I Support Capital Punishment

wholearmor

Member
wholearmor said:
I'd say whether you believe in the death penalty or not depends on whether you believe God would like to see more innocent people die than guilty people.
Freak said:
The Scriptures point out that we all deserve death, judgment, and hell. We are all guilty. The apostle Paul states, "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men..." If it wasn't for God's mercy we'd all be dead and sent to hell.

So let me see if I understand you correctly (which is a scary thought in and of itself). :freak: By not implementing the death penalty, the number of murders of innocent people are much higher than they would be otherwise but it's OK with you that the innocents die and the guilty live and you believe that's OK with God too, right?

Put another way, if we all deserve death, judgment, and hell, then why should more innocent people realize on untimely death than guilty people?
 

Freak

New member
lighthouse said:
1] It was against the law of the land for citizens [of which Jesus was one] to put anyone to death for any reason. The Roman government did not allow it. And the Mosaic law didn;t even allow it. It was always up to the government to execute those guilty of capital crimes. And the Roman law did not consider adultery to be a capital crime, if it considered it to be a crime at all.
Where is your fidelity to the truth? It is you that is claiming the death penalty should be enforced when God's laws are broken. Should they not have at least submitted to the authorties and admitted their guilt and asked for the death penalty?

2] The Mosaic law stipulated that both parties caught in adultery were to be brought, together, to be executed, anyway. They only brought the woman. They were breaking the Mosaic law, themselves. Which is most likely what Jesus pointed out in His writing on the ground. So, if Jesus had said she should be executed, then He would have been breaking both the Mosaic, and Roman laws. He broke neither.
Better re-read what I actually posted. You're referring to the woman in John 8. I wasn't and you had the nerve to say to me:

Try to pay attention, this time... please
Try to pay attention next time before I simply place you on ignore.

The Christians were charged with blasphemy, and found guilty, so they were put to death.
What Christians were charged with blasphemy?

2] Jesus confronted Saul and Saul repented! He stopped putting Christians to death! He was cleared, by God, because He repented! And since he had only killed legally, the government had no reaon to put him to death for what he did.
But, I thought you said Jesus was pro-death penalty. Why didn't Jesus call Paul to the death penalty as Jesus would have expected Paul to die for his capital crimes. So what if the government endorsed his killing, should not have Jesus called Paul to willingly submit to the death penalty as he was guilty of a capital crime?

Greek law did not stipulate that these offences were capital offences.
But I thought, at least in your mind, God's law did? Should not have the people of God submitted to God's law in regards to this? Or no? So, if a nation doesn't embrace God's laws one can be free to break the laws of God?

In fact, they weren't even considered offences by the Greek authorities. So who would Paul have reported them to?
Where is your fidelity to the truth? It is you that is claiming the death penalty should be enforced when God's laws are broken. Should they not have at least submitted to the authorties and admitted their guilt and asked for the death penalty?
 

Freak

New member
Justin (Wiccan) said:
Heb 8:7-9

So let me get this straight ... since the New Covenant replaced the Old, can we assume ....

* That the Law is no longer in effect?


Justin
No, we do not sacrifice animals, keep the sabbath, tithe, etc, etc.
 

Freak

New member
Justin (Wiccan) said:
Oh, you like the thought of teacher-led prayers in school? Shall I start the students with prayers to the Great Goddess, or shall we simply call the Quarters and be done with it?

Justin
That can be a topic of another thread if you like.
 

Freak

New member
Agape4Robin said:
Let me see if I got this straight...... you are against the death penalty because you think it's wrong. :think:
Re-read my first post and you tell me. :doh:
 

Freak

New member
Mr. 5020 said:
There are no laws stating that one cannot pray in school. There are only laws stating that teachers cannot lead public prayers.
My point stands! There are unrighteous laws regarding prayer in schools as teachers, in the school, are not permitted to lead public prayers. The government has created scores of unrighteous laws like this. :cry:
 

Justin (Wiccan)

New member
Freak said:
My point stands! There are unrighteous laws regarding prayer in schools as teachers, in the school, are not permitted to lead public prayers. The government has created scores of unrighteous laws like this. :cry:

Righteous or unrighteous, you are require--by your scriptures--to follow those laws or face the consequences.

Justin
 

Mr. 5020

New member
Freak said:
My point stands! There are unrighteous laws regarding prayer in schools as teachers, in the school, are not permitted to lead public prayers. The government has created scores of unrighteous laws like this. :cry:
As mentioned earlier, there would be severe consequences to letting teachers lead prayers. Not all (most) public school teachers are Christians.
 

Freak

New member
Justin (Wiccan) said:
Righteous or unrighteous, you are require--by your scriptures--to follow those laws or face the consequences.

Justin
Actually, Justin, Christians may be allowed to break laws, at times.

Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
 

Justin (Wiccan)

New member
Freak said:
This isn't a OT law.

This isn't a OT law.

This isn't a OT law.

I'm not asking about OT law--you said that the New Covenant replaced the Old, and you said that all of these promises were part of the Old Covenant. Now, do these promises stand, or do they not?

Justin
 

Freak

New member
Mr. 5020 said:
He said Old Covenants, not OT laws.
The New Covenant replaced the laws of the Old Covenant so those items he mentioned would not apply as they are not OT laws.
 

Justin (Wiccan)

New member
Freak said:
Actually, Justin, Christians may be allowed to break laws, at times.

Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God's sight to obey you rather than God.For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”

Peter and John certainly made the decision to disregard man's law for God's. However, they still faced the consequences in man's courts. These are the consequences I am speaking of.

Justin
 

Freak

New member
Justin (Wiccan) said:
I'm not asking about OT law--you said that the New Covenant replaced the Old, and you said that all of these promises were part of the Old Covenant. Now, do these promises stand, or do they not?

Justin
The New Covenant replaced the laws of the Old Covenant, as seen in Hebrews 7-10, so those promises you mentioned would not apply as they are not OT laws. For example: the sabbath was a OT law required of the people of God. In Hebrews 4 we read of Jesus being the sabbath rest not a literal day. The New replaced the Old.
 

Freak

New member
Justin (Wiccan) said:
Peter and John certainly made the decision to disregard man's law for God's. However, they still faced the consequences in man's courts. These are the consequences I am speaking of.

Justin
Christians are under no obligation to obey man when God has spoken on a issue.
 
Top