know what had happened. Peter said to her, “Tell me, were the two of you paid this amount for the land?” Sapphira said, “Yes, that much.” Peter then told her, “Why have you agreed together to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out!” At once she collapsed at his feet and died. So when the young men came in, they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear gripped the whole church and all who heard about these things.
Deuteronomy 32:4, "As for the Rock, His work is perfect, for all His ways are just. He is a reliable God who is never unjust, He is fair and upright."
These verses explain how God is righteous in all His ways, how He is a just God, punishing every wrongdoing perfectly, even if that's not what it looks like to us.

These last verses will be concerning God's love and His constancy.
James 1:17, "All generous giving and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or the slightest hint of change."
Psalm 86:15, "But you, o Lord, are a compassionate and merciful God. You are patient and demonstrate great loyal love and faithfulness."
Hebrews 6:17-18, "In the same way, God wanted to demonstrate more clearly to the heirs of the promise that His purpose was unchangeable, and so He intervened with an oath, so that we who have found refuge in Him may find strong encouragement to hold fast to the hope set before us through two unchangeable things, since it is impossible for God to lie."
Deuteronomy 7:9-10, "So realize that the Lord your God is the true God, the faithful God who keeps covenant faithfully with those who love Him and keep His commandments, to a thousand generations, but who pays back those who hate Him as they deserve and destroys them. He will not ignore those who hate Him but will repay them as they deserve!"
Numbers 23:19, "God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a human being, that He should change His mind. Has He said, and will He not do it? Or has He spoken and will He not make it happen?"

I know this is a long, long post, but each verse is important and carefully selected. This is why I believe there is no difference between the teachings of the Old and the New Testaments. They may look different, but as the Bible clearly teaches, the Lord does not go back on His word. And He has declared that for the one who sheds blood, who willfully kills, they shall and must be killed.

Carol Walker said:

Whoever strikes someone so that he dies must surely be put to death.

Click to expand...

Carol Walker said:

in the New Testament, He tells us not to take vengeance for our wrong, correct?

Click to expand...

To me these two are pretty well diametrically opposite.

I notice in your Biblical quotations only one is from the Gospels, and it is not especially relevant to our discussion:

Carol Walker said:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things, but to fulfill them.

Click to expand...

It is arguable that Matthew means that the Hebrew laws are being changed by this, but this text is usually taken to mean that He is indeed the Messiah. I do not think there is anything in the Gospels (as opposed to the rest of the New Testament) which directly addresses the issue, unless it is in the plea to 'turn the other cheek' - invoking compassion rather than revenge. (The other quotation is from James, whose inclusion in the New Testament is a bit of a fluke in my view, but in any case does not add much to our discussion; it is not really about justice, rather it is about generosity. The Hebrews quotation seems irrelevant.)

I understand that the Bible has authority for you; but not for me. For me the Old Testament quotes above are evidence a vengeful, inhumane attitude, while the Gospels advocate mercy. That is what I thought you were having difficulty with. Respectfully, I don't think that is resolved by your diligent post.

Whyayeman said:

To me these two are pretty well diametrically opposite.

I notice in your Biblical quotations only one is from the Gospels, and it is not especially relevant to our discussion:




It is arguable that Matthew means that the Hebrew laws are being changed by this, but this text is usually taken to mean that He is indeed the Messiah. I do not think there is anything in the Gospels (as opposed to the rest of the New Testament) which directly addresses the issue, unless it is in the plea to 'turn the other cheek' - invoking compassion rather than revenge. (The other quotation is from James, whose inclusion in the New Testament is a bit of a fluke in my view, but in any case does not add much to our discussion; it is not really about justice, rather it is about generosity. The Hebrews quotation seems irrelevant.)

I understand that the Bible has authority for you; but not for me. For me the Old Testament quotes above are evidence a vengeful, inhumane attitude, while the Gospels advocate mercy. That is what I thought you were having difficulty with. Respectfully, I don't think that is resolved by your diligent post.

Click to expand...

I'm confused. If the Bible has little to no authority for you, why are you asking me to explain the areas of it that appear to contradict? The only way I can do this is to delve into the Scriptures further and try to show how it doesn't contradict itself at all. It is the Bible, the Word of God, who cannot lie and does not change(therefore never contradicting Himself). Many of the verses I gave above were supposed to help explain that though the Bible does seem to contradict itself, that's not possible because it was written by people who were inspired by the Holy Spirit. That is, one of the three persons of God. You've read the Scriptures, or I'm misreading your posts, so I believe you would know this.

I was attempting, with a lot of verses and some reference to their application, to say this: the Lord declared murder to be punishable by death. He does not waver in His decisions. Once He has made a decision regarding a particular circumstance or person, He does not retract that decision. He does not overturn it later, for it is the Word of God and stands for all time. If He wants His decision to be a one-time deal, He makes it clear in the Scriptures. Ergo, murder should be punished by death.

The Lord is perfect in all His ways. He is God, that's kind of what "God" means. A perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing and all-present Creator who deserves all the authority and worship because He is God. (It's strange to me how many people do not seem to understand what is meant by the word "God". They keep attempting to hold the Lord accountable for His actions as though He were someone who could be held accountable by imperfect, sinful, mortal creatures like ourselves. That makes no sense to me.) I put the Acts verse in there to show that certain acts against God are also punishable by death, as in the scene I presented, two people were lying, not just to the Apostles, but to God Himself by trying to hide from His chosen Disciples what they had done. And yet God is perfect.

Lastly, the Lord, though He declares that murder should be punished by death and He will punish those who rebel against Him, yet He is slow to actual anger. He will give us chance after chance concerning our salvation, repentance and apology to Him. He is merciful and loving towards us. But He does not change. He still commands that a murderer be killed if the act was purposeful. He loves us as His children, He punishes those who are sinful and rebellious(as a Father would) and does not ever change from what He has commanded.

If I thought the Lord had an inconsistency in His Word somewhere, He would be imperfect because He could be wrong. If He could be wrong, He would be unworthy of worship as God. I didn't become His child without realizing this and examining it. (Also I'm not angry, although I can see my words may be taken that way, I'm just trying to speak very seriously and with conviction. Repeat: I'm not mad. I would welcome more correspondence.)

I don't think you are angry, and certainly not with me.

I see that you support the death penalty because you believe that the revealed Word of God decrees it. You see that I am opposed because I regard it as barbaric. It is an irreconcilable difference. In addition, I see that the Bible is inconsistent on the subject (no need for more extracts!) - in particular the Old Testament vengefulness is at odds with the gospels' message of forgiveness and mercy.

Many professed Christians have a view much closer to mine than to yours. As has been said already, the death penalty has either been abolished or has lapsed in most countries; in America the practice has reduced in frequency in those states that have retained it.

There are many convicted murderers who have served their sentence and gone on to live useful, virtuous lives on release. These men and women have had opportunities to live well. Would you agree, that is better than putting them to death?

Whyayeman said:

I don't think you are angry, and certainly not with me.

I see that you support the death penalty because you believe that the revealed Word of God decrees it. You see that I am opposed because I regard it as barbaric. It is an irreconcilable difference. In addition, I see that the Bible is inconsistent on the subject (no need for more extracts!) - in particular the Old Testament vengefulness is at odds with the gospels' message of forgiveness and mercy.

Many professed Christians have a view much closer to mine than to yours. As has been said already, the death penalty has either been abolished or has lapsed in most countries; in America the practice has reduced in frequency in those states that have retained it.

There are many convicted murderers who have served their sentence and gone on to live useful, virtuous lives on release. These men and women have had opportunities to live well. Would you agree, that is better than putting them to death?

Click to expand...

...It is a good question. However, as I am a Christian, the idea of a useful or virtuous life is always going to be centered on whether or not the person living that life is serving God.

Perhaps you are right to say our differences on this subject are irreconcilable, as our views on the Truth differ so drastically. I will always believe that a life served in defiance to God is already one of spiritual death. If someone has killed, they should die as punishment. That sentence does not apply to those who kill the murderers. They have carried out the punishment decreed by God. If those people who served their sentence have gone on to live good lives in the view of the world(those who do not believe in God) then, to a degree I am happy they did. But in another sense, I think faithfulness to the Lord is primary. Not saying I believe everyone should kill a murderer. Only those who have the responsibility and training should be allowed to take on this task. But the world's authorities are not mainly Christian, or even the same type of Christian as myself. They handle their affairs the way they wish, and that's their job. I've made my point.

I agree that you have made your point; you have stuck faithfully to your guns. The only issue that remains is the scope for repentance which the death penalty renders impossible.

Carol Walker said:

If those people who served their sentence have gone on to live good lives in the view of the world (those who do not believe in God) then, to a degree I am happy they did.

Click to expand...

Murderers have gone on to lead virtuous lives on release; that is not just the view of unbelievers; Christians of many denominations agree. There are too many examples to count. The Christian religion requires its followers to refrain from judgment; you will know better than me the Biblical references. I thought every type of Christian would be bound to agree on this point.

You guessed correctly that I have some knowledge of the scriptures; I had a proper Christian upbringing, received a conventional spiritual education, and have a reasonable working knowledge of the Christian religion. I simply never believed in it.

Yet I am the one who advocates a humane, compassionate view on the subject while (only some) professed Christians insist on the barbarity of ancient times and use the Bible as justification. The Gospel's message of love for our fellows is trumped by the Old Testament's vengeful blood-lust. I do not think you have addressed this.

Whyayeman said:

I agree that you have made your point; you have stuck faithfully to your guns. The only issue that remains is the scope for repentance which the death penalty renders impossible.



Murderers have gone on to lead virtuous lives on release; that is not just the view of unbelievers; Christians of many denominations agree. There are too many examples to count. The Christian religion requires its followers to refrain from judgment; you will know better than me the Biblical references. I thought every type of Christian would be bound to agree on this point.

You guessed correctly that I have some knowledge of the scriptures; I had a proper Christian upbringing, received a conventional spiritual education, and have a reasonable working knowledge of the Christian religion. I simply never believed in it.

Yet I am the one who advocates a humane, compassionate view on the subject while (only some) professed Christians insist on the barbarity of ancient times and use the Bible as justification. The Gospel's message of love for our fellows is trumped by the Old Testament's vengeful blood-lust. I do not think you have addressed this.

Click to expand...

Vengeful blood-lust? I would argue that's a straw-man of the original text and its meaning. I've already stated that the Lord does not change. But I will add that people do, which means their interpretations of what the Lord says change. I have no doubt that you are right when you say that many (if not most) people disagree with the death penalty. But, though you may not take the Bible as an authority, you may recognize the real-world examples of this statement: Romans 12:2 "Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God-what is good, well-pleasing and perfect." This is a hard task, particularly for those Christians who desire the approval of others in addition to/more than that of our Lord. I find it tremendously difficult, day by day, to live like Christ around my co-workers and friends because I like it when they like me. But I have to remember that, according to James 4:4 "Adulterers! Do you not know that friendship means hostility towards God? So whoever decides to be the world's friend makes himself God's enemy." There's a lot to unpack in that sentence, but I will focus on this point: as a Christian, a daughter of God, I can have friends who are sinners, but I must always uphold the values and principles of my God as higher and more important than their values.

Again, a very hard lesson, and one that's easy to either give up on to some degree, or to misinterpret. The only reason I claim to have a good understanding of this verse is because I was brought up by a Christian father who studied logic and the Bible extensively. He's taught me a lot, including this.

Back to what your last paragraph. As a Christian, most of what you said there confused me. "Yet I am the one who advocates a humane, compassionate view on the subject..." I'll start there, if you don't mind. What is humane or compassionate about letting a murderer serve a sentence in prison instead of giving them the death penalty? One view: to be sure, it's considered humane to the prisoner. They get a chance at change and redemption. They get a chance to be a normal part of society again. But what about the families or friends of those they killed? Not all of them will want the murderer to just serve time. Some will want "justice". The murderer's death. Is letting the murderer live a humane and compassionate thing to do to those people? And wouldn't the act of letting the murderer live instead be mercy, not justice itself? "I want to see justice done." Isn't that what some victims say?

Another view: you say that your view on the death penalty is humane and compassionate period. Implying that letting the murderer live is a given good. "...(only some) professed Christians insist on the barbarity of ancient times and use the Bible as justification." Blunt question: do these professed Christians serve a barbaric God? In John 17, Jesus (the one who advocates non-vengeful action) is praying to His Father right before He enters the garden of Gethsemane, as I'm sure you recognize. In verses 6-8, He says, "I have revealed Your Name to the men You gave Me out of the world. They belonged to You, and You gave them to Me, and they have obeyed Your word. Now they understand that everything You have given Me comes from You, because I have given them the words You have given Me. They accepted them and really understand that I came from You, and they believed that You sent Me." What I'm trying to show with this verse is that Jesus Christ, who tells us not to strike back at the one who strikes us, is the Son of the Lord God who told His people from the beginning of time, "Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God's image God has made humankind." Yet Christ says that "...they understand that everything You have given Me comes from You, because I have given them the words You have given me." How is this consistent?

If our God was as easy to see through as this, Christianity would long ago have been found a fraud. It says in the Scriptures, time and again, that the Lord does not change, He is constant, He does not go back on His word, He does not change His mind, etc. Yet He tells us to kill murderers in one book of the Bible, and tell us not to retaliate in another.

One way of looking at this problem could be to examine motivation. Why should we kill murderers? Because humanity is made in God's image, and that image is sacred. A murderer has desecrated not just the image of God he has just killed, but his own image with the act. The reason our images are not desecrated by killing the murderer is because this punishing death is what God Himself commands. The murderer must be punished with just punishment for his crime against God. And so we are absolved of the murderer's blood.

Retaliation is another story. Retaliation is indeed vengeance. But whom does vengeance serve in this case? We are hurt, so we hurt the perpetrator. But what does the Lord say? Ezekiel 25:17, "I will exact great vengeance upon them with angry rebukes. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I exact my vengeance on them." And again in Deuteronomy 32:35, "I will get revenge and pay them back at the time their foot slips; for the day of their disaster is near, and the impending judgement is rushing upon them!" Vengeance is for the Lord. It serves the Lord and it is only His right to take. For Christians serve the Lord. We give glory to Him and to His Name(i.e: reputation) as is His right, for He is God.

You could object and tell me, "There are no verses here from the Gospels, let alone the New Testament. You still haven't addressed the issue." But if Jesus is the Son of God, if God is unchanging, and if the words Jesus spoke really come from His Father as He says in John, then there cannot be any contradiction! For though Christ tells us not to strike back at those who hurt us, He is not undermining His Father's words, but rather clarifying them. "Do not strike back in self-serving vengeance. This does not give glory to God, but to yourself, which is a fleeting and sullied glory." (That's not a quote. I'm just summarizing.) Meanwhile, the Lord, all the way through the Old Testament declares two messages(concerning this subject, of course). 1: Those who kill humans should themselves meet the same fate, and 2: Vengeance is mine to mete out, mine to withhold. It is for my glory and my reputation as God.

I hope this helps. I've enjoyed this so much! What did I leave undone? What questions do you have? I'm eager!

.

Is there never any scope for understanding the circumstances that can drive a person to kill? Is the only justice the death penalty? I find it very difficult to understand professed Christians taking such a hard line.
This is a very harsh reading of the Bible and particularly of the Gospels.

Your question - What is humane or compassionate about letting a murderer serve a sentence in prison instead of giving them the death penalty? - relates to the families of victims. In many jurisdictions justice is seen to be done by a life sentence, even when part of that sentence is served outside prison. In general nowadays it is rare for victims' families to express any wish for the death penalty; less rare for families to want a 'whole of life' tariff.

I have addressed this aspect because it relates to your posts about Biblical teaching. There is more to it than that, of course. I have maintained that capital punishment is barbaric, which you have not really rebutted. Crudely, maybe unfairly put, your position is that the hangman did God's work.