Death Penalty...right or wrong?

[Simonline]

Actually, I was referring to ordinary people, not God, who need to defend themselves.

I know. But I was making the point that Capital Punishment has nothing to do with self defense. Self defense is carried out by individuals who do not have the authority in their own right to execute anyone (though they may have the right to kill someone in the act of defending themselves if that is deemed to be 'reasonable force' necessary to prevent the assailant from murdering them but that would be self defense rather than lawful execution).

Self defense on a national scale is called 'going to war', but only with another nation, in which case the rules for engaging in warfare apply (which does not include the execution of a nation's combatants, let alone their civilians, such actions would be deemed to be war crimes).

In the event that a nation is forced to fight ideological terrorism where it's proponents are fighting for an ideological cause rather than a sovereign nation state, then such people may be regarded as individual criminals and treated as any other common criminal within that or any other nation. If they murder someone in the furtherence of their ideological cause then they must be subject to the law in the same way that any other individual is subject to the law and judged and punished accordingly.

Capital punishment, in my opinion, has everything to do with self defense. By executing the murderers, we make people think twice about killing other people.

Not really, see above.

Exactly, we execute murderers who harm and kill their fellow people who are in God's image.

But that's not 'self defense'. It is those in lawful authority (delegated from God) acting in their capacity as God's representatives on Earth [contrary to popular opinion, that role is not exclusive to the Pope] to execute God's judgment (if you'll pardon the pun) upon those who break the law (Rom.13:1-7). Look at it from the bigger perspective, God's perspective, and not just man's perspective. After all, when all said and done, it's really only God's perspective that ultimately counts.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Well, that's a different story. Those innocent people are of course framed of something they never had anything to do with.

Which is itself murder and those responsible should be brought to justice and executed in the same way. Absolutely no-one is above the Law. If God doesn't get them now in this life then he will simply wait and get them in the next life...but he will get them. That's why God doesn't panic about bringing them to justice in this life...he doesn't need to. Only we panic about that.

Hopefully, no person who is innocent will be executed and I pray that they will be released from prison with thier names cleared.

In an ideal world I'm afraid. Only when the Messiah returns will that become a reality...Maranatha, come Lord Jesus.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

That is all very well in theory. But in practice it is obviously not working.

Surely we, as a society, are clever enough to come up with more effective ways of achieving that.

The reason why capital punishment is not working as a deterent is because people are trying to utilize it for the wrong purpose. Capital punishment is exactly what it says, a punishment. Its purpose is punitive, not remedial. The remedial aspect (i.e. that of deterence) is purely secondary and as such incidental. Therefore whether it works as a deterent or not is irrelevant since its primary function is to punish, not to correct or deter.

The way to bring about an effective deterence is for nations to repent and return back to God so that he might heal and restore the nations and thus render capital punishment virtually, if not completely, obsolete...hasten the day!

Simonline.

 

[rocklife]

I don't know all the morals and God's plans with capital punishment.

But I know it is a deterrant. A serial killer won't be killing anymore.

 

[Simonline]

...but if we imprison instead of execute doesn't that eliminate the worry? If our reason for executing people is because of the Bible, then why (in a country that isn't ruled by Scripture) can't we just move on to no executions?
tulc(just wondering!)

If we imprison people for capital crimes not only do we devalue the inestimable worth of the murdered victim as a human being who was made in the image of God but we also dehumanize the murderer by caging him up like an animal, not to mention the cruel and vindictive treatment they may well receive from other inmates and guards (especially if the murdered victim was a child).

That in itself will negate any concept of imprisoning the murderer as a 'just act' since justice would, as a punitive act, lawfully execute the murderer but it would not allow the murderer (who is also a beloved human being made in the image of God) to be subjected to any kind of vindictive revenge attacks from or by anyone. The murderer as a human being made in the image of God still has inalienable human rights even as a (heinous) criminal. To hand him over to the beying mob for revenge (even within the confines of a prison) would be far from 'justice' as God, rather than sinful man, defines it.

The reason why a 'non-Judeo-Christian' country cannot move on to commuting the death sentence in favour of imprisonment is because God instituted the death penalty for the entire human race (Gen.9:6) and not just for Israel or the Church. It's not just Jews and Christians who are made in the image of God. All humans, irrespective of their religious beliefs or world views are made in the image of God and are therefore sacrosanct. The unlawful murder of a human being will result in the same ultimate consequences irrespective of whether the murderer lives within a Judeo-Christian culture or lives by the Judeo-Christian code of ethics or not. Truth is absolute, not relative.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Let me see if I understand what you're saying: it's better to kill some one who's innocent then let them be found out to be innocent and released? Let's say your son/daughter/friend is arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced to jail. You would rather he/she be killed instead of released at a later date? Or are you saying if a mistake is made it doesn't matter if the prisoner is killed or incarcerated?
tulc(just wondering)

Hmmm. The principle of capital punishment is sound. If a member of my family were then to have been arrested, tried and convicted for murder I would have no basis for arguing against the death penalty as their just punishment for their crime (even though I love them dearly) and I would still argue that justice should be done (because I have a bigger view of reality than the self preservation of me and mine).

After my relative had been executed for the crime, if any further evidence came to light which wasn't available at the time of the original trial but, on the basis of that fresh evidence, it was later discovered that my relative had not actually murdered anyone then that would be a tragic and unfortunate accident comparable with any other tragic and unfortunate accident which resulted in the death of my relative and I and my family would grieve accordingly.

If, however, it was later discovered that my relative was framed (and thus an innocent person had been wrongly convicted and executed for either selfish gain or political expedience) then I would dedicate the rest of my natural life to bringing the guilty parties to justice and seeing them executed in the same way, but I would never call for the abolition of capital punishment because the principle of capital punishment itself is still sound.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

The reason that it's not working in practice, is because most of the killers and murderers are not sentenced to execution. Most of the times, they just get life in prison (followed by parole in the long run). If they have the money and power, they can hire themselves the best attorneys, and get acquitted.

Indeed....and then go out and repeat the offence with impunity...but only till they themselves die, and then the reckoning comes.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

The Lord made it clear to me that we are not to kill criminals. He can bring them to salvation, we can't deprive them of that chance.

The Lord did not tell you that at all. What you have asserted is a humanistic rationalization which you have rationalized based on your own theological presuppositions. God does not contradict what he has already said through his written Word (Gen.9:6).

The Scriptures teach that everyone has an allotted number of days and each person is required to repent and come to faith within their allotted number of days. If they don't then they must accept the consequences including everlasting consequences (Lk.13:1-9).

If a person is never going to repent then how long must society wait to realize this? And what about the life of the murdered victim, where is the justice for them and their relatives?

If you're going to claim to speak for God then at least try and sound convincing?!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

i find it ironic that many fundamentalist take a totally different line when it come to the death penalty, as opposed to eternal punishment.

if we were to imagine a punishment in line with fundementalist spiritual belief, that is, eternal punishment, then surely improsonment would be the more accurate representation of gods wishes?

i send a contradiction here, or perhaps, suspicious motives?

Firstly, there is no such thing as 'eternal punishment'. The lake of fire and brimstone is everlasting, not eternal. Only God is Eternal since eternal existence is existence without time. Everlasting existence is permanent existence within time and is limited to finite creatures. The Divine can no more exist within time than finite creatures can exist within eternity.

Your assertion shows how much you know about 'fundamentalist' belief and that your understanding is even less.

The Bible teaches that all human life is made in the image of God (Gen.1:26-27) and therefore sacrosanct (Gen.9:6). The Bible also teaches that God has set up human authority to uphold and administer the Law and execute justice where necessary (Rom.13:1-7). This includes executing people for capital crimes.

Whereas with the ancient theocracy of Israel there were a considerable number of capital crimes requiring the death penalty (precisely because Israel was a theocracy and therefore was held to a much higher standard of morality and ethics than all the rest of the nations) with respect to the rest of the world there was only one capital crime requiring capital punishment, that of murder (in accordance with the Noahic laws). God taught the human race (not just Israel and the Church) through Noah that all human life is made in the image of God and therefore sacrosanct. Any unlawful killing (murder) of a human being was to be met with swift justice resulting in the lawful execution of the murderer. Throughout the rest of the Scriptures this law has never been either repealed or superceded (contrary to popular opinion based on facile and erroneous interpretations of the New Covenant). In fact, it has repeatedly been reinstated and reinforced (Rom.13:1-7) and will remain in force until the final and glorious consumation of God's kingdom.

This is an entirely separate issue to that of the ultimate destiny of all who will not repent of their sins and so be delivered of the consequences. Again, contrary to popular opinion based as it is on facile and erroneous interpretations of Scripture, God did not send the Messiah to come and die upon the cross in order to save us from the everlasting lake of fire and brimstone. The Truth is that God sent his only eternally begotten Son, as the Messiah, to die upon the cross in order to save us from our sins, which would in turn save us from the everlasting lake of fire and brimstone. If we refuse to give up our sins then we cannot hope to escape the everlasting lake of fire no matter how much we protest that we are 'Christians, saved by the blood of Christ'?! We cannot eat our cake and have it! If we will not give up our sins then we will go to the everlasting lake of fire and brimstone. Why should God excuse in us as 'Christian believers' that for which he condemns non-Christian unbelievers and punishes them accordingly by throwing them into the everlasting lake of fire?! Where would be the justice in that?! As the Scriptures declare only with righteousness and holiness will one see God and not just 'sound intelectual theology'. This applies to everyone, whether they are murderers or not.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

I don't know all the morals and God's plans with capital punishment.

But I know it is a deterrant. A serial killer won't be killing anymore.

I like your style bud.

Capital punishment can only be a deterent for those who have not been executed. For those who have been executed it is a punishment rather than a deterent.

The important point is that capital punishment is not meant to be a deterent, it is meant to be a punishment. As a punishment, it works every single time.

The anti-capital punishment lobby like to use the 'deterent' argument as a major plank in their case but this must be exposed for the 'straw man'/ 'red herring' that it is.

Simonline.

 

[Cleany]

Firstly, there is no such thing as 'eternal punishment'. The lake of fire and brimstone is everlasting, not eternal. Only God is Eternal since eternal existence is existence without time. Everlasting existence is permanent existence within time and is limited to finite creatures. The Divine can no more exist within time than finite creatures can exist within eternity.

you quibble about the meaning of words.

Your assertion shows how much you know about 'fundamentalist' belief and that your understanding is even less.

considering that fundamentalism is based on denying knowledge and understanding in favour of inconsistant theories about the (so called) "Word of God", i dont think any fundamentalist should bother to defent their tradition with any amount of knowledge or understanding.

unless of course they admit that they can decide anything without looking in the bible?

The Bible teaches that all human life is made in the image of God (Gen.1:26-27) and therefore sacrosanct (Gen.9:6). The Bible also teaches that God has set up human authority to uphold and administer the Law and execute justice where necessary (Rom.13:1-7). This includes executing people for capital crimes.

the bible also teaches a whole lot more that contradicts your interpretation of those texts.

Whereas with the ancient theocracy of Israel there were a considerable number of capital crimes requiring the death penalty (precisely because Israel was a theocracy and therefore was held to a much higher standard of morality and ethics than all the rest of the nations) with respect to the rest of the world there was only one capital crime requiring capital punishment, that of murder (in accordance with the Noahic laws). God taughtthe human race (not just Israel and the Church) through Noah that all human life is made in the image of God and therefore sacrosanct. Any unlawful killing (murder) of a human being was to be met with swift justice resulting in the lawful execution of the murderer. Throughout the rest of the Scriptures this law has never been either repealed or superceded (contrary to popular opinion based on facile and erroneous interpretations of the New Covenant). In fact, it has repeatedly been reinstated and reinforced (Rom.13:1-7) and will remain in force until the final and glorious consumation of God's kingdom.

uhh, ok then ...

Deuteronomy 21:18-21

18 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." 21 Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death.

do you have children?

This is an entirely separate issue to that of the ultimate destiny of all who will not repent of their sins and so be delivered of the consequences. Again, contrary to popular opinion based as it is on facile and erroneous interpretations of Scripture, God did not send the Messiah to come and die upon the cross in order to save us from the everlasting lake of fire and brimstone. The Truth is that God sent his only eternally begotten Son, as the Messiah, to die upon the cross in order to save us from our sins, which would in turn save us from the everlasting lake of fire and brimstone. If we refuse to give up our sins then we cannot hope to escape the everlasting lake of fire no matter how much we protest that we are 'Christians, saved by the blood of Christ'?! We cannot eat our cake and have it! If we will not give up our sins then we will go to the everlasting lake of fire and brimstone. Why should God excuse in us as 'Christian believers' that for which he condemns non-Christian unbelievers and punishes them accordingly by throwing them into the everlasting lake of fire?! Where would be the justice in that?! As the Scriptures declare only with righteousness and holiness will one see God and not just 'sound intelectual theology'. This applies to everyone, whether they are murderers or not.

Simonline.

so, when was the last time you sinned?

 

[Cleany]

I don't know all the morals and God's plans with capital punishment.

But I know it is a deterrant. A serial killer won't be killing anymore.

I like your style bud.

you are serious arent you?

Capital punishment can only be a deterent for those who have not been executed. For those who have been executed it is a punishment rather than a deterent.

The important point is that capital punishment is not meant to be a deterent, it is meant to be a punishment. As a punishment, it works every single time.

The anti-capital punishment lobby like to use the 'deterent' argument as a major plank in their case but this must be exposed for the 'straw man'/ 'red herring' that it is.

Simonline.

your compassion for those executed is heart warming.

words fail me

 

[Simonline]

you quibble about the meaning of words.

Yes, I quibble about the meaning of words because the meaning of words are fundamentally important in the communication of Truth (something with which most liberals are complete and utter strangers since they tend to fashion 'Truth' in their own image). As Bishop J.C.Ryle once said "Imprecise definition is the essence of religious controversy."

considering that fundamentalism is based on denying knowledge and understanding in favour of inconsistant theories about the (so called) "Word of God", i dont think any fundamentalist should bother to defent their tradition with any amount of knowledge or understanding,
unless of course they admit that they can decide anything without looking in the bible?

Again, you're proclaiming your ignorance for all to see and pity.

Do you actually know what a 'fundamentalist' is, rather than the popularist parody of it?! Have you ever studied the writings or apologetic arguments of any true fundamentalists, such as C.S.Lewis, Francis A. Schaeffer, Os Guinness, Ravi Zacharias, Norman L. Geisler, F.F.Bruce, to name but a few?

Before you traduce the Fundamentalists I suggest that you go away and find out about them and what they actually believe instead of wasting your time attacking a facile parody of them. Fundamentalism is not about living in denial about the Truth and objective reality (which you would know if you'd bothered to do your homework first instead of lasily sitting on the sidelines and slinging mud.)

The bible also teaches a whole lot more that contradicts your interpretation of those texts.

Really?! Care to demonstrate [this should be interesting]?!

uhh, ok then ...

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 do you have children?

No, I don't, but what difference does that make?

Deut.21:18-21 only applies within the context of the Old Testament theocracy of Israel [i.e. direct rule by God] and not in any other non-theocratic context. As a theocracy, ancient Israel were held to a much higher standard of morality and ethics than the rest of the world and so, in that context, there were multiple capital crimes which required capital punishments.

With respect to the rest of the world who were not living under a theocracy, there was only one capital crime, that of murder (as instigated by God as a part of the Noahic law (Gen.9:6)). As I have already said, that law has never been either repealed or superceded but remains in force until the final consumation of the kingdom of God. It has been reitterated throughout the Scriptures and will continue to be so as long as there are unregenerate sinful people alive on Earth.

God has instituted human authority as his representatives on Earth to govern all men through the restraining of their sinful and unbridalled passions, to uphold and administer his law and to execute his judgment as and when necessary (Rom.13:1-7). This is what stops all human society from degenerating into moral anarchy and social chaos, 'the law of the jungle'...yet another expression of the love and merciful care of God for all men. It is for this reason that God has entrusted the sword of his judgment to 'Caesar'.

The Church, on the other hand, is a theocratic institution and as such is also held to a much higher moral and ethical standard than the rest of the world (though you wouldn't think so based on the way some churches operate (?!)). However, unlike the ancient theocracy of Israel which was based upon an inclusive covenant (people were born into it) and therefore included both believers and unbelevers, thus necessitating the strict laws and punishments of the old covenant to curb the unbridalled sinful passions of those who were not believers, the Church is based upon an exclusive covenant (you cannot be born into it - you have to voluntarily choose to become a member of it) and therefore does not have any unbelievers in it [I'm talking about the real Church here and not those human institutions with 'mixed membership' (i.e. believers and unbelievers) which like to think that they are the Church], therefore the 'draconian' laws and punishments of the Old Covenant are not necessary for the Church because none of us have unregenerate hearts of stone which need to be reigned in and kept in check. In the event that a believer goes off the rails however, then the leadership of the Church (to whom God has given the keys of the kingdom (far too precious to be entrusted to Caesar)) have the authority to discipline the believer even to the point of excommunication if necessary, in the hope that such 'shock therapy' will have the cathartic effect of bringing the recalcitrant believer back to their senses to regain their grip on reality.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

you are serious arent you?

Yes?!

your compassion for those executed is heart warming.

words fail me

Excuse me?! Are you really that stupid?! Judgment, by definition, is bereft of compassion. The time of God's mercy and compassion is now whilst the person is still alive in this life.

You cannot just ignore the fact that reality is based upon absolute morality (i.e the person of God) and as a result all actions have moral consequences, either in this life or the next.

God has made it abundantly clear that human beings are made in the image of God and therefore their lives are sacrosanct. He has also made it abundantly clear that the unlawful murder of a human being is such an awful crime that the only punishment is the forfeiture of the murderer's own life through their lawful execution by those in lawful authority. Between being convicted and executed the murderer still has oportunity to repent of their sin and receive God's everlasting forgiveness which will give them Eternal Life. However, they will still have to suffer the consequences of their sinful actions in this life which means that they must still forfeit their lives in this realm. Only if those in authority and the relatives of the murdered victim agree that the murderer should be shown mercy can the murderer hope to escape the death penalty. Otherwise the punishment must still stand.

What's to stop a desparate convicted murderer from feigning 'conversion' in order to escape the death penalty? Personally, I'm more inclined to believe that a truely repentant murderer will, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit, be so overcome by the seriousness of what he's done that he will not mind whether he lives or dies in this life because he will have discovered, through his true conversion, that there is more to life than self-preservation (Matt.16:24-27). Only then will he be truely free and the terrors of this life (including his immanent execution) will no longer hold any fear for him since his execution will catapult him straight into a much better life than he had in this life.

Simonline.

 

[Cleany]

Yes, I quibble about the meaning of words because the meaning of words are fundamentally important in the communication of Truth (something with which most liberals are complete and utter strangers). As Bishop J.C.Ryle once said "Imprecise definition is the essence of religious controversy."

seeing as we are talking about the "communication of truth", why dont you ask people what they think the difference is between "everlasting" and "eternal"? consider that dictionary.com considers everlasting to mean:

ev·er·last·ing ([font=verdana,sans-serif] P [/font]) Pronunciation Key (

v

r-l

s

t

ng)
adj.

1. Lasting forever; eternal.
   1. Continuing indefinitely or for a long period of time.
   2. Persisting too long; tedious: everlasting complaints.

Again, you're proclaiming your ignorance for all to see and pity.

Do you actually know what a 'fundamentalist' is, rather than the popularist parody of it?! Have you ever studied the writings or apologetic arguments of any true fundamentalists, such as C.S.Lewis, Francis A. Schaeffer, Os Guinness, Ravi Zacharias, Norman L. Geisler, F.F.Bruce, to name but a few?

Before you traduce the Fundamentalists I suggest that you go away and find out about them and what they actually believe instead of wasting your time attacking a facile parody of them. Fundamentalism is not about living in denial about the Truth and objective reality (which you would know if you'd bothered to do your homework first instead of lasily sitting on the sidelines and slinging mud.)

as is popularly known, and defined by wikipedia.com

Fundamentalist Christianity, or Christian Fundamentalism, in the scope of this particular article, refers to the movement which arose mainly within American Protestantism in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by conservative evangelical Christians, who, in a reaction to modernism, actively affirmed a "fundamental" set of Christian beliefs: the inerrancy of the Bible, the virgin birth of Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, and the authenticity of his miracles. This core set of beliefs was the "line in the sand" drawn by conservative Christians as they battled against the rise of rationalism, higher biblical criticism, and liberalism within Protestant denominations.

this is consistant with all the definitions of christian fundamentalism that i have found.

and c.s. lewis was not a fundamentalist by the way.

Really?! Care to demonstrate [this should be interesting]?!

No, I don't, but what difference does that make?

Deut.21:18-21 only applies within the context of the Old Testament theocracy of Israel [i.e. direct rule by God] and not in any other non-theocratic context. As a theocracy, ancient Israel were held to a much higher standard of morality and ethics than the rest of the world and so, in that context, there were multiple capital crimes which required capital punishments.

With respect to the rest of the world who were not living under a theocracy, there was only one capital crime, that of murder (as instigated by God as a part of the Noahic law (Gen.9:6)). As I have already said, that law has never been either repealed or superceded but remains in force until the final consumation of the kingdom of God. It has been reitterated throughout the Scriptures and will continue to be so as long as there are unregenerate sinful people alive on Earth.

God has instituted human authority as his representatives on Earth to govern all men through the restraining of their sinful and unbridalled passions, to uphold and administer his law and to execute his judgment as and when necessary (Rom.13:1-7). This is what stops all human society from degenerating into moral anarchy and social chaos, 'the law of the jungle'...yet another expression of the love and merciful care of God for all men. It is for this reason that God has entrusted the sword of his judgment to 'Caesar'.

The Church, on the other hand, is a theocratic institution and as such is also held to a much higher moral and ethical standard than the rest of the world (though you wouldn't think so based on the way some churches operate (?!)). However, unlike the ancient theocracy of Israel which was based upon an inclusive covenant (people were born into it) and therefore included both believers and unbelevers, thus necessitating the strict laws and punishments of the old covenant to curb the unbridalled sinful passions of those who were not believers, the Church is based upon an exclusive covenant (you cannot be born into it - you have to voluntarily choose to become a member of it) and therefore does not have any unbelievers in it [I'm talking about the real Church here and not those human institutions with 'mixed membership' (i.e. believers and unbelievers) which like to think that they are the Church], therefore the 'draconian' laws and punishments of the Old Covenant are not necessary for the Church because none of us have unregenerate hearts of stone which need to be reigned in and kept in check. In the event that a believer goes off the rails however, then the leadership of the Church (to whom God has given the keys of the kingdom (far too precious to be entrusted to Caesar)) have the authority to discipline the believer even to the point of excommunication if necessary, in the hope that such 'shock therapy' will have the cathartic effect of bringing the recalcitrant believer back to their senses to regain their grip on reality.

Simonline.

you seem to be attempting to justify an argument for capital punishent here. (which, incidentally i never said that i was against). although i never replied to you personally, you have quite adequately addressed the question that i originally asked about the apparent mismatch between eternal (or everlasting), and temporary punishment. you said that:

If we imprison people for capital crimes not only do we devalue the inestimable worth of the murdered victim as a human being who was made in the image of God but we also dehumanize the murderer by caging him up like an animal, not to mention the cruel and vindictive treatment they may well receive from other inmates and guards (especially if the murdered victim was a child).

That in itself will negate any concept of imprisoning the murderer as a 'just act' since justice would, as a punitive act, lawfully execute the murderer but it would not allow the murderer (who is also a beloved human being made in the image of God) to be subjected to any kind of vindictive revenge attacks from or by anyone. The murderer as a human being made in the image of God still has inalienable human rights even as a (heinous) criminal. To hand him over to the beying mob for revenge (even within the confines of a prison) would be far from 'justice' as God, rather than sinful man, defines it.

you talk of "inalienable human rights", yet casually speak of execution as if you were working out a mathematical formula. you seem to have a very cold and mechanical undersanding of the world that we live in. and you apply this attribute to god. you said:

God doesn't get them now in this life then he will simply wait and get them in the next life...but he will get them.

i find your use of language and casual talk about the death of others disturbing. you brush over the lives of billions with statements such as:

If they don't then they must accept the consequences including everlasting consequences

you even talk of the wrongful execution of one of your own family as a:

tragic and unfortunate accident

you appear to be intelligent and make a sound argument, but you seem to lack any compassion and the insight that compassion brings to a fuller understanding of god, among other things.

 

[Simonline]

seeing as we are talking about the "communication of truth", why dont you ask people what they think the difference is between "everlasting" and "eternal"? consider that dictionary.com considers everlasting to mean:

Since dictionaries tend to reflect only popular usage and understandings of terms and words (which are by no means guaranteed to be correct) then I do not regard any dictionary (including the Oxford English Dictionary) as being the final infalible arbiter on the correct definition of specific terms or words. The difference between 'eternal' and 'everlasting' being a case in point. Since most people don't bother to make such precise distinctions between related terms then dictionaries which reflect such popular imprecise attitudes to definitions will be equally as wrong. Dictionaries are therefore useful for confirming correct spellings but certainly not for confirming correct definitions (as I think the producers of the dictionaries themselves will be the first to admit).

The term 'everlasting' relates to unending time (which is the exclusive context of existence for all finite temporal beings). The term 'eternal' relates to existence that is devoid of all time and as such is the exclusive context of existence for God as the only Infinite Eternal Being. Therefore, the term 'eternal' is absolutely impertinent when applied to anyone or anything other than God, who alone exists outside of time.

as is popularly known, and defined by wikipedia.com
this is consistant with all the definitions of christian fundamentalism that i have found.

Well done. I stand corrected. You do know the correct definition of a fundamentalist.

C.S. Lewis was not a fundamentalist by the way.

Care to show to which of the 'fundamentals' he did not subscribe?

you seem to be attempting to justify an argument for capital punishent here. (which, incidentally i never said that i was against).

No. I am arguing for why we cannot today stone our children to death for rebellion. This is an entirely different matter to that of executing a murderer for murder, since the contexts for both executions are totally different. Therefore, today, one is justified but the other one isn't.

although i never replied to you personally, you have quite adequately addressed the question that i originally asked about the apparent mismatch between eternal (or everlasting), and temporary punishment.

What mismatch between punishment in this age and punishment in the age to come? The principle that all sinful actions are punishable by death (Rom.6:23(a)) is an Eternal principle because it is based upon the Holy and Righteous Nature of the Eternal Personal Being of God. It is God, not Man, who decreed that murderers are to be executed in this life and not left until the Day of Judgment (Gen.9:6). This is because the preservation and maintenance of civilized human society is dependent upon the removal of those who perpetrate the ultimate expression of rebellion, i.e. murder. As I have repeatedly said, this ruling (in its proper context) has never been either repealed or superceded (contrary to popular opinion amongst many misguided Christians).

you said that:

If we imprison people for capital crimes not only do we devalue the inestimable worth of the murdered victim as a human being who was made in the image of God but we also dehumanize the murderer by caging him up like an animal, not to mention the cruel and vindictive treatment they may well receive from other inmates and guards (especially if the murdered victim was a child).

That in itself will negate any concept of imprisoning the murderer as a 'just act' since justice would, as a punitive act, lawfully execute the murderer but it would not allow the murderer (who is also a beloved human being made in the image of God) to be subjected to any kind of vindictive revenge attacks from or by anyone. The murderer as a human being made in the image of God still has inalienable human rights even as a (heinous) criminal. To hand him over to the beying mob for revenge (even within the confines of a prison) would be far from 'justice' as God, rather than sinful man, defines it.

You talk of "inalienable human rights", yet casually speak of execution as if you were working out a mathematical formula. you seem to have a very cold and mechanical undersanding of the world that we live in. and you apply this attribute to god.

Does not what I have said show that I do have compassion even for the murderer as a heinous criminal? I would NEVER condone the criminal being 'sacrificed' to the beying mob to satisfy their lust for revenge. That is not justice. Neither is it retribution. It is for this reason that God took responsibility for administering justice away from the individual and placed it into the hands of a centralized authority who would (or at least should) be impartial and therefore devoid of the lust for revenge and would therefore be in a better position to execute God's punitive justice mercifully and not side with the beying mob in exacting vicious and merciless revenge upon the criminal and thereby hasten the degeneration of civilized society into social and moral anarchy where unbridalled [sinful] human passion rules instead of Divine Law? Centralized authorities are supposed to be dispassionately 'cold-blooded' in the administration of justice (which is why the idol of 'Justicia' atop the Old Bailey in London is blindfolded so that she can neither be partial nor passionate in the administration of justice). The judicial process must always be dispassionate and impartial otherwise it isn't just.

I do not have a cold and mechanical understanding of reality at all. I just don't believe that man is the measure of all things and that God exists purely for our benefit as a spiritual 'insurance policy' or 'emergency service'. I believe what the Bible says that 'all things were created both by him and for him' We exist for his good pleasure, he does not exist for ours. All sin is an offence against him, not human society. Therefore he alone has the absolute right to decide how that sin should be punished.

you said:

God doesn't get them now in this life then he will simply wait and get them in the next life...but he will get them.

i find your use of language and casual talk about the death of others disturbing.

Whilst I admit it does seem a little callous on my part but I am making the point that no-one will actually get away with anything. If they 'escape' justice in this life then people can rest assured that all sinners (and not just murderers) will not escape justice in the age to come.

you brush over the lives of billions with statements such as:

If they don't [repent and come to true faith in God] then they must accept the consequences including everlasting consequences

But that is absolutely true. The Messiah said so himself (Matt.7:13-14). That is what the Gospel is all about. The bottom line is that because of sin all mankind is heading for the everlasting lake of fire (Rom.3:23; 6:23(a)), but God in his love and compassion has redeemed mankind through the death of his eternally begotten Son upon the cross (Jn.3:16). Only through repentence and living faith in God and the life, atoning death and resurrection of his eternally begotten Son, as the Messiah, can anyone even remotely hope to escape the everlasting lake of fire?!

you even talk of the wrongful execution of one of your own family as a:

tragic and unfortunate accident

How else should I describe it?! If my relative is truely guilty of murder then why should they escape punitive justice simply because they are my relative? If I change tack under these circumstances then I will rightly be denounced as a hypocrite. If my relative is, in good faith, executed on the basis of compelling but flawed evidence which only later comes to light that it was flawed, then what else can it be but a tragic and unfortnate accident? The judicial process cannot be held accountable if it acted in good faith? If however if it later comes to light that my relative was framed then it becomes apparent that it was not a tragic and unfortunate accident but rather a premeditated murder and those responsible should themselves be brought to justice and executed accordingly.

As a Christian, the primary motivation for my actions should always be the Truth of objective reality and God's Word, and never transigent subjective emotions.

you appear to be intelligent and make a sound argument, but you seem to lack any compassion and the insight that compassion brings to a fuller understanding of g[G]od, among other things.

No. I disagree entirely. I am dispassionate when I need to be (which is why I will never condone sacrificing the murderer to the lust for revenge of the beying mob (both inside or outside a prison)) but I also have a very strong sense of both compassion and justice. Whilst I would willingly sign a death warrant I would NEVER do it 'gladly' but always with a broken heart and tears streaming down my cheeks like a father 'forced' to punish his son.

If actions have no consequences then life has no meaning and existence is already 'hell'.

Simonline.

 

[Cleany]

ok simonline, lets get to the main differences between both of our theologies, of which i think there are 2.

firstly, i think it is in our approach of theology where we differ. you summed it up perfectly:

As a Christian, the primary motivation for my actions should always be the Truth of objective reality and God's Word, and never transigent subjective emotions.

i believe that as a christian the primary motive for my actions should be compassion, love for people. i agree that love for god was the first commandment, but i think that the best way that you can love god, is to show mercy to the unfortunate, as it says in ...
Matthew 25:34-49

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

37"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

you only need to look at the habits of jesus as recorded in the new testament, and listen to his parables, to realise that it was a priority to him to look after sinners, the worst of people.


you will, of course, not disagree with this. but where we clearly differ, is in our priorities. i say that not only should "the Truth of objective reality" not be a priority, but that "the Truth of objective reality" isnt actually available to us. this brings us to my second point.


i think, secondly, that there is a difference in how we use the bible, or, perhaps more accurately, how we think that bible should be used.




i obviously do not share your beliefs about infallability, (and, incidentally, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement), this perhaps does not need to be discussed.

what i would like to say to you is what i would say to any fundementalist (i do realise that you have not claimed to be one), that your belief that your interpretation of scripture is correct is not only a part of fundementalist belief, but is an interpretation, and there is nothing "objective" to make it more valid that the interpretation of anybody else. i would challenge you and say to you that your interpretation of scripture is as subjective as mine is, and anyone else, and that biblical objectivity is not actually available.

perhaps you will agree with this, and perhaps not. if you do then i think that what we think may well be a great deal amount more similar than i ever expected!

 

[Simonline]

ok simonline, lets get to the main differences between both of our theologies, of which i think there are 2.

firstly, i think it is in our approach of theology where we differ. you summed it up perfectly:


i believe that as a christian the primary motive for my actions should be compassion, love for people.

And therein lies the problem. You are clearly a liberal humanist at heart who prefers to exalt the human creature above the Divine Creator (Ex.20:3; Rom.1:18-23).

i agree that love for god was the first commandment, but i think that the best way that you can love god, is to show mercy to the unfortunate, as it says in Matt.25:34-39

Absolutely not. Love for God IS the first commandment (Deut.6:4-5) since it has NEVER been abrogated (Matt.5:17-21). Absolutely nothing takes precedence over this, including love for one's neighbour (Matt.22:37-40).

you only need to look at the habits of jesus as recorded in the new testament, and listen to his parables, to realise that it was a priority to him to look after sinners, the worst of people.

You have a very subjective and relativistic way of interpreting the Scriptures, I'll give you that. The Messiah's priority was to do the will of Him who sent him. The Messiah would never compromise his Divine Nature by turning a blind eye to sin in order to 'love' people. His purpose was to demonstrate to Israel the True Nature of God in a living way through the Incarnation. He would not only teach people about the Love and Compassion of God (the supreme example of this being the substitutionary atonement) but also about the Holiness, Righteousness and Justice of God as well (which is why many people found many of his teachings so hard to accept). Although Love is the foundation and motivation of all God's other attributes, those attributes are themselves the expression of that Love and therefore are never made 'subservient' to Love.

you will, of course, not disagree with this.

Wanna bet?!

but where we clearly differ, is in our priorities. i say that not only should "the Truth of objective reality" not be a priority, but that "the Truth of objective reality" isnt actually available to us.

"i say that not only should [God] not be a priority, but that [God] isnt actually available to us."...how absurd?! This is the Truth of where we differ. I know that God is 'the Truth of objective reality' (Jn.14:6). However, it would appear that you, in your own relativistic universe, have yet to learn this lesson.

this brings us to my second point. i think that there is a difference in how we use the bible, or, perhaps more accurately, how we think that bible should be used.

You can say that again. I for one do not believe that the Bible is there to be 'used' (i.e. to be made subservient to our own theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas') but rather, the Bible, as the written version of the infalible Living Word of God [but only as written in the original languages] (Jn.1:1,14; 2Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12-13) is there to be interpreted, applied and obeyed but only in conjunction with the leading of the Holy Spirit (Matt.28:20; Jn.16:5-16) otherwise it is simply a collection of nonsensical contradictions in the hands of irreverent cynics (Matt.11:25-26; 1Cor.1:18-31; 2:6-16).

i obviously do not share your beliefs about infallability, (and, incidentally, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement), this perhaps does not need to be discussed.

Not unless you wish to discuss it?

what i would like to say to you is what i would say to any fundementalist (i do realise that you have not claimed to be one), that your belief that your interpretation of scripture is correct is not only a part of fundementalist belief, but is an interpretation, and there is nothing "objective" to make it more valid that the interpretation of anybody else. i would challenge you and say to you that your interpretation of scripture is as subjective as mine is, and anyone else, and that biblical objectivity is not actually available.

As a fundamentalist, I do not share your relativistic view of reality by which means absolutely anything can (and often is) 'justified'. Whilst I believe that Truth cannot be fully known (since God, as Truth (Jn.14:6), is infinitely bigger than the human mind (even the best human mind) to fully comprehend), I absolutely do not believe that Truth cannot be known at all, otherwise what was the purpose of God revealing anything about himself?! The Truth is that humans can know truely, they just cannot know fully. It is on the basis of God's revealed Truth that Man is in a position to make objectively true statements about Truth/Reality.

Only when humans start from the absolute darkness of finite relativism (as you are doing) rather than the absolute light of Divine Revelation as the Judeo-Christian faith teaches, are humans not in any kind of position to make objectively true statements about Truth/Reality, hence the utter moral and objective bankruptcy of their pronouncements (see the writings and works of both Francis A. Schaeffer and Ravi Zacharias for a far more comprehensive and lucid treatment of this point).

perhaps you will agree with this, and perhaps not.

Doesn't look like it, does it?

if you do then i think that what we think may well be a great deal...similar than i ever expected!

Actually, with respect, I think we live on different planets at best and possibly even in entirely different 'universes' at worst?! Sorry.

See Francis Schaeffer's Trilogy [The God Who Is There; Escape From Reason; He Is There And He Is Not Silent] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891075615/103-6310397-8347857?v=glance

Simonline.

 

[Cleany]

And therein lies the problem. You are clearly a liberal humanist at heart who prefers to exalt the human creature above the Divine Creator (Ex.20:3; Rom.1:18-23).

you know, i really am not a humanist!

Absolutely not. Love for God IS the first commandment (Deut.6:4-5) since it has NEVER been abrogated (Matt.5:17-21). Absolutely nothing takes precedence over this, including love for one's neighbour (Matt.22:37-40).

might i then, genuinely ask you, how we love god? apart from saying it what do we actually do? as i write im thinking perhaps worship?

You have a very subjective and relativistic way of interpreting the Scriptures, I'll give you that. The Messiah's priority was to do the will of Him who sent him. The Messiah would never compromise his Divine Nature by turning a blind eye to sin in order to 'love' people. His purpose was to demonstrate to Israel the True Nature of God in a living way through the Incarnation. He would not only teach people about the Love and Compassion of God (the supreme example of this being the substitutionary atonement) but also about the Holiness, Righteousness and Justice of God as well (which is why many people found many of his teachings so hard to accept). Although Love is the foundation and motivation of all God's other attributes, those attributes are themselves the expression of that Love and therefore are never made 'subservient' to Love.

what does "turning a blind eye to sin" involve because, clearly, he ate with sinners.

Wanna bet?!

lol

"i say that not only should [God] not be a priority, but that [God] isnt actually available to us."...how absurd?! This is the Truth of where we differ. I know that God is 'the Truth of objective reality' (Jn.14:6). However, it would appear that you, in your own relativistic universe, have yet to learn this lesson.

perhaps i should elaborate.

a. "the truth" isnt in the bible, some things that are a part of the truth are.

b. even if it were, it is "unavailable" to us because we have to translate it, we filter it, we have to understand it in the context of our own lives because that is the nature of us human beings. everything that we are, how we understand things, what words mean to us, is subject to a vast array of influences such as our bodies, the environment, our upbringing, our parents.

You can say that again. I for one do not believe that the Bible is there to be 'used' (i.e. to be made subservient to our own theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas') but rather, the Bible, as the written version of the infalible Living Word of God [but only as written in the original languages] (Jn.1:1,14; 2Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12-13) is there to be interpreted, applied and obeyed but only in conjunction with the leading of the Holy Spirit (Matt.28:20; Jn.16:5-16) otherwise it is simply a collection of nonsensical contradictions in the hands of irreverent cynics (Matt.11:25-26; 1Cor.1:18-31; 2:6-16).

here, i will directly address what you have said.

this:

to be made subservient to our own theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas'

is what you are doing.

you believe that you arent, but, like a lot of fundamentalists seem to, you are in denial and are subject to the fundamentalist dogma that says it has no agenda but the "Word of God".

you will pick and choose what you want to interpret as literal truth, just as anybody else would.

you yourself said that:

Deut.21:18-21 only applies within the context of the Old Testament theocracy of Israel [i.e. direct rule by God] and not in any other non-theocratic context.

you are making the bible "subservient to our own theological presuppositions" as you said. but you think that you are doing it correctly, whereas i am not.

as for a "hidden agenda" as you put it. i freely admit that i have an agenda, i am full of agendas. you though, claim to not have one, which is the fallacy of the fundamentalists position.

Not unless you wish to discuss it?

lets see where our current conversation leads us.

As a fundamentalist, I do not share your relativistic view of reality by which means absolutely anything can (and often is) 'justified'. Whilst I believe that Truth cannot be fully known (since God, as Truth (Jn.14:6), is infinitely bigger than the human mind (even the best human mind) to fully comprehend), I absolutely do not believe that Truth cannot be known at all, otherwise what was the purpose of God revealing anything about himself?! The Truth is that humans can know truely, they just cannot know fully. It is on the basis of God's revealed Truth that Man is in a position to make objectively true statements about Truth/Reality.

Only when humans start from the absolute darkness of finite relativism (as you are doing) rather than the absolute light of Divine Revelation as the Judeo-Christian faith teaches, are humans not in any kind of position to make objectively true statements about Truth/Reality, hence the utter moral and objective bankruptcy of their pronouncements (see the writings and works of both Francis A. Schaeffer and Ravi Zacharias for a far more comprehensive and lucid treatment of this point). /QUOTE]i think that "as a fundamentalist" you are in denial of your condition as a fallible human being and are subject to relativism like eveyone else.

you call "finite relitivism" darkness, i call it reality, i call it humanity.

and you are not "starting from" the absolute light of Divine Revelation, you are starting from the bottom like everybody else. the "absolute light" is what you are trying to acheive. there is a big difference.

Actually, with respect, I think we live on different planets at best and possibly even in entirely different 'universes' at worst?! Sorry.

See Francis Schaeffer's Trilogy [The God Who Is There; Escape From Reason; He Is There And He Is Not Silent] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891075615/103-6310397-8347857?v=glance

Simonline.

we appear to be far apart, that is true. but i find this helpful and interesting.

 

[Rusticus]

The way to bring about an effective deterence is for nations to repent and return back to God so that he might heal and restore the nations and thus render capital punishment virtually, if not completely, obsolete...hasten the day!

Does that mean that a nation with a low crime rate has repented more and is closer to God than a nation with a high crime rate?