Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by glassjester View Post
    I suppose then, Christ was wrong to stop the stoning of the adulteress?
    By the way, my post asked you a question. It was a rhetorical question based on your own premise. That premise being, "Of course the moral code remains. That which was morally wrong then, remains morally wrong today."

    Why, if you believe that premise, was the point made by my rhetorical question insufficient to convince you? Is it because you really do believe that Jesus abolished the death penalty in John 8 and therefore your mind went instinctively to what you see as a contradiction to the line of reasoning or is it something else?


    That's a real question, by the way! I don't understand why people are so resistent to allowing sound reason to persuade their mind, especially when that reason is based specifically on a premise that they've already accepted as true. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.


    Clete
    sigpic
    "The [open view] is an attempt to provide a more Biblically faithful, rationally coherent, and practically satisfying account of God and the divine-human relationship..." - Dr. John Sanders

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Clete View Post
      That's a real question, by the way! I don't understand why people are so resistent to allowing sound reason to persuade their mind, especially when that reason is based specifically on a premise that they've already accepted as true. It just doesn't make sense to me at all.
      I am wondering how you determine which OT laws are binding in Christians, and which are not. I brought up the adulteress of John 8 because she was caught in adultery (meaning there must have been witnesses), yet she was not executed. You've pointed out that no accusers came forward - which is true. But I'm still wondering - which OT laws/penalties do you consider binding on Christians, and which do you not? And why?

      It is my understanding that many crimes of the OT warranted the death penalty - such as: cursing one's parents, falsely presenting oneself as a virgin for marriage, blaspheming, false prophecy, breaking the sabbath, sacrificing to a false god...

      Do you advocate for the death penalty for all of these crimes? And if not, why not?
      Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by glassjester View Post
        I am wondering how you determine which OT laws are binding in Christians, and which are not. I brought up the adulteress of John 8 because she was caught in adultery ....

        she was "taken in adultery, in the very act"



        unless she was committing adultery by herself, with herself, the man was also caught or observed, if not "taken"

        and the law required both participants to be brought before a judge

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by ok doser View Post
          she was "taken in adultery, in the very act"



          unless she was committing adultery by herself, with herself, the man was also caught or observed, if not "taken"

          and the law required both participants to be brought before a judge
          Right. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Clete. How do you distinguish between the OT laws that are binding on Christians, and those that aren't?

          Similarly, do you support the death penalty for all the capital offenses listed in the OT? And if not, why not?
          Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by glassjester View Post
            Right. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Clete. How do you distinguish between the OT laws that are binding on Christians, and those that aren't?

            Similarly, do you support the death penalty for all the capital offenses listed in the OT? And if not, why not?


            Clete can answer that better than I can - I've seen his reasoning and agree with it

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by ok doser View Post
              Clete can answer that better than I can - I've seen his reasoning and agree with it
              Alright...
              Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by glassjester View Post
                Right. So I'll ask you the same thing I asked Clete. How do you distinguish between the OT laws that are binding on Christians, and those that aren't?

                Similarly, do you support the death penalty for all the capital offenses listed in the OT? And if not, why not?
                In essence, those who support the DP for adultery and homosexuality for anyone in society nowadays are religious extremists, little removed from their Islamic counterparts. There's good reason why we have laws that separate church and state where such can't be implemented.
                Well this is fun isn't it?

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                  she was "taken in adultery, in the very act"



                  unless she was committing adultery by herself, with herself, the man was also caught or observed, if not "taken"

                  and the law required both participants to be brought before a judge
                  i wanted to come back to this, then i have to scoot - a woman "taken in adultery, in the very act" could claim that she was the victim of rape - a judge would need to have both participants before him for questioning, as well as the witnesses, in order to determine the truth of the matter

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    artie does his impersonation of a broken record:
                    Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                    In essence, those who support the DP for adultery and homosexuality for anyone in society nowadays are religious extremists, little removed from their Islamic counterparts.




                    does it make you feel better to call people "religious extremists"?

                    do you realize how foolish you look when you fail to acknowledge that Jesus was a "religious extremist"?


                    Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Clete View Post
                      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
                      What do you suppose Jesus wrote on the ground that convicted the mob to slowly shuffle off and why was such even mentioned?

                      Do you honestly think that even if it were lawfully justified at the time for this woman to be stoned to death that Jesus would have let the crowd go ahead and do it?
                      Well this is fun isn't it?

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                        What do you suppose Jesus wrote on the ground that convicted the mob to slowly shuffle off and why was such even mentioned?
                        Leviticus 20:10

                        retards think it was something like "adultery is ok now!"

                        obviously you're not a retard artie, you're a brilliant man with a keen intellect

                        what do you think he wrote?

                        Do you honestly think that even if it were lawfully justified at the time for this woman to be stoned to death that Jesus would have let the crowd go ahead and do it?
                        do I honestly think that Jesus would have allowed the law to be followed?



                        Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
                        yes

                        yes i do
                        Last edited by ok doser; May 12th, 2019, 04:19 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by glassjester View Post
                          What good does it accomplish, even if with 100% proof of guilt?
                          Well, as others have pointed out they wouldn't be able to do it again, but I'm not as hardline. I'm far more in favour of maximum security tight prisons where there's no possibility of escape or eradicating loopholes allowing violent offenders the potential to recommit similar crimes. I think the age and context of the crime has to be taken into account as well. I recall Red's character in The Shawshank Redemption. A stupid teenager who by the time his character is introduced is far from the same and a danger to nobody. It's not a black and white subject but my main objection to the DP is the inevitable wrongful convictions and especially as how some would have it implemented whereby 100% proof of guilt wouldn't even be necessary.
                          Well this is fun isn't it?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by ok doser View Post
                            Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
                            So do you support the death penalty for cursing one's parents? or for breaking the sabbath?
                            Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                              Well, as others have pointed out they wouldn't be able to do it again, but I'm not as hardline. I'm far more in favour of maximum security tight prisons where there's no possibility of escape or eradicating loopholes allowing violent offenders the potential to recommit similar crimes. I think the age and context of the crime has to be taken into account as well. I recall Red's character in The Shawshank Redemption. A stupid teenager who by the time his character is introduced is far from the same and a danger to nobody. It's not a black and white subject but my main objection to the DP is the inevitable wrongful convictions and especially as how some would have it implemented whereby 100% proof of guilt wouldn't even be necessary.
                              I'm only in support of it if there's absolutely no other way to keep the person from attacking others. But practically speaking, that might be never. Or maybe only when killing in self-defense (or defense of another).
                              Your "catholic" is showing. - Sozo

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Arthur Brain View Post
                                What do you suppose Jesus wrote on the ground that convicted the mob to slowly shuffle off and why was such even mentioned?
                                Leviticus 20:10

                                retards think it was something like "adultery is ok now!"

                                obviously you're not a retard artie, you're a brilliant man with a keen intellect

                                what do you think he wrote?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X