No Death Penalty. What Is Your Position?

[JudgeRightly]

Which specific sin would that be? Adultery? Is that why the whole crowd went away, because they were all guilty of the exact same thing they were accusing the woman of?

If Jesus meant to specify a particular sin it would have been easy enough to clarify it and the passage simply states that if anyone in the crowd was without sin itself then they could cast the first stone. Obviously, none of them were so nobody was in a position to cast one. Arguing that Jesus was writing a passage from Leviticus in light of that makes no sense.

Appeal to incredulity.

Think about what doser said in post 260, then read the following verse.

‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus20:10&version=NKJV

 

[Clete]

Of course it was just. It wasn't merciful, but it was just. A number of things were necessary and just that are no longer the former, but that's a separate matter.

No it isn't a separate matter - assuming that I'm following you here.

It was merciful! That's why I asked the question about the few dozen wrongfully executed people vs the tens of thousands of innocent murder victims. Justice is always the most merciful course in a fallen sinful world. If murderers and other capital criminals were executed as the bible prescribes, everyone would be far better off. Not only would justice be served by the execution but fewer people would get murdered in the first place.

You should be looking at the number of murders in relation to the number of arrests and convictions, because a great many murders are never solved. If you commit one it's almost a coin toss as to whether or not you'll leave enough evidence behind to be caught. Any way you look at it, it's alarming. Thankfully, murder rates are no longer what they were, with the Baby Boomers growing long in the tooth.

The numbers would change but the point I'm making would not. So few people are ever executed and, when they are, its so far removed in time from the crime that there is very little association between the crime and the punishment and thus very little deterrent effect is realized. Whether they're caught or not, the percentage of murders who end up getting executed in this country is tiny. And so any argument against the death penalty citing a lack of deterrent effect based on the Western systems of justice is a fallacious argument at best.

The obvious flaw in your proffer is the "recommended dose," meaning the efficacy has already been determined.

The recommended dose is that which God said in His word, which you have conceded is just. The recommended dose being, the immediate execution of all duly convicted murders.

Reconcile in what way? Something is missing in your mixture there. I'd half expect the omission to be a charge of an absence of lamentation of the latter. Of course, the problem with that would be its rationality, as it wouldn't make any particular sense to infer indifference to the murder of innocents beyond the state's action to someone whose chief concern in regard to the state's act is the death of innocents.

To advocate the end of the death penalty is to show indifference to the victims of murder. A person who takes another life (in an unjustified manner) forfeits his own life. "Life for life" is God's idea and it is very easy to understand, common sense justice and it is what we, as Christians ought to advocate. To advocate anything else is to put ourselves in God's place and advocate injustice.

 

[Clete]

i'd like to continue the conversation with [MENTION=2589]Clete[/MENTION], but it doesn't make sense without the context of the preceding discussion with another poster which was moved to the SP thread, so i'll do a quick review that hopefully won't step on any toes:


The discussion was in the context of the woman taken in adultery and Jesus writing on the ground.
The question was asked "What do you think Jesus was writing?"
My answer was "Leviticus 20:10"

I supported that answer with the following analysis:

1. The crowd were trying to use the Law to trap Jesus
2. The crowd was intimately familiar with the Law, having been raised in it and immersed in it, culturally, since birth
3. The crowd were, in effect, slaves to the Law
4. The crowd's use of the Law in this instance was a perversion of the Law, as they were side-stepping justice by bringing only the woman
5. To a Jew of the time, nothing could be more serious than a disregard for, a perversion of, the Law. Nothing could be a greater sin.
6. Therefore, it seems logical to me that the most serious sin of which Jesus could remind them they were guilty of, all of them, at that moment, was that they were perverting the Law. And the simplest way to do that would be by a reference to the scripture that they were violating by their actions.

now, back to Clete:

It's a fine theory but there's no proof that Jesus was writing anything specific in the dirt and, to my thinking, there no good reason to think He did.

If His intent was to point out their perversion of the law, why wouldn't He have simply said so out loud?

Further, 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 crown followed it. Just as surely as the sea was calm at Christ's command, so also was no one throwing a stone at the woman after Jesus issued His command.

When all the witnesses had left, no finding of guilt was legally possible and so Jesus could let her go, and thereby avoid the trap, without violating the law.

Is it possible that Jesus wrote something specific in the dirt? Sure, it's possible. But I certainly wouldn't be dogmatic about it nor would I spend a lot of effort trying to pin it down to anything in particular, especially something as specific as Leviticus 20:10. And how would quoting the passage that says to put adulterers to death deter the crowd that wanted to do exactly that, anyway?

Clete

 

[ok doser]

It's a fine theory but there's no proof that Jesus was writing anything specific in the dirt and, to my thinking, there no good reason to think He did.

If His intent was to point out their perversion of the law, why wouldn't He have simply said so out loud?

Further, 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 crown followed it. Just as surely as the sea was calm at Christ's command, so also was no one throwing a stone at the woman after Jesus issued His command.

When all the witnesses had left, no finding of guilt was legally possible and so Jesus could let her go, and thereby avoid the trap, without violating the law.

Is it possible that Jesus wrote something specific in the dirt? Sure, it's possible. But certainly wouldn't be dogmatic about it nor would I spend a lot of effort trying to pin it down to anything in particular, especially something as specific as Leviticus 20:10.

Clete

i wouldn't presume to insist that my analysis is correct, only that it seems likely to me, especially barring supernatural intervention influencing the crowd (there's probably a better term for it, but it's been a long day)

if the crowd was reacting to His "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" without His intervention (analogous to God's hardening pharoah's heart), it seems unlikely to me that Joe Jew, hearing Jesus' words, would say to himself "gosh, I stole a bunch of grapes from my neighbor's vines the other day, so I better respect the (command?suggestion?) from this guy I hate and am trying to get arrested by the Romans and slink off with my conscience convicted"

 

[Clete]

i wouldn't presume to insist that my analysis is correct, only that it seems likely to me, especially barring supernatural intervention influencing the crowd (there's probably a better term for it, but it's been a long day)

if the crowd was reacting to His "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" without His intervention (analogous to God's hardening pharoah's heart), it seems unlikely to me that Joe Jew, hearing Jesus' words, would say to himself "gosh, I stole a bunch of grapes from my neighbor's vines the other day, so I better respect the (command?suggestion?) from this guy I hate and am trying to get arrested by the Romans and slink off with my conscience convicted"

Well, that's just it. If that crowd had stoned her, for whatever reason, the Pharisees would have sprung their trap. I think the case for super natural intervention is at least as strong as any other theory.

 

[Town Heretic]

It was merciful! That's why I asked the question about the few dozen wrongfully executed people vs the tens of thousands of innocent murder victims. Justice is always the most merciful course in a fallen sinful world. If murderers and other capital criminals were executed as the bible prescribes, everyone would be far better off. Not only would justice be served by the execution but fewer people would get murdered in the first place.

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?

The numbers would change but the point I'm making would not. So few people are ever executed and, when they are, its so far removed in time from the crime that there is very little association between the crime and the punishment and thus very little deterrent effect is realized.

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

Whether they're caught or not, the percentage of murders who end up getting executed in this country is tiny.

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.

And so any argument against the death penalty citing a lack of deterrent effect based on the Western systems of justice is a fallacious argument at best.

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

The recommended dose is that which God said in His word, which you have conceded is just.

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.

The recommended dose being, the immediate execution of all duly convicted murders.

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

To advocate the end of the death penalty is to show indifference to the victims of murder.

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

A person who takes another life (in an unjustified manner) forfeits his own life.

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.

"Life for life" is God's idea and it is very easy to understand, common sense justice and it is what we, as Christians ought to advocate. To advocate anything else is to put ourselves in God's place and advocate injustice.

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

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.

 

[Stripe]

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.

Now count all the people who have been murdered, including a tally of those by recidivist killers.

Those numbers are required reading for any discussion over the emotion-based argument that "maybe some innocent people were executed."

And here's a guarantee: For every one premeditated murderer given life without parole, there will be 10 who do get parole.

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

When you assert, sans explanation, that "I believe that's changed," you're going to be asked to support your idea or drop it.

What we have is God's law. If you think that He has overturned the death penalty — despite Him saying He wasn't here to do that and that the law would remain unchanged in even a tiny manner — you're the one who has to provide compelling evidence.

Telling us what you believe and insisting that the discussion ends there just doesn't cut it.

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.

Your idea will never be implemented. Bank on it.

Our idea — actually, the law of God — will. He promises so.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Appeal to incredulity.

Think about what doser said in post 260, then read the following verse.

‘The man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, he who commits adultery with his neighbor’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress, shall surely be put to death. - Leviticus 20:10 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus20:10&version=NKJV

That doesn't address anything with regards to what Jesus is actually recorded as saying. If any of the crowd were without sin - not a specific one - then they could cast the first stone. Trying to tie that in with Jesus writing a specific passage from Leviticus on the ground in regards to law is stretching and then some. If you think the message in this is solely about Jesus avoiding a legal trap then do you not even consider how much more you might be missing?

 

[ok doser]

That doesn't address anything with regards to what Jesus is actually recorded as saying. If any of the crowd were without sin - not a specific one - then they could cast the first stone.

Why would they respect and obey Him? They were trying to trap Him so the Romans would arrest Him

Trying to tie that in with Jesus writing a specific passage from Leviticus on the ground in regards to law is stretching and then some.

OK, so what do you think He wrote that resonated with each and every one of them?

My answer meets that criteria.
Clete's does as well.

What do you have?

If you think the message in this is solely about Jesus avoiding a legal trap then do you not even consider how much more you might be missing?

see, that's the problem with having this kind of discussion with a non-Christian like you - key points go right over your head

for example, this means absolutely nothing to you:

3. The crowd were, in effect, slaves to the Law

and because it means nothing to you, Jesus' last five words in the passage mean nothing to you.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why would they respect and obey Him? They were trying to trap Him so the Romans would arrest Him

And they failed, spectacularly. As it happens they did obey Him as well which is why they shuffled off and left Jesus alone with the woman.

:AMR:

OK, so what do you think He wrote that resonated with each and every one of them?

My answer meets that criteria.

Given what Jesus spoke, a list of things that everyone in that self righteous crowd would have been guilty of along with the rest of us: Pride, lies, hypocrisy, gossip etc. Your answer doesn't meet why the whole crowd gradually shuffled away at all.

What do you have?

Already addressed.

see, that's the problem with having this kind of discussion with a non-Christian like you - key points go right over your head

No, the problem is you starting to make things personal along with assumptions. The key points can be addressed without any of that sort of thing and they also don't fly around here anymore.

for example, this means absolutely nothing to you:

and because it means nothing to you, Jesus' last five words in the passage mean nothing to you.

As above. The woman would undoubtedly have erred at some point after those words were spoken but then so would anyone else. Including you and me.

 

[Town Heretic]

Now count all the people who have been murdered, including a tally of those by recidivist killers. Those numbers are required reading for any discussion over the emotion-based argument that "maybe some innocent people were executed."

It's not an emotional argument for the reasons set out prior. If you mean to communicate on this level there's no reason to listen or respond to you again. I'll end bothering to read you here and continue with Clete, if there's more for us to say.

I've presented an objective reason to oppose the death penalty and I've set out protection regarding recidivism. Jacob, elsewhere, is satisfied that I've answered him, agree or not. So other than whatever remains with Clete I'm going to step out of the thread and wish everyone well.

 

[Stripe]

Why would they respect and obey Him? They were trying to trap Him so the Romans would arrest Him. OK, so what do you think He wrote that resonated with each and every one of them?.

I don't think Jesus' writing in the dirt was aimed at the crowd. He might have written to keep that aspect of His response limited to those closest to Him, ie, the accusers.

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.​

When it says "then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last," it is taking about the accusers, not the whole crowd. They might have read what was written and heard the accusation they faced according to the law. The onlookers presumably only got the spoken words.

This would have generated a double-tiered response. Those with a false accusation are accused themselves, while those watching on are told that unless you have an accusation, there is no process from which punishment can be meted out.

He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”​

Moreover, the impression we are left with is that Jesus was rightly put in the position of judge. For those seeking justice, they had to go through Him. For the accused, it was Him who sent them on their way.

Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
​

There is also the inherent promise of justice in that, as His "neither I" implies the possibility that He might well have said: "But I do." And isn't it true that one day, He will stand in judgement?

Nazaroo — a former TOLer — was a bit of a crackpot on some other issues, but he had amazing writings on this subject. If you can find them, they're well worth it.

 

[Stripe]

It's not an emotional argument.

It's not an emotional argument. It's not! IT'S NOT! You said it was an emotional argument! :allsmile:

Yes, we know. You've got something to wail about, so you don't have to address the challenges you face.

Hopefully, you'll stick to your promise to ignore me. However, it might be a fool's hope given the number of times you've promised to do so.

 

[ok doser]

I don't think Jesus' writing in the dirt was aimed at the crowd. He might have written to keep that aspect of His response limited to those closest to Him, ie, the accusers.

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.​

When it says "then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last," it is taking about the accusers, not the whole crowd. They might have read what was written and heard the accusation they faced according to the law. The onlookers presumably only got the spoken words.

This would have generated a double-tiered response. Those with a false accusation are accused themselves, while those watching on are told that unless you have an accusation, there is no process from which punishment can be meted out.

He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”​

Moreover, the impression we are left with is that Jesus was rightly put in the position of judge. For those seeking justice, they had to go through Him. For the accused, it was Him who sent them on their way.

Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
​

There is also the inherent promise of justice in that, as His "neither I" implies the possibility that He might well have said: "But I do." And isn't it true that one day, He will stand in judgement?

Nazaroo — a former TOLer — was a bit of a crackpot on some other issues, but he had amazing writings on this subject. If you can find them, they're well worth it.

I'll try to get back to this later but wanted to say that I do miss naz

 

[ok doser]

No, the problem is you starting to make things personal along with assumptions.

Ok, let's move past assumptions and I'll ask you directly - are you a Christian?


I'll address the rest of your post later

 

[ok doser]

I don't think Jesus' writing in the dirt was aimed at the crowd. He might have written to keep that aspect of His response limited to those closest to Him, ie, the accusers.

So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground.​

When it says "then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last," it is taking about the accusers, not the whole crowd. They might have read what was written and heard the accusation they faced according to the law. The onlookers presumably only got the spoken words.

This would have generated a double-tiered response. Those with a false accusation are accused themselves, while those watching on are told that unless you have an accusation, there is no process from which punishment can be meted out.

He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?”​

Moreover, the impression we are left with is that Jesus was rightly put in the position of judge. For those seeking justice, they had to go through Him. For the accused, it was Him who sent them on their way.

Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.”
​

There is also the inherent promise of justice in that, as His "neither I" implies the possibility that He might well have said: "But I do." And isn't it true that one day, He will stand in judgement?

Nazaroo — a former TOLer — was a bit of a crackpot on some other issues, but he had amazing writings on this subject. If you can find them, they're well worth it.

don't have much time before i head off to work, but we keep talking about "the crowd" - clete's done it, i've done it, you've done it - as far as John 8 goes, Jesus goes to the temple, "all the people" gather round, then the scribes and Pharisees bring the woman before him - i imagine them pushing through the crowd, the crowd falling back in deference to them, to their authority, especially in the temple, and so the scene in my mind's eye excludes "all the people" - the scenario plays out with Jesus, the woman, the scribes and the Pharisees - "all the people" are still there, as seen in John 8:12 where Jesus resumes speaking to "them"

and among them must have been some Pharisees not involved in the matter with the woman, because there they are in John 8:13, responding to Him

and the mention of "the treasury" John 8:20 "These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple" - was the treasury in the temple?


but that's following a rabbit trail and I have to get going - the point i wanted to make was that the crowd immediately around Him, to whom He spoke the words "he who is without sin" - they were the scribes and Pharisees, not the great unwashed, and as such, even more than the general population, would have been slaves to the Law, not just under the Law, but living it, breathing it, totally immersed in it, and thus totally sensitive to and receptive to a single succinct demonstration of their perversion of it


and in a quick re-read of this i realize that i don't acknowledge that we're on the same page - don't want it to look like i'm refuting you

:wave2:

 

[Stripe]

don't have much time before i head off to work, but we keep talking about "the crowd" - clete's done it, i've done it, you've done it - as far as John 8 goes, Jesus goes to the temple, "all the people" gather round, then the scribes and Pharisees bring the woman before him - i imagine them pushing through the crowd, the crowd falling back in deference to them, to their authority, especially in the temple, and so the scene in my mind's eye excludes "all the people" - the scenario plays out with Jesus, the woman, the scribes and the Pharisees - "all the people" are still there, as seen in John 8:12 where Jesus resumes speaking to "them"

and among them must have been some Pharisees not involved in the matter with the woman, because there they are in John 8:13, responding to Him

and the mention of "the treasury" John 8:20 "These words spake Jesus in the treasury, as he taught in the temple" - was the treasury in the temple?


but that's following a rabbit trail and I have to get going - the point i wanted to make was that the crowd immediately around Him, to whom He spoke the words "he who is without sin" - they were the scribes and Pharisees, not the great unwashed, and as such, even more than the general population, would have been slaves to the Law, not just under the Law, but living it, breathing it, totally immersed in it, and thus totally sensitive to and receptive to a single succinct demonstration of their perversion of it


and in a quick re-read of this i realize that i don't acknowledge that we're on the same page - don't want it to look like i'm refuting you

:wave2:

I think that's generally how I imagine it.

What I would disagree with is the idea that the crowd — the wider audience in particular — might have been convinced to carry out a stoning, even of the "case" against her had been made.

I'd say that even her accusers had no real interest in an execution. That seems clear.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ok, let's move past assumptions and I'll ask you directly - are you a Christian?


I'll address the rest of your post later

That all seems to depend on who defines it, not that a label means anything to me anyway. I repented years ago and asked for forgiveness for sins and God to be in my life. A long time ago and I certainly don't hold with any "orthodox" or "traditional" belief system and obviously I have little time for fundamentalism. That being said I still believe.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

......I certainly don't hold with any "orthodox" or "traditional" belief system.....

So in other words, you have concocted your own god and your own system to make it easy on you. That is called "Idolatry", worshiping a god of your own making.

Christianity is not supposed to be easy, its supposed to be hard. Shedding the old man and putting on Christ requires a life time of effort, payer, and many times stumbling and asking for forgiveness and trying again.

How can you ask for forgiveness of your sins when you are deciding for yourself what constitutes sin. Why even put on the charade.

 

[Arthur Brain]

So in other words, you have concocted your own god and your own system to make it easy on you. That is called "Idolatry", worshiping a god of your own making.

Christianity is not supposed to be easy, its supposed to be hard. Shedding the old man and putting on Christ requires a life time of effort, payer, and many times stumbling and asking for forgiveness and trying again.

How can you ask for forgiveness of your sins when you are deciding for yourself what constitutes sin. Why even put on the charade.

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