No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

Status
Not open for further replies.

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
The criminal code of the OT is binding on Christians?
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] answered this in another thread.


It's two different topics.

The law of Moses was not the beginning of criminal justice. It merely expanded and clarified it.

I'll say again, criminal justice is not about atonement for sin. It is about proper human government and the just management of a civilized society. So long as human beings are rightly in charge of government, God's criminal justice system stands as the standard for criminal justice.

So, just because you are in Christ and are forgiven of all sin, if, in your flesh, you commit a crime, the government must punish you for that crime an eye for an eye. Christians commit crime all the time. Imagine if they were allowed to plead "forgiven in Christ" during the trial. Would there be a single criminal who would mouth such a plea?

. . .

Sometimes you'll get an answer as to the motive and sometime you will not. But the bible explicitly says not to take any ransom for his life. That would include information that one deemed valuable.

Whether he is a believer or not is irrelevant to whether a murderer should be executed. God will deal with his soul. The government is only to deal with his crime.

. . .

Clete

 
Last edited:

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
The vast majority of murders in the US are young black men murdering other young black men - a phenomenon that exists in no European country, which makes comparisons between the US and European countries spurious at best and intentionally dishonest at worst
If it is a fact it might be okay to say it, but isn't this racism? Each person is an individual.
 

glassjester

Well-known member
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] answered this in another thread.

That doesn't completely answer the question. Of course the moral code remains. That which was morally wrong then, remains morally wrong today. But what about the punishments for each crime? Are we to carry out the very same penalties for the very same crimes?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION] answered this in another thread.



It's two different topics.

The law of Moses was not the beginning of criminal justice. It merely expanded and clarified it.

I say again, criminal justice is not about the atonement for sin. It is about proper human government and the just management of a civilized society. So long as human beings are rightly in charge of government, God's criminal justice system stands as the standard for criminal justice.

So, just because you are in Christ and are forgiven of all sin. If, in your flesh, you commit a crime, the government must punish you for that crime an eye for an eye. Christians commit crime all the time. Imagine if they were allowed to plied "forgiven in Christ" during the trial. Would there be a single criminal who would mouth such a plea?

. . .

Sometimes you'll get an answer as to the motive and sometime you will not. But the bible explicitly says not to take any ransom for his life. That would include information that one deemed valuable.

Whether he is a believe or not is irrelevant to whether a murderer should be executed. God will deal with his soul. The government is only to deal with his crime.

. . .

Clete


Sheesh, I hate typos.

Please feel free to correct my typos any time you want to quote my posts. :)
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
If it is a fact it might be okay to say it, but isn't this racism? Each person is an individual.

It would only be racism if the cause of the murder rate had to do with race.

Remember, corrolation is not causation. In other words, just becasuse two things are corrolated does not mean that one caused the other.

100% of people who eat carrots die. That doesn't mean carrots are deadly.
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
That doesn't completely answer the question. Of course the moral code remains. That which was morally wrong then, remains morally wrong today. But what about the punishments for each crime? Are we to carry out the very same penalties for the very same crimes?

If that which was morally wrong is still morally wrong then that which was morally right remains morally right, does it not?

If the crime remains, why would the just punishment for that crime change?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
As for the justice argument, are you saying the death penalty is the only just punishment for a murderer? And why so? Why wouldn't life imprisonment be a just punishment?

In what way would life imprisonment be justice, especially when a "life sentence" usually ends up being less than twenty years.

Your question seems to indicate a misunderstanding of what justice is.

Justice is equity. It doesn't only apply to punishing criminals but applies in any area where being equitable matters.

Proverbs 11:1 Dishonest scales are an abomination to the Lord, But a just weight is His delight.

Keeping focus spceifically on criminal justice, just punishment for a crime is simply to do unto the criminal as he did or sought to do to his victim. It is nothing more than the Golden Rule applied, by force, to the criminal. Of course, this is easier and more straight forward to apply in some cases than it is in others. If someone takes a life, their life is forfeit - simple. But what about the theif who is not only destitute but has eaten or otherwise detroyed what he stole? That's a little less straightforward. Fortunately for us, we don't have to figure such things out because God has done so for us and recorded it in quite lengthy detail in the bible.

Incidentally, the thief who can return the stolen goods is to do so and also must pay resitution equal in value to that which was stolen. The thief who, for whatever reason, cannot return what was stolen must repay seven times. If he is unable to pay with money or goods then he is to be endentured to his victim until his debt is repaid but for no more than seven years.

Clete
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I suppose then, Christ was wrong to stop the stoning of the adulteress?
Good question! A little sacrilegious in tone, perhaps, but the point your question makes is a valid one. (It is just fascinating to me how these discussions about the death penalty always go down the same paths.)

Of course Jesus was not wrong.

There was more going on in John chapter 8 than a lesson on forgiveness. In fact, it has nothing to do with forgiveness at all. Using this episode as an argument against the death penalty is a classic, textbook example of taking a scripture out of context.

First of all the Jews were attempting to trap Jesus. (John 8:6) They hoped to accomplish this by getting Jesus to consent to her execution because Rome didn't allow the Jews to execute criminals (John 18:31).
It is clear, however, that Jesus did not come to abolish the Mosaic law. (Mat. 5:17-19, Mat. 8:4, Mat. 23:2-3, John 7:19-23 and elsewhere.)

So, Jesus is caught between getting into trouble with the Romans before His appointed time or violating the Mosaic Law, or so the Pharisees thought. But Jesus is smarter than they gave Him credit for being.

The Mosaic law doesn't say to "kill any adulterous you happen to find". That isn't what it says. The Law requires the testimony of two or three witnesses. It was when those called to testify against her refused to do so that Jesus also refused to condemn her to death (John 8:11). He didn't forgive the sin and He didn't proclaim the death penalty unjust nor did He abolish it. On the contrary, He followed the Law precisely while avoiding the trap set for Him by His enemies.

Clete

P.S. For a full understanding of the what the bible says about the death penalty, read the following article...

What Does the Bible Say About the Death Penalty
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top