Are you for or against the death penalty?

[JoeP222w]

we do not follow all of the laws of the OT.

So, in your view it is now ok to lie, to steal, to murder, to commit adultery, to be an idolater, etc?

 

[parousia70]

how do you explain to an unbeliever that in the NT we are told clearly that the government has the right to execute justice as a previous poster pointed out?....
But once more you are skirting the issue that I keep bringing to your attention. Was God being unjust by assigning mankind that privilege?

Well, If God Assigned the Privilege to mankind, and if as you assert, Human government has the God Given RIGHT to execute Justice as it see's fit, and if, in the USA anyway, the Government is the people, and by Democratic or Judicial process, WE the People decide that Justice should be executed in a way that does not put people to Death, then Am I right to understand you would have no objection to that?

 

[Idromos247]

I am a firm believer in the death penalty. But I also believe it should be based off of eye witness as in the bible (not just DNA). And if the witnesses are found to be lying they should suffer the same penalty as they tried to give the innocent.

 

[-V-]

LOL ... of course I have. You merely deny it. Jesus and the apostles taught absolute nonviolence. MANY government positions require violence as one component of that role.
God commands us to be "strangers and pilgrims" on the earth, and within that role, to be subject to the government.... NEVER asking us to be OF the government! Jesus commands us to be IN the world, but not OF the world (John 17:14-18). God commands us to "come out from among them, and be ye separate" (2 Cor 6:14-18) Rom 13:1-8 is talking to the Christian as a SUBJECT of the government, NOT a participant IN the government.... expressing that God USES governments as tools, exactly like He used Egypt, and the Assyrians, and Babylon, and Greece, and Rome, as "swords" and "razors" against Israel, when they were wicked.
Go back and reread my posts! We agree on this point! You are absolutely on my side on this! Not only did God command the death penalty in the Mosaic Law .... with VERY judicious mercy .... He commanded it immediately after the flood .... which God brought on the world because they were so violent.

The New Testament is a VERY different set of commandments from Jehovah/YHVH God. In the NT context, the Christian is absolutely prohibited from ANY violence, and must completely trust God, AND God's use of governments, as HIS tool;

Rom 12:17-13:7 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

I "deny" your interpretation because it makes no sense. The Bible does NOT say they are a "tool", does it. No. It says they are "MINSTERS OF GOD". So, according to you, an inherently wicked system is God's minister. That makes no sense.

Further, if we follow your logic, it leads to ridiculous conclusions. For example, someone working for the post office (a government office) is sinning just by having that job. All mailmen... wicked, just for being mailmen.

You also claimed God used the death penalty "judiciously". Meaning that the death penalty can NOT be evil in and of itself, otherwise God has to be evil. If the death penalty is not evil in and of itself, then there is nothing wrong or sinful in a Christian supporting its use.

 

[Dartman]

I "deny" your interpretation because it makes no sense. The Bible does NOT say they are a "tool", does it. No. It says they are "MINSTERS OF GOD". So, according to you, an inherently wicked system is God's minister. That makes no sense.

Please explain to us which Government Paul was talking about .... and explain how THAT government was righteous! (Keep in mind, both the Romans and the Jewish leadership persecuted the church HORRIBLY).

Further, if we follow your logic, it leads to ridiculous conclusions. For example, someone working for the post office (a government office) is sinning just by having that job. All mailmen... wicked, just for being mailmen.

I can see how you MIGHT get this conclusion .... but that isn't accurate. Mailmen are employees of the Government, not really responsible for the decisions being made. I wouldn't view their role as in conflict with any of God's commandments, nor are they at risk of the kinds of decisions described in Psa 2.

You also claimed God used the death penalty "judiciously". Meaning that the death penalty can NOT be evil in and of itself, otherwise God has to be evil. If the death penalty is not evil in and of itself, then there is nothing wrong or sinful in a Christian supporting its use.

Your "logic" is flawed. God's righteous vengeance is His alone, Christians are forbidden from taking vengeance.
Rom 12:17-13:7 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

The reasoning is simple. God's judgement is all knowing .... man's isn't. A classic example is Saul/Paul.
God knew Saul would repent .... the early church had NO clue, until a while AFTER Saul's conversion. If the early church would have taken vengeance, they would have failed miserably.

 

[Phil 1:21]

From a purely secular standpoint, it is more expensive to try, win, and defend through appeals a capital case to the point of throwing the switch than it is to incarcerate someone for life. Not only that, but how many innocent people have been and will be executed. You can’t unring that bell.

From a Christian standpoint I am not comfortable ending someone’s earthly life (barring self-defense or the defense of others) and thereby sealing their eternal fate. That is a job for God alone, and who am I to deny Him the right to change the heart of a convict and save them from eternal damnation?

 

[-V-]

Please explain to us which Government Paul was talking about .... and explain how THAT government was righteous! (Keep in mind, both the Romans and the Jewish leadership persecuted the church HORRIBLY).

He's not talking about a specific government. He's talking about the institution of government in general.

I can see how you MIGHT get this conclusion .... but that isn't accurate. Mailmen are employees of the Government, not really responsible for the decisions being made. I wouldn't view their role as in conflict with any of God's commandments, nor are they at risk of the kinds of decisions described in Psa 2.

So, they're working for the government, but not being "of the world"? They're serving the government but somehow not serving the government? So the whole "can't serve two masters" thing doesn't apply now? You still don't see the inconsistency in your view yet?

Your "logic" is flawed. God's righteous vengeance is His alone,

Do you think God was personally carrying out the death penalty in Israel? No, the people did it. God gave them the authority to carry it out, just as He gives government the authority to carry it out today.

Christians are forbidden from taking vengeance.
Rom 12:17-13:7 Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.
18 If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.
19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.
20 Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.
21 Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

Justice isn't "vengeance". You're STILL confusing personal relationships with the criminal justice system. The two just aren't the same and don't have the same rules.

The reasoning is simple. God's judgement is all knowing .... man's isn't. A classic example is Saul/Paul.
God knew Saul would repent .... the early church had NO clue, until a while AFTER Saul's conversion. If the early church would have taken vengeance, they would have failed miserably.

Irrelevant. Again, this ignores that God did NOT personally carry out the death penalty in the laws He set out for Israel, He told the PEOPLE to carry it out. They were flawed human beings like everyone else. You think their system made it impossible for an innocent person to be found guilty and executed? Of course not. But God still instructed capital punishment be used.

 

[Dartman]

He's not talking about a specific government. He's talking about the institution of government in general.

You are avoiding the issue. Your implication was the government is not wicked ... and not a tool. Yet ALL the governments of Paul's time, and still today, were/are in fact worldly, in varying degrees, but still worldly. The "ministers" is NOT like a disciple... they are merely servants/tools God uses. NOT righteous servants.

Within the context of Rom 12 and 13, the Christian has an obligation to be submissive TO the government, because the governments are God's tools.

So, they're working for the government, but not being "of the world"?

Yes, working for the government, we don't know if they are "of the world", we know they are in the world.

They're serving the government but somehow not serving the government?

serving/obeying the government, and it's rules (where they do not conflict with God's laws) is a Christian's responsibility.
That's different than being IN the Government that MAKES the rules.

So the whole "can't serve two masters" thing doesn't apply now?

It never has applied to this kind of issue. Serving two masters is ONLY relevant to situations where there is a conflict. Jesus spoke specifically about serving God versus serving ill gotten wealth. It's not a sin to be rich, it's forbidden to sin in order to be rich.

You still don't see the inconsistency in your view yet?

Do you think God was personally carrying out the death penalty in Israel? No, the people did it. God gave them the authority to carry it out, just as He gives government the authority to carry it out today.

Yes. The difference is; Israel WAS God's government ... (when they obeyed Him) ... now there is NO government that is uniquely God's ... even today's nation of Israel. They won't be Jehovah/YHVH God's government UNTIL Jehovah sends Jesus to rule over them.

Justice isn't "vengeance".

Yes, it is.

You're STILL confusing personal relationships with the criminal justice system. The two just aren't the same and don't have the same rules.

No, I'm not confusing the two, and yes they have different rules..... but the Christian is utterly forbidden to do ANY violence.

 

[PeaceB]

I never claimed that we should be under Mosaic Law. However, the Law given Noah was not part of the Mosaic Law. So assuming that the Noachian Law for capital punishment was abolished along with the Mosaic Law does not necessarily follow..

Also, please note that you are totally ignoring the issue of my objection. If indeed man's execution of the death sentence is evil, than how do you as a Christian explain to a non-believer that God was being just when he instituted it?

Also, how do you explain to an unbeliever that in the NT we are told clearly that the government has the right to execute justice as a previous poster pointed out?

BTW
God knew of the human possibility of errors when he instituted the death penalty and instituted it anyway.

Anyone can claim that any Law is unjust, But by doing so-what is being implied must be take seriously into consideration and not just be ignored or shunted aside as if it were totally inconsequential. Either God is good or he isn't. You can't have it both ways.

Was God being wicked in assigning humans to execute the death sentence or not?

No, God was not being wicked. But the fact that God allows or directs something at a particular point in time, does not necessarily mean that is his ideal. You can see this idea in the following text, for example:

3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
​

One might make a similar argument concerning the death penalty.

 

[PeaceB]

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The fifth commandment

Here is what the Catholic Catechism has to say:

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

 

[zippy2006]

Here is what the Catholic Catechism has to say:

And here is what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say as head of the CDF:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.​

 

[PeaceB]

And here is what Cardinal Ratzinger had to say as head of the CDF:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.​

Thanks. I think the two statements are consistent.

 

[zippy2006]

Thanks. I think the two statements are consistent.

It was John Paul II's decision to include the section on the death penalty in the Catechism. What Ratzinger is clarifying is the fact that JPII's understanding of the death penalty is not binding on Catholics. Catholics are free to disagree with JPII (and the Catechism) by holding that it is "permissible ... to have recourse to capital punishment."

A book has just been released on the subject: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment.

 

[PeaceB]

It was John Paul II's decision to include the section on the death penalty in the Catechism. What Ratzinger is clarifying is the fact that JPII's understanding of the death penalty is not binding on Catholics. Catholics are free to disagree with JPII (and the Catechism) by holding that it is "permissible ... to have recourse to capital punishment."

A book has just been released on the subject: By Man Shall His Blood Be Shed: A Catholic Defense of Capital Punishment.

That's all been debated before, and I would rather not get into it. There is a whole series of articles on First Things about it, when Justice Scalia decided to reject that paragraph of the Catechism.

The Catechism itself states that capital punishment is permissible, however.

 

[Anguspure]

On this issue, I agree with Pope Francis who leads the Catholic Church. Too many innocent people have been killed after being wrongly convicted and wrongly sentenced to the death penalty. On top of that, society does not have the right to take life to show that taking life is wrong. It is, to me, oxymoronic.

“Indeed, nowadays the death penalty is unacceptable, however grave the crime of the convicted person,” - Pope Francis
Pope Francis calls for world 'free of the death penalty'

I agree with you on your first point.
But, on top of that, knowing the nature of man, and knowing that God new the nature of men when He included the death penalty in the Law of Moses, I tend to disagree with your second.

 

[Anguspure]

On this issue, I agree with Pope Francis who leads the Catholic Church. Too many innocent people have been killed after being wrongly convicted and wrongly sentenced to the death penalty. On top of that, society does not have the right to take life to show that taking life is wrong. It is, to me, oxymoronic.

“Indeed, nowadays the death penalty is unacceptable, however grave the crime of the convicted person,” - Pope Francis
Pope Francis calls for world 'free of the death penalty'

I agree with you on your first point.
But, on top of that, knowing the nature of man, and knowing that God new the nature of men when He included the death penalty in the Law of Moses, I tend to disagree with your second.