|
|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Aug 8, 2018 19:29:15 GMT
I would like to have a civil discussion (as they always are here) on the death penalty, if anyone else would be interested in dissecting the subject. Of course it's a topic that has been in the news recently. So, is the death penalty acceptable under certain circumstances? Or is it inhumane, and even inhuman?
|
|
|
|
Post by theinconceivable1 on Aug 8, 2018 19:53:45 GMT
well im game! were coming from a biblical perspective right? I mean God kinda came up with the death penalty so I would defidently say its humane!
|
|
|
|
Post by Leilani Sunblade on Aug 8, 2018 20:10:46 GMT
I haven't been following the news enough to know what you're referring to, but I'm actually going to hop in on this one. I agree with the first part of what Inconceivable said: God created the death penalty, and so it has its place in the system of justice. That said, I think that there are certain ways that it should and shouldn't be administered in order to be both just and humane.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri Pendragon on Aug 8, 2018 22:55:28 GMT
What do you mean when you say that God created the death penalty? Can you explain your line of reasoning a little more?
|
|
|
|
Post by Leilani Sunblade on Aug 9, 2018 0:50:29 GMT
“Whoever sheds human blood,
by humans shall their blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made mankind."
That's God speaking to Noah shortly after Noah and his family come out from the Ark. It is, as far as I know, the first specific mention of capital punishment in Scripture. It also indicates the reason for capital punishment— namely, that the fact that man is made in God's image is the reason for a particular kind of moral treatment.
Then, in Exodus 21, we have several more mentions of the death penalty:
12-14: “Anyone who strikes a person with a fatal blow is to be put to death. However, if it is not done intentionally, but God lets it happen, they are to flee to a place I will designate. But if anyone schemes and kills someone deliberately, that person is to be taken from my altar and put to death.
22-25: “If people are fighting and hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely[e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman’s husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
All of these instances are in response to murder. Exodus 21 also has the death penalty in response to a person attacking his father or mother or kidnapping someone.
In the New Testament, Romans 13:3-4 suggests that punishing criminals is a legitimate exercise of government authority. And I would say that Paul's specific reference to the "sword" suggests that punishing criminals may legitimately include the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by theinconceivable1 on Aug 9, 2018 9:38:20 GMT
wow, well cool! thanks for doing the legwork for me Leilani! also, the death penalty was also administered for some other law-breaking activities (like doing work on the Sabbath) so not just doing commonly accnolaged "bad stuff" XD
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri Pendragon on Aug 9, 2018 10:25:51 GMT
Okay, that's interesting. Very well supported by the literature too.
Genesis 9:6 sounds to me more like a proverb or prophecy than a law; God uses the language form "their blood shall be shed" rather than "you must shed their blood". I would interpret this as more an example of natural consequences—violence begets violence—rather than capital punishment.
I observe that your quotes from Exodus (Leilani) and your reference to Sabbath breaking (Inconceivable) come from the Mosaic Law. Since we live post-Resurrection, we are not required to act according to the Mosaic Law. Do you consider that since the death penalty was divinely established for a certain nation during a certain period of time, we should continue to use it today?
Your example from Romans is well reasoned, but it doesn't relate to God creating the death penalty.
|
|
|
|
Post by theinconceivable1 on Aug 9, 2018 19:48:16 GMT
well, this is just a though to consider, Paul technically executed the death penalty. Remember Annanis and his wife (Was that their names? you know the guys who sold their property and only gave half to the church) Paul killed both of them for what they did, lieing to God. Besides that I would stick with Leilani's Romans verse in which Paul says Rules can punish with the sword becase they are established by God:
"Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."
this whole verse brings up another controversial topic of course, that divine right of kings thing, but back to the point; whenever we're talking about Gods wrath there's a 99% chance fo death so to speek XD. so if these authorities have the power to inflict Gods wrath then they defidently have the authority of the death penalty in my opinion.
"Your example from Romans is well reasoned, but it doesn't relate to God creating the death penalty."
well, if you want the creation of the death penalty, go back to the OT. I don't think its necessary for this romas verse to talk about its creation persay...
Lastly you said "we are not required to act according to the Mosaic Law" to which I would answer yes and no. while it tis true we are "not under the law but under grace" we must alos remember Jesus said "I have not come to destroy the law but to fufill it." and also something like "not a letter or stoke of the law will pass away before I come again" (I'm paraphrasing.) and that to love God IS to keep his commands 1 John 5:1 and 2"Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God, and everyone who loves the father loves his child as well. 2 This is how we know that we love the children of God: by loving God and carrying out his commands." So, in a way, the law does still apply to us
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri Pendragon on Aug 9, 2018 23:41:40 GMT
The example of Ananias and Sapphira is certainly a divinely instituted death penalty. But is it a model for how we should treat sinners in the church today, or a one-off display of God's power to instil holy fear? Do we as Christians have the judicial right to mete out the death penalty to people in today's church who call themselves Christians but live hypocritical lives? I can't imagine how this would work. Wouldn't our society see it as murder, vigilantism, fundamentalist terrorism?
You're on the right track when you say that we still have moral responsibility as Christians. However, our moral responsibility does not arise from the Mosaic Law; we are not required to sacrifice guilt offerings or be circumcised or kill people for blasphemy. Look at Abraham for an example. Abraham did not have the Mosaic Law, but he obeyed God's commands (Galatians 3:6–9). Christians are justified by faith, not by law, so the Mosaic Law does not apply to us.
Let me explain what I mean by the Romans verse being irrelevant. I am not questioning whether governments have the authority to kill people. I'm questioning whether God intended the Israelite death penalty to be timeless. The death penalty in the Mosaic Law seems to be specific to a historical nation rather than being universal. So here's my question again: Do you consider that since the death penalty was divinely established for a certain nation during a certain period of time, we should continue to use it today?
|
|
|
|
Post by Leilani Sunblade on Aug 10, 2018 13:00:15 GMT
I don't think that Anaias and Saphira is a good guideline for the death penalty, personally. I'm pretty sure that was a one-time "don't be an idiot and try to pull one over God" warning to the church, not a "all hypocritical Christians must die!" example-to-become-a-precedent.
We are not under the Mosaic Law, no. But just because we're not required to follow it doesn't mean that it can't or shouldn't serve as a guideline for certain moral choices.
As far as God having created the death penalty: I still say that Genesis 9 is a good place to look, and my earlier argument probably would've been more convincing had I provided more of the context for the one verse. The whole chapter is here, but God is basically telling Noah how to live now that he's off the Ark. In verse 4, He instructs Noah not to eat meat "with the lifeblood still in it." And in verse 5, He says:
"And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being."
And that's directly followed by what I already quoted: that humans will shed the murder's blood. So to me, this passage seems to be God saying "If someone takes a life, I will demand that person's own life as punishment, and I will use humans to carry out this punishment— and this is why I demand this particular moral treatment of this issue, because mankind is made in My image."
And if you take that principle together with the guidelines in Exodus 21 and the New Testament references to authorities being appointed by God to administer justice, I'd say that's a decent case for the death penalty being a just response to certain crimes.
|
|
|
|
Post by theinconceivable1 on Aug 17, 2018 10:06:37 GMT
Sorry, its been a while and I kinda apologize (my only excuse is laziness XD) but I want to go on a simi-sidetrack as it may hold the awnser to this question and its relevance to my life. So both of your were pretty anti-law. and I think your in agreement that "the law doesn't apply to us". I want to clarify what you mean by that. So are you saying the law doesn't apply to us period: so then we shouldn't be concerned about the cleanliness rituals mentioned in Leviticus nor should we concerned about murder (as both are part of the law) or are you saying we shouldn't be concerned about mear rituals (where the line is drawn between ritual and timeless command I don't know). Do you have like a "unless commanded in the new testament, no part of the law is relevant" position (thus including meny core laws like not murdering) or something else? Do you believe that laws like "you shall not have any other gods before me" dont reflect the desires of God? So, if we where having a conversation about child sacrifice would you say that the fact God prohibited child sacrifice is irrelevant as "the law does not apply to us" I would just like to honestly know what you guys belive : D.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri Pendragon on Aug 18, 2018 6:43:16 GMT
Leilani Sunblade: Ooh, those are tough rebuttals. Give me a bit more time to think about that. theinconceivable1 : Those are good questions. I'm not against the law; Paul concludes in Romans that the law is holy, righteous and good (7:12), and that there is much value in being a Jew and in circumcision (3:1–2). And some part of me wishes I could live as an Israelite in ancient Israel, where God Himself instructed Moses on the formation of a divinely inspired and radically new society. But we have something better—the Holy Spirit of God, who not only teaches us what is good (as the law did) but also gives us the power to choose God's way (which the law did not). In my mind, I'm able to draw a difference between the Mosaic Law and the desire of God for His people to live according to His way. The law was given as a tool to show people how to live God's way, and its commandments do indeed reflect His character; but to Christians, God uses a different "tool" (the indwelling Spirit, not the law) to teach His people about His ways. The law has continuing relevance in that it reflects God's character, and we can study it to learn about God and the biblical Israelite society that God created; but He hasn't asked us to live exactly like that any longer, with all the rites and rituals and so on. Do you get what I mean? You have to realise I was playing the devil's advocate before, picking at your conclusions to make you think; I might have sounded like I think the Old Testament isn't God's Word as well as the New, but that's not what I believe. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). As Gentile Christians, we may not have been commanded to obey every jot and tittle of the Mosaic Law, but it is still God's revelation of how His people were to live at a given point in time, and as such it's highly relevant to our lives today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ellron Silvertree on Aug 18, 2018 20:42:47 GMT
In regards to the old law, it can also be helpful to take the particular laws in context. Certain laws, such as those about diet and cleanliness, were made to keep the people of Israel distinct and separate from those around them and to reduce their risk of death from illness and such. When Christ came and fulfilled the old law in his Passion, the commands that were meant to keep Israel alive until the coming of the Savior were no longer necessary, so to speak, because they had fulfilled their purpose.
|
|
|
|
Post by theinconceivable1 on Aug 19, 2018 1:36:15 GMT
Dmitri Pendragon Pendragon : Ok, that makes more sense! I did'nt catch that what you were saying was theoretical, rather then what you actually believe. Ya I basically 100% agree with you then XD hey, I've have a Non-hypothetical question that I would love to be resolved (though I highly doubt it will... but hey, no harm in trying : D) What is the biblical position on "gray areas" so to speak. Particularly things like shooter games (or just any kind of video games, but shooter as a more extream example) and movies? your opinion and why if you would be so kind : D
|
|
|
|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Aug 26, 2018 13:27:36 GMT
Dmitri plays devil's advocate very well. Hmmmmmm....
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri Pendragon on Sept 17, 2018 10:05:29 GMT
Warrior of Aror: Does that mean I have a devilish mind?  Leilani Sunblade: All good points. I concede the argument (mainly because I can't think of a non-heretical direction to take my devilish advocacy). What I would like to hear, then, is what sort of crime would deserve the death penalty? Can it be treated as a one-size-fits-all punishment? For example, if wilful murderers are executed under the death penalty, and if wilful murders are motivated in one case by hatred and in the other case by desperation (e.g. a woman who kills her abusive husband), would both people suffer the same punishment regardless of the extenuating factors? And if each case is independently handled, how would the mercy–justice dialectic be controlled so that guilty people are actually punished? You can't tell what effect mercy will have, and I've read stories of previous murderers who were released only to murder someone else. It may interest you to know that we don't have the death penalty at all in New Zealand, so I'm quite far removed from any sensitivity about discussing it. theinconceivable1: That's a very good question…I don't know the biblical position specifically. Out of my own life experience I would say to look at your motives and to look at how the content affects you. What draws you about it? Do you find yourself reflecting on the dark content over and over? Is it taking a toll on your mental health or spiritual life? I know for myself that reading about physical violence doesn't affect me very much, but I hate reading swear words because they play over and over in my head. That's my experience; yours will be different.  Do keep thinking about it. Wrestle with it; take it to God! If you can find that sense of divine peace between you and He, I think that's a pretty good indication to go ahead.
|
|
|
|
Post by theinconceivable1 on Sept 17, 2018 19:34:35 GMT
Dmitri Pendragon Pendragon: ok well thanks, kinda the awnser I get alot XD But ya, itd doesnt seem live one of those really clear subjects... Wait does NZ not have the death penality? I'm actually in hamiltion right now, where are you?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dmitri Pendragon on Sept 17, 2018 22:23:18 GMT
theinconceivable1: Abolished in NZ since 1989, according to Google (and last used in 1957). I'm from the South Island. Near Christchurch specifically.
|
|
|
|
Post by theinconceivable1 on Sept 18, 2018 8:07:23 GMT
Dmitri Pendragon Pendragon: aw darn, well I guess I won't be seeing you around then...
|
|
|
|
Post by Warrior of Aror on Oct 22, 2018 21:08:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by theinconceivable1 on Oct 23, 2018 4:18:28 GMT
hum, I think I skip the depressing article but thanks! XD
|
|
|
|
Post by Ellron Silvertree on Oct 23, 2018 14:38:40 GMT
I would agree that it's depressing, but unsurprising statistics are unsurprising.
That one question that it mentions, whether "Most people are basically good," is interesting, though. I would argue that that claim isn't a heresy, per se, because it fails to define exactly what it means by "good."
|
|
|
|
Post by theinconceivable1 on Oct 23, 2018 18:14:47 GMT
you your saying if they used a different word, righteous perhaps, then it would be a heresy?
|
|
|
|
Post by jliessa44 on Oct 24, 2018 3:40:19 GMT
Hmm. That's an interesting article. I suppose I'm a heretic then, maybe? I was confused by how they defined somethings. Like the good thing. All people are sinful, but I still think people are inherently good in the human sense of the word. Also, the church thing. Like, you should attend church clearly. But I don't know that you can call someone a heretic if they don't. And with homosexuality, I'm not clear if they're talking about legally or not? Like legally I think it's no ones business, but like morally it's still not okay. Like cheating is morally wrong, but we can't really make it illegal.
Dunno. Interesting article.
|
|
|
|
Post by Asariah Darkthorne on Jun 7, 2019 5:09:39 GMT
Anyone want to talk about which denomination is closest to the Universal Church prior to the great schism? I'm under the impression that Episcopal/Anglican is the right answer, but since I'm trying to genuinely figure it out, I'm hoping for some suggestions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Asariah Darkthorne on Mar 28, 2020 6:20:08 GMT
Anyone want to talk about which denomination is closest to the Universal Church prior to the great schism? I'm under the impression that Episcopal/Anglican is the right answer, but since I'm trying to genuinely figure it out, I'm hoping for some suggestions. Dude you were so wrong...note from your future self, you end up converting to Catholicism. You're getting confirmed Easter 2020. Congrats. |
|
|
|
Post by Ellron Silvertree on Mar 29, 2020 15:11:00 GMT
Yo I remember first reading that and I thought about jumping into the debate for the Catholic Church and then I didn't...
xD
That's super exciting, I'm glad to hear it! Has your confirmation mass been affected by the coronavirus outbreak at all?
|
|
Do keep thinking about it. Wrestle with it; take it to God! If you can find that sense of divine peace between you and He, I think that's a pretty good indication to go ahead.
