No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I am wondering how you determine which OT laws are binding in Christians, and which are not.
Binding in Christians?

It's not about Christians, it's about human beings.

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?
I'll answer your question but I don't want to just glaze over what was said about John chapter 8.

Why doesn't it convince you? As sure as I'm sitting here writing this, you are going to use John 8 as an argument against the death penalty the very next time you get the chance and I just want to know what else is it going to take to ever convince you that you've gotten something wrong and to stop making false arguments.

Jesus did not let her go because she was innocent and so your point about the existence of witnesses is moot. Jesus didn't need witnesses to know whether she was guilty or not anyway. Her guilt isn't the point. It is Jesus' actions and the motive behind those actions that is the point here. If it had been his desire to abolish the death penalty for adultery, He could have simply said as much. Of course had He done so, He'd have been in direct contradiction to Moses and everyone would have understood Him to be a fraud. No way is the Messiah going to be anti-Moses.

And so I ask you again, why are you unwilling to allow sound reason and perfectly reasonable explanation of the scripture to convince your mind?


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?

Much of the Mosaic Law has to do with symbolic practices and religious rites of the Jews as well as maintaining a situation where Jews would keep themselves seperated from other nations. This had to do with maintain pure blood lines for the Messiah (i.e. fulfilling prophesies concerning the Messiah) and other issues that had specifically to do only with the nation of Israel. Such laws have no application outside that context and so could not rightly be applied to any other nation.

It is the laws concerning basic morality that still apply. Remember your own stated premise...

"Of course the moral code remains. That which was morally wrong then, remains morally wrong today."​

As for the specific laws you listed...

cursing one's parents - I've stated before that this law deals with adults not small children and that there are good arguments that would indicate that this law had to do with Israel and would not apply outside Israel's special covenant with THE Father.

falsely presenting oneself as a virgin for marriage - the bride has had sex with a man while betrothed to another, which is adultery and she ought to be punished by stoning as the bible prescribes. We know that such a bride is not merely guilty of fornication because the law does not prescribe death for fornication.

blaspheming, false prophecy, breaking the sabbath, sacrificing to a false god - All of these are religious law and have no application outside of Israel's particular covenant with God.

One might ask how do you tell the difference between a religious law vs a moral one. There are several ways. It does take some amount of wisdom and discernment in some cases but for the most part, it's pretty obvious. One important way to tell is that moral laws cannot contradict each other the way religious laws often do. There were regulations for how to handle it when, for example, the eighth day of a child's life fell on a Sabbath. Do you circumcise (a work of the flesh) or don't you? Moral laws do not conflict in this manner. One doesn't ever find themselves having to assault their neighbor to prevent themselves from having an affair with their wife or to steal from someone to prevent having to murder them.


Clete
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
I am wondering how you determine which OT laws are binding in Christians, and which are not. . . . But I'm still wondering - which OT laws/penalties do you consider binding on Christians, and which do you not? And why?

Binding in Christians?

It's not about Christians, it's about human beings.

Clete
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], It drives me up a wall when we're talking about criminal justice, and someone uses "but Christians are not under the law any more," (which, in and of itself is true) as an argument against using God's law as a standard.

I mean, for starters, do they even hear what they themselves are saying?

"Christians aren't under the law" DOES NOT MEAN "the world should not have any moral law to govern it."

It's essentially special pleading, if not just straight up moving the goalposts.

The topic is the world, which means "ALL PEOPLE, including non-christians."
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Two reasons:

(1) The civil/criminal and ritual laws of the OT are not binding on Christians (while the moral code remains). This, for example, is why Christians willingly eat pork, and do not advocate for the execution of children who curse their parents.

And (2) because human life is inherently valuable. Human life should not be directly and intentionally taken. And to clarify that - when killing in self-defense, for example, the principle of double effect is in place. I can stop a man from killing me (even by killing him, if necessary). But my intent is not to kill; it is to stop him from killing me. If, for example, in the struggle, I incapacitate him (thereby stopping his attack), it would be morally wrong for me to walk up to him and kill him, as he lay on the ground, helpless.

Okay, fair enough. For once we seem to agree on a subject more than disagree...

:eek:
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
(1) The civil/criminal and ritual laws of the OT are not binding on Christians (while the moral code remains). This, for example, is why Christians willingly eat pork, and do not advocate for the execution of children who curse their parents.
I am a Christian and I do not eat pork. I believe that the Torah is valid including including commandments that include a death penalty.
 

Jacob

BANNED
Banned
They don't care

Why do you ask?
I do not know. I thought that they don't like it, but that would be those who respond. I do not know the difference between black and negro, but I do care a lot about everyone. Plus we are likely talking about Americans here. United States Citizens. Are you talking about a race? And, you might not talk about the color of someone's skin. Aside from mentioning black and white here, there are all sorts of variations between them and other skin tones and colors as well.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
[MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], It drives me up a wall when we're talking about criminal justice, and someone uses "but Christians are not under the law any more," (which, in and of itself is true) as an argument against using God's law as a standard.

I mean, for starters, do they even hear what they themselves are saying?

"Christians aren't under the law" DOES NOT MEAN "the world should not have any moral law to govern it."

It's essentially special pleading, if not just straight up moving the goalposts.

The topic is the world, which means "ALL PEOPLE, including non-christians."

People don't think. People don't even know how to think. People don't want the responsibility of thinking. They want others to think for them because it FEELS easier and FEELS less risky.

All they hear is "law" and they have a knee-jerk reaction and all thinking stops. Their brains are controled by cliche, sound bites, political correctness and superstition.



Having said that, there are exceptions. You'd think that forums intended to discuss theology would be one place where you'd find them but even here they are few and far between. I have always been frustrated by how hard it is for people who show up to discuss doctrinal issues to grasp that criminal justice and soteriology are not the same subject.

Clete
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
I do not know. I thought that they don't like it, but that would be those who respond.

nobody's responding but you

I do not know the difference between black and negro,

one is a color, the other is a race of homo sapiens
but I do care a lot about everyone.

apparently not the young negro men who are slaughtering each other by the thousands

Plus we are likely talking about Americans here. United States Citizens.

that is correct

Are you talking about a race?

yes

And, you might not talk about the color of someone's skin. Aside from mentioning black and white here, there are all sorts of variations between them and other skin tones and colors as well.

this is true, which is why i used the racial descriptive "negro" instead of the inaccurate color designation "black"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top