Whats your opinion?

[ForJesusChrist]

On this?

Why Christians should support the death penalty – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

Should Christians support the death penalty today? I believe that we must, but with the considerations detailed above.

God Bless

 

[Kalevalatar]

Well, I agree. Death penalty is too convenient a weapon to be used against minorities and political/ideological opponents.

As evidenced by the list of the kind of states that still use it against their own citizens and foreigners (in the order of number of executed persons):

1. People's Republic of China
2. Iran
3. Iraq
4. Saudi Arabia
5. The United States of America
6. Yemen
7. Sudan
8. Afghanistan
9. Gambia
10. Japan
11. North Korea
12. Somalia
13. Palestinian Authority
14. Republic of China (Taiwan)
15. South Sudan
16. Belarus
17. Botswana
18. Bangladesh
19. India
20. Pakistan
21. United Arab Emirates

Not exactly the beacons of humanity and liberty, these. And only two Christian-majority countries on that list: the Belarussian dictatorship and then of course, the United States of America. The rest of the Christendom is absent from that list for a good reason: "If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority must limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person." A deeply Christian position.

 

[pyramid33]

We should not support a death penalty.

 

[Rubiks]

We should not support a death penalty.

I agree. The death penalty prevents one from coming to Christ for forgiveness.

 

[keith99]

I agree. The death penalty prevents one from coming to Christ for forgiveness.

Garbage. C.S. Lewis pointed out that it is probably more likely that a man facing imminent death would come to Christ than a man who had spent the last 40 years in prison.

Now one could argue that as things work, with never ending delays, that this is no longer true and that death row as it really exists creates cynicism. But a man facing execution in the U.S. has every chance to come to Christ in any case.

 

[Inkachu]

I agree with the article.

 

[cow451]

We should not support a death penalty.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

I agree wholeheartedly with the death penalty, and we should never, ever use it.

Some points:
1. We do not execute people for murdering other people. We execute people for being convicted of murdering other people. I don't trust twelve random people and a judge to make that determination.

2. Being tough on crime gets politicians elected. Judges, police chiefs, sheriffs, district attorneys, and other prosecutors are often elected positions, and you can't get much tougher on crime than executing people. It's in their best interests to do so. So they can't necessarily be trusted to seek justice.

3. God is all in favor of the death penalty. Yet, according to Genesis, He did not kill the first murderer. Didn't even imprison him. Actually kept him safe from those who wanted justice to be done on him. I find that interesting.

 

[ThisBrotherOfHis]

3. God is all in favor of the death penalty. Yet, according to Genesis, He did not kill the first murderer. Didn't even imprison him. Actually kept him safe from those who wanted justice to be done on him. I find that interesting.

Read the requirements for invoking God's death penalty. It required two or three witnesses. It required malice and premeditation. It required the witnesses to take part in the execution. None of those criteria can be met in Cain's "murder trial" because there were no witnesses, Cain did not attack his brother with malice, and there could have been no executioner, given the first fact of the case.

I could try to explain Cain’s survival by pointing out the law against murder wasn’t given by God for another 1,600 years after Noah’s flood. Even the Old Testament wasn’t written by Moses for another 900 years after that. But this response fails since there is the punishment of banishing. If it wasn’t a crime because the law hadn’t been given yet, there would have been no punishment at all.

Cain clearly expected to be punished by God and men. Thus, his severe but non-capital banishment demands explanation, and the only biblically plausible answer is that this wasn’t murder. Nothing in the text indicates that Cain intended Abel’s death. Not only are there hundreds of ways to strike a man and kill him unintentionally, but it’s even possible, as the first homicide in history, that Cain didn’t even understand the consequences of his assault. Furthermore, even if Cain did intend to kill Abel in a moment of rage, it’s not clear this would legally qualify as premeditated.

God’s penal system distinguishes negligent homicide from murder, and forbids the execution of those who accidentally take a life. In fact, the refuge cities were precisely for men who unfortunately caused such a death, to protect them from the vigilante justice some family members might seek to impose. Thus, one might say we know it wasn’t murder precisely because God merely banished him.

 

[StephanieSomer]

Thus, one might say we know it wasn’t murder precisely because God merely banished him.

1John 3:11,12 "11 For this is the message that you heard from the beginning, that we should love one another, 12 not as Cain who was of the wicked one and murdered his brother. And why did he murder him? Because his works were evil and his brother’s righteous."

 

[Paradoxum]

I find it strange that some Christians are very fine with bringing their religious morality into law with things like same sex marriage, but with unnecessary state killings, their religion goes out the window.

Apparently their religion is more important to them than the neutrality, liberty and equality of the law, but their lust for blood outweighs Jesus.

Clearly Jesus wouldn't be okay with unnecessarily killing people, when they could be locked up in prison instead. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy, etc. The Bible in general (NT) says not to repay evil with evil.

Why do the best parts of your religion get thrown out so you can murder murderers, but you keep the worst parts so you can oppress and violate those who just want to live their lives freely? Seems pretty messed up to me.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Most Christians who support, or don't support, the death penalty are speaking for themselves only, not for the church or as members of the church. In such matters the individual Christian is still subject to the judgment of the leadership of the church, and to my knowledge few churches (denominations) have taken a formal public stance on the death penalty. So the opinion of the individual must not in any way be perceived as the position of any particular denomination or ministry, or of the Christian faith in general.

Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

 

[SepiaAndDust]

Put that in yer pipe and smoke it.

Hey, Man... which denominations support that?

 

[High Fidelity]

We should not support a death penalty.

Pretty much.

It's insanity. Society gains nothing by killing a person in custody.

Someone else made a good point in another thread as well with regards to someone in a botched execution;

I am gettin the vibe that many christians in this thread would rather that he hadn't be redeemed, so he would get his due suffering.

 

[keith99]

I find it strange that some Christians are very fine with bringing their religious morality into law with things like same sex marriage, but with unnecessary state killings, their religion goes out the window.

Apparently their religion is more important to them than the neutrality, liberty and equality of the law, but their lust for blood outweighs Jesus.

Clearly Jesus wouldn't be okay with unnecessarily killing people, when they could be locked up in prison instead. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy, etc. The Bible in general (NT) says not to repay evil with evil.

Why do the best parts of your religion get thrown out so you can murder murderers, but you keep the worst parts so you can oppress and violate those who just want to live their lives freely? Seems pretty messed up to me.

I do not see the NT as voiding death as the penalty for many crimes. The most cited verse used to support such a position is a latter addition, not the words of Jesus.

That said I also find a difference between supporting the death penalty and being out there baying for blood, which it does seem some Christians do. Not as many as it may seem. Religion seems to suffer from the worst followers making the most noise more than other groups.

 

[JohnLocke]

I think the author of the blog has both bias against those in the legal profession and a rather flawed "understanding" of it.

I think that his hermeneutics could use some improvement.

My opinion: I am not persuaded by the blog. How does the author deal with the story of King David's conspiracy to cause the death of Uriah? By ignoring it.

I support the death penalty. I support reforming the death penalty.

 

[Joykins]

Well, if it was good enough to use on Jesus...

 

[Paradoxum]

I do not see the NT as voiding death as the penalty for many crimes. The most cited verse used to support such a position is a latter addition, not the words of Jesus.

How not?

Jesus is very clearly about love for evil people, non-violence, and turning the other cheek.

The NT turns back most OT laws. The NT is about being loving and non-violent, even to bad people. It's one of it's main points.

You can't base your legal ideas on the Bible and be in favour of unnecessarily killing criminals... you just can't. It's one of the most obvious things in the Bible.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[a] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you

(If we are going to talk about what the actual words of Jesus were... maybe none were).

That said I also find a difference between supporting the death penalty and being out there baying for blood, which it does seem some Christians do. Not as many as it may seem. Religion seems to suffer from the worst followers making the most noise more than other groups.

Well the difference is the same as between murdering someone, and hiring a hit-man.

I get that people could say that 'we shouldn't murder, but the law shouldn't follow personal morality'. The problem is you get people wanting to legally ban things because of personal morality, yet ignore the Bible when it's clearly against harming bad people.

You can't say that the law should ignore the Bible (in the case capital punishment) and then say the law should obey the Bible (eg: same-sex marriage).

 

[Rubiks]

I find it strange that some Christians are very fine with bringing their religious morality into law with things like same sex marriage, but with unnecessary state killings, their religion goes out the window.

Apparently their religion is more important to them than the neutrality, liberty and equality of the law, but their lust for blood outweighs Jesus.

Clearly Jesus wouldn't be okay with unnecessarily killing people, when they could be locked up in prison instead. Turn the other cheek, love your enemy, etc. The Bible in general (NT) says not to repay evil with evil.

Why do the best parts of your religion get thrown out so you can murder murderers, but you keep the worst parts so you can oppress and violate those who just want to live their lives freely? Seems pretty messed up to me.

You realize there are a wide variety of interpretations of "turn the other cheek," right? It doesn't mean we should ignore evil. But as you put it "don't repay evil with evil."

 

[Rubiks]

Personally I think the death penalty served its purpose well in the OT-ish days. Certainly there was not much you could do to insane psychopathic killer other than execute him, considering there were no prisons or mental hospitals. I think the death penalty is pretty much obsolete today.