No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[bibleverse2]

. . . if that crowd had stoned that woman, the Jewish leaders would have used it to get Jesus in trouble with the Roman authorities before the appointed time. Jesus was not taking chances here. He issued a command and the crowd followed it.

Note that even though under Roman rule the Jews were not allowed to execute people (John 18:31), they still sometimes went ahead and executed or attempted to execute people for religious reasons (Acts 7:57-60, Acts 14:5,19, John 10:31-33, John 8:59, John 11:8, Luke 4:29). In cases where individuals were popular, the Jewish leaders were careful not to do this, or publicly even harm or speak against such individuals, lest the Jewish leaders be stoned by the people (Luke 20:6, Acts 5:26). Also, Jesus Christ did not tell the people not to stone the woman caught in adultery because they were under Roman rule. Instead, He told them to go ahead and stone her, so long as they were without sin (John 8:7). And even though Jesus was without sin (Hebrews 4:15b; 2 Corinthians 5:21), He still did not stone her, but showed her mercy (John 8:11, John 1:17). Let us do the same.

(See also post #4 above)

 

[bibleverse2]

How do you distinguish between the OT laws that are binding on Christians, and those that aren't?

On Jesus Christ's Cross, for both Jews and Gentiles (John 11:51-52) of all times, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law was completely and forever abolished (Ephesians 2:15-16, Colossians 2:14-17; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18), disannulled (Hebrews 7:18), rendered obsolete (Hebrews 8:13, Galatians 3:2-25, Galatians 4:21 to 5:8), taken away and replaced (Hebrews 10:9) by the better hope (Hebrews 7:19), the better covenant (Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6-12), the second covenant (Hebrews 8:7, Hebrews 10:9), of Jesus' New Covenant law (Galatians 6:2, John 1:17, Matthew 26:28, Hebrews 12:24, Hebrews 9:15), so that the law was changed (Hebrews 7:12).

All Christians, whether Jews or Gentles, of all times, are delivered from the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law and should not keep it (Romans 7:6; 2 Corinthians 3:6-18, Galatians 2:11-21), or have any desire to keep it (Galatians 4:21 to 5:8, Galatians 3:2-25). Christians keep the spirit of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Romans 7:6) by loving others (Galatians 5:14, Romans 13:8-10), by doing to others as they would have others do to them (Matthew 7:12).

The New Covenant is a new law (Hebrews 7:12,18-19, Hebrews 10:1-23), consisting of Jesus Christ's New Covenant/New Testament commandments (John 14:15), such as those which He gave in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:19 to 7:29) and in the epistles of the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 14:37). These commandments exceed in righteousness the abolished letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law (Matthew 5:20-48), so there is no reason for any Christian to ever want to go back under it (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). It was just a temporary schoolmaster (Galatians 3:24-25), a temporary shadow (Colossians 2:16-17), which God set up because of sins long after He had set up the original promise of the Abrahamic Covenant, and long before He brought this promise to fulfillment in Jesus' New Covenant (Galatians 3:16-29, Matthew 26:28).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been made obsolete by the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:13). For example, the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required an Aaronic priesthood (Exodus 30:30), whereas the New Covenant replaced the Aaronic priesthood with the Melchisedechian priesthood (Hebrews 7:11-28). And the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law required animal sacrifices for sin (Leviticus 23:19), whereas the New Covenant replaced these with the one-time sacrifice of Jesus Christ Himself on the Cross (Hebrews 10).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law is the Hagar to the New Covenant's Sarah (Galatians 4:21-25). So those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who try to keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law are like Ishmael, Abraham's son by a bondmaid (Galatians 4:22), who was cast out (Galatians 4:30), while those people, whether Jews or Gentiles, who keep the New Covenant are like Isaac (Galatians 4:28), Abraham's son by a freewoman (Galatians 4:22,31), who became his heir (Galatians 4:30b).

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law, including the letter of its Ten Commandments, written and engraven in stones (2 Corinthians 3:7, Deuteronomy 4:13, Deuteronomy 27:8), was the ministration of death and condemnation (2 Corinthians 3:7,9). For example, see Leviticus 20:10, Exodus 31:14, and Numbers 15:32-36; and contrast these with the New Covenant's John 8:4-11 and Matthew 12:1-8.

The letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law has been completely and forever done away (2 Corinthians 3:11), abolished (2 Corinthians 3:13b). But it is still able to spiritually blind some people as with a veil from beholding Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:14-16), while the New Covenant is the ministration of the Spirit and righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:6,8-9b), which remains (2 Corinthians 3:11b), and which permits Christians to remove the veil and to behold Jesus (2 Corinthians 3:16-18, Mark 15:38, Hebrews 7:18-19, Ephesians 2:15-18, Colossians 2:14-17).

But a mistaken spirit of Pharisaism can still sometimes deceive even some Christians into thinking that they must keep the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law to be saved from hell (Acts 15:1,5), or to become perfect (Galatians 3:2 to 5:26). This is a false, cursed gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). For if any Christians are keeping any part of the letter of the Old Covenant Mosaic law thinking that they must do so in order to be saved from hell, or in order to become perfect, then Jesus Christ will profit them nothing. They have fallen from grace (Galatians 5:2-8).

 

[Town Heretic]

And some people think Catholicism is heretical, plenty on here in fact. Not interested in "organised religion" thanks.

Another vote for "disorganized religion" then...we just keep losing folks to the Methodists. lain:

 

[Clete]

I've highlighted what is, by far, the most important thing I said in this whole post. I don't even care if you respond, or even read, the rest...

How is any of that merciful? Everyone better off? How? Fewer people would be murdered? Why? Are you of the opinion that most murders are premeditated?

This thinking is so foreign to me that I'm not even sure how to respond. This belongs in the mouth of a naive child that knows next to nothing.

I'd say first of all that you need to reexamine your understanding of justice, you attitude toward God and God's word and your understanding of the law and its function in society.
You'd do yourself a favor by staying off left wing (i.e. evil) website. The left is constantly and I do mean CONSTANTLY advocating for whatever policy insures the most death possible.


First of all, if you execute murderers upon conviction of their crime, you'll have fewer murderers. Not only because you've executed the one's you know about but also because fewer people would commit murder. People sort of like to not get executed by the state because they lost their temper.

Also, any nation that would execute murderers the way the bible prescribes would likely have a great many other laws which the bible describes and so your entire society would be far more moral over all as well as respectful of the law and fearful of the governing official's "sword".

In other words, there is a reason that the law is called "the great teacher". Just laws work! That's a big part of why they are considered just laws to begin with.

Or there's very little deterrent in it and time is a happenstance. No way to say, objectively.

I'd be willing to bet my house that it won't keep you from saying it anyway.

Fair enough. About 1,499 since 1976, according to deathpenaltyinfo.org. Still, a lot of people. Chances are that some of them weren't actually guilty either.

I'd say far less than 1% of those executed for murder weren't guilty but let's give it a whole 2%...

2% of 1499 is basically 30. So, being ridiculously generous with the number, 30 people are wrongly executed vs. the hundreds of thousands who have been murdered in this country during the same time.

Not even worth comparing the two. Only a willfully ignorant fool would try to make an argument against the death penalty on such a basis.

That doesn't necessarily follow, but it's immaterial to my proffer.

Saying it doesn't make it so. It follows perfectly and you know it. This is you simply ignoring the point.

I said it was just that a murderer be put to death. The problem is, we don't always get it right, so the fellow we have against the wall may be and has been, from time to time, another victim. Any, if preventable, is too many for a society that values either life or justice.

So you think you value life more than God?

That's what this silliness implies!

It isn't me who said that the murderer should be executed. It isn't me that set the standard of guilt at reasonable evidence rather than the backward reasonable doubt standard either. But you want to go even further off the rails and have a standard of absolute certainty. A standard which you know intuitively is an impossible standard to meet and that's why you use it. You simply want to abolish the death penalty period. That's what you really want. All the talk about justice is just window dressing.

The fact is that God hates it when those who should live get killed as much as He hates it when those who should get killed are allowed to live. He hates both and says that both profane Him. (Ezekiel 13:19)

If what you want is to simultaneously have the fewest number of murders AND the fewest number of wrongful executions, then do it God's way and convict on reasonable evidence and execute all those who are convicted. It's not a difficult problem to solve. The only question is whether you trust God or not. Do you think God is smarter and wiser than you or do you think it's the other way around?

Supra. It's not the dose that's the immediate problem. It's giving it to the wrong soul.

Talk about not following. It isn't the murderer that's getting the dosage here, its the society in which he lives. You gotta keep your eye on the metaphor here. The recommended dosage is 100% execution of all convicted murderers. If you execute 50% then that's the metaphorical equivalent of 1 Tylenol when two is called for. We in the west are grinding the Tylenol into powder and then swallowing the tiniest speck of Tylenol dust and then wondering why we still have a headache.

To deny the penalty of sin is to show indifference to the law. Same flawed logic in both.

Then why do you use it?

I believe that's changed, but it's a different argument and a pointless one given the first problem, so I'll stay with that one.

This made no sense.

What's changed, justice? You think God altered the definition of justice? On what basis and in what possible alternate universe could such a thing be pointless?

And what "first problem" are you referring too?

Or to follow Christ's example, arguably, but again, that's an argument that needn't be entered into, supra.

Again, this makes no sense.

Christ's example? The entire gospel is predicated upon the justice of the death penalty. I mean, the basis for the entire Christian faith is based on the justice to the death penalty. If the death penalty is unjust then what in the world was Jesus doing on that cross, supra?

(I don't know what the word, "supra" is doing at the end of that sentence. I just thought that adding extra words that don't seem to mean anything is how you liked it, so..)

And as I said to someone earlier, the distinction between tearing down the system and putting up a new one and simply expanding an existing rule of law is simple: the latter can be accomplished.

You're on a theology web forum. This is not the U.S. Congress. None of anything anyone here says is going to get enacted into law and so your position is no more practical than anyone else's. The difference is who's advocating justice and who isn't.

Clete

 

[Town Heretic]

I've highlighted what is, by far, the most important thing I said in this whole post. I don't even care if you respond, or even read, the rest...

Then why write it?

This thinking is so foreign to me that I'm not even sure how to respond. This belongs in the mouth of a naive child that knows next to nothing.

And yet here I am, a mature man with a doctoral degree. Go figure. And that sort of response from you and so many on the hard right, that methodological habit, is why I struggle to take you seriously, you doing that so soundly without me. It seems superfluous to try.

I'd say first of all that you need to reexamine your understanding of justice, you attitude toward God and God's word and your understanding of the law and its function in society.

I'd say you could use a little more humility and a lot less assumption. People. We have work to do, don't we.

First of all, if you execute murderers upon conviction of their crime, you'll have fewer murderers.

Presumes we know who they are, which as it turns out we sometimes don't and then someone who shouldn't be executed ends up dead. Given it isn't necessary, I find it fairly indefensible.

Not only because you've executed the one's you know about but also because fewer people would commit murder. People sort of like to not get executed by the state because they lost their temper.

That's presuming two or three things not in evidence. The first is that murder is part of or largely part of a rational process. The second is one that gun control opponents love to use on that issue: are you of the opinion that criminals care about laws?

Not even worth comparing the two. Only a willfully ignorant fool would try to make an argument against the death penalty on such a basis.

Only someone in too much of a hurry would present a false dichotomy as a coup de gras.

Saying it doesn't make it so. It follows perfectly and you know it. This is you simply ignoring the point.

Then your saying a thing that doesn't make it so either. This is you ignoring my point. Now what good did that do either of us?

So you think you value life more than God?

I think when we start believing that our thoughts are his thoughts instead of recognizing that our thoughts are mostly us approaching his as best we can, with stumbling along the way, we invite folly, and pride. I think I value life more than you, which is a very different thing. I think that because you're willing to sacrifice people who don't have to be. I'm pretty sure God had a horrible penalty for judges who did that.

It isn't me who said that the murderer should be executed.

The problem we have between us at the moment isn't the argument over whether or not the murderer should be executed. What I'm speaking to is the thing we have no right to do.

I had to get rid of you shouting at me. It was needless and takes up a lot of space. The concluding sentence was the heart of your mistake, as I see it. You believe we should be laboring under the OT law. I don't, but that's a separate argument and I've spoken to the pointlessness of that approach relative to what is and what can be accomplished here and now. It's a point separate from my proffer.

Talk about not following.

Maybe you're not doing the job you need to in setting it out. I'm a pretty good reader. So, who knows? Or, rather, why assume. Just try again.

It isn't the murderer that's getting the dosage here, its the society in which he lives.

The dosage being what, again? I'll wait. That's right, execution. The suggestion is that we're not doing enough of it to feel the effect of it. And that's just an assumption.

Then why do you use it?

To illustrate the mistake you made. How did you not get that?

What's changed, justice? You think God altered the definition of justice?

I think justice without mercy is hard. I think the law without the cross was hard. It was meant to be. It was meant to show the proud that they were willfully insufficient. That we fail the standard of justice and mean to. That the relation between man and God cannot be founded on it or our righteousness, but on mercy and in his righteousness...But that's beyond my point and an argument that I don't require to proffer the one I have, the one that can be accomplished and standard with a just result, that the innocent are not murdered by the state.

(I don't know what the word, "supra" is doing at the end of that sentence. I just thought that adding extra words that don't seem to mean anything is how you liked it, so..)

You're smart enough to understand what supra means and how it is used. Don't waste my time with this sort of nonsense because you're too lazy to look up.

You're on a theology web forum. This is not the U.S. Congress.

And as in Congress we have opinions and arguments to proffer. Mine just happens to be the sort that reflects a fractured remedy in need of larger application, but already on the books in different states to different degrees. So, because it has already happened in parts it's reasonable to suggest it can happen writ large. Overturning the system isn't.

None of anything anyone here says is going to get enacted into law and so your position is no more practical than anyone else's.

That's not what makes a thing practical or less. What makes it practical is that it is already being accomplished in part, is a part of the fabric of the law and doesn't require the overturning of a system to accomplish, only a uniformity and expansion of an operating principle.

The difference is who's advocating justice and who isn't.

No, that's just the banner you stitched and hold over your head.

 

[Gary K]

I'd just like to point out the obvious. An emotion-based argument isn't necessarily an emotional argument. The fallacy that Town Heretic keeps using is that an emotion-based argument must be an emotional argument. That's just untrue as an emotion-based argument appeals to the emotions of those who support the concept the emotion-based argument is used to promote.

One of the other fallacies used in this thread is that an educated person is necessarily right on everything and a less educated person is necessariy unable to have the wisdom it takes to make decistions that oppose the "educated" person. It's ironic that it was the "educated" people in this country who supported the Nazis until it because so obvious that the Nazis were unrepentently evil that it was impossible to deny. Then they made believe they had always opposed Hitler. Sadly though the academics said that Hitler was the appropriate solution for the "German problem".

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and you see how little fear of the Lord there is in academia.

 

[Stripe]

Are you of the opinion that criminals care about laws?

No.

They care about having rocks thrown at them. It scares them. Free food and accommodation for a few years doesn't.

Only someone in too much of a hurry would present a false dichotomy as a coup de gras.

You've been asked countless times to consider more than just your data on the execution of innocent people.

A false dichotomy is when you ask us to choose between two options when there are more than two options.

I guess you just don't know what the phrase means. :idunno:

Surprising for someone with a PhD.

I think when we start believing that our thoughts are his thoughts instead of recognizing that our thoughts are mostly us approaching his as best we can, with stumbling along the way, we invite folly, and pride. I think I value life more than you, which is a very different thing.

Luckily, we don't have to read minds. We just have to read.

But thanks for consistently taking sensible points and responding with emotionalism.

I think that because you're willing to sacrifice people who don't have to be. I'm pretty sure God had a horrible penalty for judges who did that.

Emotionalism and libel. Also, your accusations are ultimately directed at God. He installed the DP.

The problem we have between us at the moment isn't the argument over whether or not the murderer should be executed. What I'm speaking to is the thing we have no right to do.

We don't have the right to let murderers live. And you want them walking free.

You believe we should be laboring under the OT law.

Nope.

Today's laws should provide justice.

But thanks for the emotional manipulation.

I'm a pretty good reader.

:darwinsm:

The one that can be accomplished and standard with a just result, that the innocent are not murdered by the state.

And on the altar of the few tens of people your proposal might sentence to life without parole are sacrificed the tens of thousands of victims of the murder epidemic.

 

[Town Heretic]

I'd just like to point out the obvious. An emotion-based argument isn't necessarily an emotional argument. The fallacy that Town Heretic keeps using is that an emotion-based argument must be an emotional argument.

Well, actually, other people kept saying my argument was emotion-based and I noted why, exactly, it wasn't, while holding that having strong feeling about the argument or outcome desired is completely human, fine, and has no impact on the efficacy of the proffer.

Hope that helps.

One of the other fallacies used in this thread is that an educated person is necessarily right on everything and a less educated person is necessariy unable to have the wisdom it takes to make decistions that oppose the "educated" person.

It's not a flag I've advanced. Who believes it?

In fact, I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't even have a GED. The advantage in education for most people who aren't born with remarkable ability is the same as you'd find for any endeavor of worth. I mean, if you wanted to be a mason you wouldn't just start laying bricks willy-nilly. You'd apprentice with someone who understood how to do it well and could teach you.

Well, thinking is the same sort of thing. Anyone can do it, but it takes practice to do it well, which is one reason children aren't very good at it, as a rule. The greatest value in continuing education is that it forces you out of your comfort zone, makes you take on other ideas, defend them, inhabit them, even if you end up rejecting them at the end of that process. It should teach you how to approach a thought with discipline and measure.

Now you can do it without that, but most people don't tend to get out of that aforementioned comfort zone without a push. It's human nature.

It's ironic that it was the "educated" people in this country who supported the Nazis until it because so obvious that the Nazis were unrepentently evil.

Rather, it was a huge portion of the population that disliked Jews. Education didn't really factor, largely because so much of that was bound with religious sentiment as well. There were people, educated and uneducated, who knew better. The only thing I'll say about the well educated in relation to that and other definable evils is that they have less excuse than those who couldn't afford what they squandered or ignored in the pursuit of nursing their personal evil.

Then they made believe they had always opposed Hitler. Sadly though the academics said that Hitler was the appropriate solution for the "German problem".

Most Germans weren't well educated. Most Germans supported Hitler. So did Henry Ford. So did the guy down the street, for the most part. Sad, but true.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and you see how little fear of the Lord there is in academia.

Most of those intellectuals you're speaking to then, and the ordinary guy in the street who agreed, were Christians. They just weren't doing it right.

 

[Stripe]

Well, actually, other people kept saying my argument was emotion-based and I noted why, exactly, it wasn't.

Your argument is that we shouldn't have the death penalty because innocent people might be executed.

It is emotion-based because you hold up data about innocent people being executed, but ignore things that don't paint your position in a good light.

Having strong feeling about the argument or outcome desired is completely human, fine, and has no impact on the efficacy of the proffer.

That you think this is the challenge you face shows how little you understand what has been written.

Hope that helps.

 

[Gary K]

Well, actually, other people kept saying my argument was emotion-based and I noted why, exactly, it wasn't, while holding that having strong feeling about the argument or outcome desired is completely human, fine, and has no impact on the efficacy of the proffer.

Hope that helps.


It's not a flag I've advanced. Who believes it?

In fact, I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't even have a GED. The advantage in education for most people who aren't born with remarkable ability is the same as you'd find for any endeavor of worth. I mean, if you wanted to be a mason you wouldn't just start laying bricks willy-nilly. You'd apprentice with someone who understood how to do it well and could teach you.

Well, thinking is the same sort of thing. Anyone can do it, but it takes practice to do it well, which is one reason children aren't very good at it, as a rule. The greatest value in continuing education is that it forces you out of your comfort zone, makes you take on other ideas, defend them, inhabit them, even if you end up rejecting them at the end of that process. It should teach you how to approach a thought with discipline and measure.

Now you can do it without that, but most people don't tend to get out of that aforementioned comfort zone without a push. It's human nature.


Rather, it was a huge portion of the population that disliked Jews. Education didn't really factor, largely because so much of that was bound with religious sentiment as well. There were people, educated and uneducated, who knew better. The only thing I'll say about the well educated in relation to that and other definable evils is that they have less excuse than those who couldn't afford what they squandered or ignored in the pursuit of nursing their personal evil.


Most Germans weren't well educated. Most Germans supported Hitler. So did Henry Ford. So did the guy down the street, for the most part. Sad, but true.


Most of those intellectuals you're speaking to then, and the ordinary guy in the street who agreed, were Christians. They just weren't doing it right.

You believe in the fallacy of education making you wiser and smarter. If you didn't you wouldn't have pointed to your doctoral degree as evidence of your superior knowledge and understanding.

Jesus was better educated by the age of 12 then the religious leaders of His day. He baffled them with his questions and understanding of scripture at his very first visit to the temple. His mother and the Holy Spirit were His teachers and they did an outstanding job of educating Him.

Education had everything to do with it. Just like it does today. You wonder why the press points out that it is college-educated people who support socialism and big government? I can tell you. Those with college level/university level educations get far more indoctrination into left wing politics than the self-educated person does. I read widely in a multitude of areas, and I read on both sides the questions. You don't get that in the public educational system. It's all one-sided, and that side is always for the leftist side of the equation.

You make a huge unsupported assertion saying it was mostly Christians who supported the Nazis. Sorry. You're just wrong on that account. There isn't any evidence that I've ever seen that supports that assertion. The biggest anti-Semites around are found on the political left, not on the conservative side. It's a side effect of their following Karl Marx who was a blatant racist. I have the evidence to support this if you're doubting me.

And you close with more unsupported assertions. Most Germans supported Hitler because of the propoganda they were fed consistently by the press, which was well-educated, about how Hitler was going to make the German nation wealthy again. Those same people, the common people, wept openly when the US army forced them to tour the concentration camps so that they had to view what the Nazis had done. Their own academic elite in their media had kept them in ignorance of what was going on.

Those who disliked Hitler were often found among the common people. It was the academic elite found in the state controlled church who threw their support behind Hitler. Not the common person sitting in the pews. It's just one more example of how the educated elite have led the common man astray an into large errors of judgment and the destruction of faith in God and His word. I can give you example after example of this down throughout the history of the world.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Anyways back to the actual topic: I say again what I said before:

There is no one correct position on this issue. The death penalty is Biblical and therefore acceptable. On the other hand, Mercy is desired by the Lord. It is one of those topics where you can lean either way and still be a good Christian or Jew.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

1: CC can choose to see TH's posts if he wants. Nobody has forced him to put TH on ignore and if he's gonna go around inventing up garbage and bad mouthing a poster he supposedly has on ignore then neither he, nor you (either) have any sort of case, not that you had one anyway.

2: Neither you or you, sorry, CC have any basis for lecturing anyone about objectivity.

​Please keep posts on the topic of the thread and off TOL members. Mocking posts and posts that get too personal are thread killers. There are posts, however in this thread that make keeping this thread going worthwhile. Members that get too personal will just get booted from the thread.

I'm seeing two different user names - who claim they're not the same person - using the same odd expression. How fascinating a coincidence is that?

This has been addressed before by Sherman. Knock it off.......

 

[Catholic Crusader]

ARTICLE
Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/o...g-the-catechism-revision-on-the-death-penalty

On August 1, Cardinal Luis Ladaria issued a letter to the bishops of the world announcing that Pope Francis had approved a change to the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church dealing with the death penalty.

Here are some key facts for understanding this revision . . .

What does the Catechism now say?

The relevant passage now reads:

2267 Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” (Francis, Discourse, Oct. 11, 2017), and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Is this revision a surprise?

Not really. The last several popes—St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis—have taken a negative tone toward the death penalty, and the Catechism had already been revised once to reflect this.


ME: I hereby change my previous statement that it is acceptable.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Its funny that you keep perverting the simple fact that attacking someone who cannot see your post and respond is cowardly. It is. But people like you never admit their own wrongdoing. You just dive deeper into self-justifications.

No, if TH was forcing CC to be unable to respond to or be able see his posts then you'd have a point. He isn't. It's CC's choice to act the way he is and put TH on ignore, just as it's solely on him if he's going to lie about a poster he supposedly has on said ignore. You are either being purposely obtuse or just plain ridiculous.

 

[Rusha]

Its funny that you keep perverting the simple fact that attacking someone who cannot see your post and respond is cowardly. It is. But people like you never admit their own wrongdoing. You just dive deeper into self-justifications.

He has chosen NOT to read TH’s posts... TH has not chosen to ignore CC’s posts. Seriously ... it’s not that difficult.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Its funny that you keep perverting the simple fact that attacking someone who cannot see your post and respond is cowardly. It is. But people like you never admit their own wrongdoing. You just dive deeper into self-justifications.

1: CC can choose to see TH's posts if he wants. Nobody has forced him to put TH on ignore and if he's gonna go around inventing up garbage and bad mouthing a poster he supposedly has on ignore then neither he, nor you (either) have any sort of case, not that you had one anyway.

2: Neither you or you, sorry, CC have any basis for lecturing anyone about objectivity.

No, if TH was forcing CC to be unable to respond to or be able see his posts then you'd have a point. He isn't. It's CC's choice to act the way he is and put TH on ignore, just as it's solely on him if he's going to lie about a poster he supposedly has on said ignore. You are either being purposely obtuse or just plain ridiculous.

Get back on topic or I'm going to boot you from the thread.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Get back on topic or I'm going to boot you from the thread.

Fine, how about you respond to this?

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...our-Position&p=5339809&viewfull=1#post5339809

Oh, and if you're going to boot me from the thread then I presume you're going to do the same to those who are whining about TH acting cowardly?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Fine, how about you respond to this?

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...our-Position&p=5339809&viewfull=1#post5339809

It was answered sufficiently enough that if I were to add anything it would be redundant.

Oh, and if you're going to boot me from the thread then I presume you're going to do the same to those who are whining about TH acting cowardly?

Only if they continue the personal discussions, rather than the topic of the thread.

 

[Sherman]

Arthur I have given a timeout from the thread for a day. Discussions about socks are prohibited. It's moot anyways since there isn't a rule against them unless they are being used to disrupt or bypass a ban. There is no evidence I can see with my mod tools that these users are the same individual so drop it please. I can not mod based on gut feelings. It isn't fair to the members.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

ARTICLE
Understanding the Catechism Revision on the Death Penalty
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/o...g-the-catechism-revision-on-the-death-penalty

On August 1, Cardinal Luis Ladaria issued a letter to the bishops of the world announcing that Pope Francis had approved a change to the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church dealing with the death penalty.

Here are some key facts for understanding this revision . . .

What does the Catechism now say?

The relevant passage now reads:

2267 Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person” (Francis, Discourse, Oct. 11, 2017), and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide.

Is this revision a surprise?

Not really. The last several popes—St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis—have taken a negative tone toward the death penalty, and the Catechism had already been revised once to reflect this.


ME: I hereby change my previous statement that it is acceptable.

MORE:

What level of authority does the new revision have?

According to Cardinal Ladaria:

• The new revision of number 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, approved by Pope Francis, situates itself in continuity with the preceding Magisterium while bringing forth a coherent development of Catholic doctrine (7).

As a doctrinal development, it would qualify as authoritative teaching (as opposed to mere theological opinion), and it would qualify as non-definitive (i.e., non-infallible) Church teaching.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/o...g-the-catechism-revision-on-the-death-penalty

ME: In other words this is not an infallible doctrine so it could evolve again, but it is important.