For Christians that are for the death penalty...

[lilakuh]

However, being pro-life does not necessitate being anti-death in all circumstances. If one person murders another person, the just penalty is to end the life of the murderer. This actually upholds the value of life. Anyone who violates life in premeditated murder should be put to death – proclaiming clear support for the value of life.

Now I've heard it all. Ending a life means upholding its value. By the same line of reasoning, killing a "witch" is good for here because "she shalt not be suffered to live". You don't see the contradiction in that?

Wouldn't your proclamation of clear support for the value of life be much louder if you advocated, for example, life prison sentences for murderers rather than ending their lives?

 

[PastorJim]

Now I've heard it all. Ending a life means upholding its value.

Yes. Execution is the only punishment grave enough (no pun intended) to illustrate the terrible nature of murder.

By the same line of reasoning, killing a "witch" is good for here because "she shalt not be suffered to live". You don't see the contradiction in that?

I don't know where the Bible says that the command to kill a witch is for her good.

Wouldn't your proclamation of clear support for the value of life be much louder if you advocated, for example, life prison sentences for murderers rather than ending their lives?

I don't see how but, in any event, that's irrelevant because what you're talking about is a pragmatic way of making a statement. I'm talking about the morality of the act.

 

[PastorJim]

The death penalty was prescribed for heinous crimes like murder, but also for many more innocuous offenses, like blasphemy, disobeying priests or parents, desecrating the Sabbath, &c. There a passage which prescribes death for rapists, and another that requires a rapist (under certain circumstances) to marry his victim. The current justice system is, at best, only vaguely reminiscent of biblical law. If you base your opinions of capital punishment on your religious law, why shouldn't we also sentence adulterers, blasphemers, disobedient children, &c. to death?

Because (a) that isn't our law. It was a law given specifically to the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant, not to Christians under the New Covenant, (b) because we're not a theocracy, and (c) because the Bible doesn't call for death for those offenses.

 

[lilakuh]

Yes. Execution is the only punishment grave enough (no pun intended) to illustrate the terrible nature of murder.

I'm sorry, I seem to be missing the appropriate wiring in my brain, but I just don't see how you can justify doing the very same act of terrible nature that you are trying to condemn.

I don't know where the Bible says that the command to kill a witch is for her good.

You could start with Exodus 22:18. While I'm no biblical scholar and can't comment on the intended meaning behind this verse, it sure was used to justify atrocities during the Inquisition. Claiming to relieve someone from suffering sure suggests it is for that person's good.

I don't see how but, in any event, that's irrelevant because what you're talking about is a pragmatic way of making a statement. I'm talking about the morality of the act.

I am very much talking about morality. IMHO, it is immoral to kill a human being, except in self-defense, period.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Yes. Execution is the only punishment grave enough (no pun intended) to illustrate the terrible nature of murder.

So - you think justice is about "grave punishments" rather than righting wrongs as far as possible? How exactly do you differentiate it from vengeance, then?

 

[pantless rationalist]

Because (a) that isn't our law. It was a law given specifically to the nation of Israel under the Old Covenant, not to Christians under the New Covenant

This is a bit of a non sequitur, though. Abortion is legal but many people use Christian or other religious texts to argue against it. My point was that it is inconsistent to use biblical laws to argue for the "sanctity of life" in the abortion debate and as a supplemental argument to solidify their views on capital punishment, but not to take the arguments to its logical conclusion of applying the death penalty to adulterers, blasphemers, disobedient children, &c. If you see some flaw in the logical argument I invite you to point it out.

(b) because we're not a theocracy

And thank goodness for it! That doesn't seem to stop religious leaders, lobbyists, activists, legislators, or voters from using religious texts to argue for or against different laws, though.

(c) because the Bible doesn't call for death for those offenses.

I provided links to the relevant links to verses for every claim I made. The Bible does advocate killing for these offenses.

 

[PastorJim]

This is a bit of a non sequitur, though. Abortion is legal but many people use Christian or other religious texts to argue against it. My point was that it is inconsistent to use biblical laws to argue for the "sanctity of life" in the abortion debate and as a supplemental argument to solidify their views on capital punishment, but not to take the arguments to its logical conclusion of applying the death penalty to adulterers, blasphemers, disobedient children, &c. If you see some flaw in the logical argument I invite you to point it out.

Same answer I gave you last time.

And thank goodness for it! That doesn't seem to stop religious leaders, lobbyists, activists, legislators, or voters from using religious texts to argue for or against different laws, though.

Yes...and? Anytime you argue for or against the morality of something, that argument is based on a religious belief or a matter of conscience.

I provided links to the relevant links to verses for every claim I made. The Bible does advocate killing for these offenses.

Could you please show me where in the Bible we're told that Old Covenant law has been reinstated?

 

[PastorJim]

So - you think justice is about "grave punishments" rather than righting wrongs as far as possible?

No, I think justice is about protecting the innocent and punishing evildoers and upholding the integrity of the law. Depending on the crime, that may necessitate a grave punishment or no punishment at all.

 

[PastorJim]

I'm sorry, I seem to be missing the appropriate wiring in my brain, but I just don't see how you can justify doing the very same act of terrible nature that you are trying to condemn.

They're not of the same nature.

You could start with Exodus 22:18.

OK. Where in Exodous 22:18 does it say that killing a witch is for the witch's own good?

Claiming to relieve someone from suffering sure suggests it is for that person's good.

But where in Exodous 22:18 does it ever say anything about relieving somebody from suffering?

I am very much talking about morality.

No, you weren't talking about morality at all. You were talking about the effectiveness of persuading other people to your beliefs.

 

[Alexandrah]

I've asked this question before. You won't convince anyone of their hypocrisy so don't even bother.

All life is sacred and valuable to me. Elevating one person above another or calling one innocent and another guilty does not change this fact.

 

[Alexandrah]

double post

 

[Garyzenuf]

I find it strange the godless non-Christians are arguing for justice to be done to murders thru life imprisonment while all the Christians are arguing for revenge thru state sponsored murder.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I am very much talking about morality. IMHO, it is immoral to kill a human being, except in self-defense, period.

Just a thought, but what if it is immoral to kill in self defense too, but because the one who was killed was the one to force the situation, they are the one in the wrong, so you have done nothing morally wrong?

 

[lawtonfogle]

No, I think justice is about protecting the innocent and punishing evildoers and upholding the integrity of the law. Depending on the crime, that may necessitate a grave punishment or no punishment at all.

Ok, slightly different question. Do you think that the death penalty should be used in practice due to the ability of our justice system to fail, or that it should be used in theory, but not practice, because our justice system can wrongly convict people?

 

[pantless rationalist]

Could you please show me where in the Bible we're told that Old Covenant law has been reinstated?

I never made this claim. Where in the new covenant are rules laid out for both banning abortion and condoning the death penalty? OT laws are used to argue against abortion, and divine approval of capital punishment in the OT is used as a justification for the death penalty. We're seeing the same incongruity; I'm just taking it to its ultimate conclusion.

My argument was that it is inconsistent to argue, from the OT, for the death penalty (for some instances) and against abortion while at the same time ignoring everything else that the laws state. If Christians are only to follow the teachings in the NT then I don't see how either stance is well supported.

 

[lilakuh]

Just a thought, but what if it is immoral to kill in self defense too, but because the one who was killed was the one to force the situation, they are the one in the wrong, so you have done nothing morally wrong?

I guess if you would take Jesus' teachings to the ultimate conclusion, such as the one about "turning the other cheek", and "doing good to those who hate you", then indeed it would be immoral to kill even in self-defense.

I however do not take the bible as the ultimate authority on morality, even though many things said by Jesus make a lot of sense. That's why I gave my definition as "my humble opinion".

 

[lilakuh]

They're not of the same nature.

Taking a life is taking a life, regardless of how you look at it. You talk about abstract things like "upholding the integrity of the law", when in fact I think all you're seeking is revenge.

OK. Where in Exodous 22:18 does it say that killing a witch is for the witch's own good?
...
But where in Exodous 22:18 does it ever say anything about relieving somebody from suffering?

"Exodus 22:18 (King James Version)
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Unless my grasp of the English language is really that bad, my interpretation of this passage is that if someone is "suffering" from being a "witch", you should relieve them from that suffering.

Please let me hear your interpretation of the above.

No, you weren't talking about morality at all. You were talking about the effectiveness of persuading other people to your beliefs.

My stance is that the premeditated killing of a human being is always immoral, with the exception of self-defense. You need to elaborate on how you think I'm not talking about morality. You seem to be confusing discussion (after all, we're on a discussion board) with attempts of persuasion.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

"Exodus 22:18 (King James Version)
18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

Unless my grasp of the English language is really that bad, my interpretation of this passage is that if someone is "suffering" from being a "witch", you should relieve them from that suffering.

Well, I hate to point that out, but in this case, your grasp of English does fail you - but mainly because what we're faced with here is Early Modern English, a very archaic usage that does not exactly match the way people speak and write today.
"To suffer", in this context, means something along the lines of "to tolerate, to bear". (Which is, by the way, the original meaning of the Latin root "sub+ferre".)
It does not relate to the witch, but to the person addressed: "Do not allow a sorceress to live." (Which is, by the way, how the passage is translated in less archaic versions.)

 

[pantless rationalist]

I'm glad you pointed that out, Jane; I would've hated to be the one to break the news.

 

[lilakuh]

Well, I hate to point that out, but in this case, your grasp of English does fail you - but mainly because what we're faced with here is Early Modern English, a very archaic usage that does not exactly match the way people speak and write today.
"To suffer", in this context, means something along the lines of "to tolerate, to bear". (Which is, by the way, the original meaning of the Latin root "sub+ferre".)
It does not relate to the witch, but to the person addressed: "Do not allow a sorceress to live." (Which is, by the way, how the passage is translated in less archaic versions.)

I stand corrected. One learns something new every day.

Nevertheless, the main point of my argument still stands, mainly that I do not think that ending a life means upholding its value, as another poster claimed.