How about "Justice"?

1 a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments

But, regardless what you believe, the LAW "Thou shalt not murder" was written by God FIRST. That's why we have the law.

That's because there is an amendment that reads freedom of religion. That is, "Congress shall make no law respecting [b]an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...." This means Congress can't make a law saying that The Church of England is the church of America, or that The Roman Catholic Church is the church of America. But like it or not, our laws against murder and stealing comes from the 10 commandments.

How about "turning the other cheek" while a man rapes your wife? Or how about just looking the other way? Or stand by while a pedophile rapes your son? What would you do? Would you stand by and watch your neighbor physically abuse (beat) his two-year old? You're saying "don't resist an evildoer". It's clear your understanding isn't in the right perpectve.

The death penalty isn't the only institution that contain risks in exchange for social benefits. We, in fact, mindlessly use far more dangerous institutions that take the lives of innocents by the hundreds every day, like the three or four tons of lethal metal we call automobiles for example. After all, how can we accept the average 45,000 person a year death toll in this nation due to car wrecks for our personal conveniences when the slim risk of a wrongful execution is so unbearable?
Following the lines of that logic, we not only would have to sacrifice our vehicles, we would have to sacrifice the personal conveniences of using electricity and fire because of the lives they have taken. We would have to go back to living in caves because of our fear of taking risks for social benefits. Indeed, we accept and use far too many devices and institutions that kill far too many hundreds of innocents each and every day to justify focusing this much paranoia on the slimest and unlikely of risks. In fact, as far as abolitionists are concerned, anything can kill any number of innocents with absolute impunity so long as they don't harm murderers. Source


No, it doesn't "protect the dignity of the victim's life". It devalues it. It says the victim's life wasn't worth the trouble to bring justice.

Capital punishment insures that the murderer never kills again, thus protecting others that he might kill....even in prison.

Since I know most assuredly you will reject the commandments of the Old Testament as you believe Jesus "changed" the law, I offer these scriptures from the New.

1. Romans 13:3-5, which defines the purposes of government

a. to protect the good,
b. to punish evil-doers, v. 4 The bearing of the sword seems to validate that capital punishment was still the command. Though there are some that would argue that the sword is merely a symbol of authority, there is no scriptural warrant for that interpretation. He bears the sword – for a purpose!

2. Acts 25:10-11 teaches that:

a. some crimes are worthy of death, v. 11
b. the government has the right to issue the punishment, v. 10
c. the guilty have no right to protest the death penalty, 11

3. John 19:11, Jesus Christ illustrates that:

a. He did not oppose capital punishment in His case
b. He did not oppose capital punishment in His teaching
c. He never said that the government has no right to exercise capital punishment

In man's opinion.

It's taken in context.

You have to remember the Jews were subjected to Roman authority. It's not like you dealing with your neighbor here in the U.S.

Again, He was advising Jews who were subjected to Roman authority how to resist without appearing insubordinate. You have to use common sense. Context.

So if someone is bent on taking your life along with your wallet, you'll let them? You won't resist? It has to be taken in context AND with common sense.

Your boss asks you to work this weekend when you've already worked 4 hours overtime every night this week. What are you going to do? Or your neighbor borrows your lawn mower one week and needs it next week, too. Eventually, there will come a time where you will have to put your foot down.

You seem to be interpreting that these simple statements emcompass every situation in life. Example: It is one thing to loan your lawnmower to your neighbor, but what should you do when if he asks to sleep with your wife?

Take it in context. He was talking to a group of men who were under the authority of the Roman army. How many people slap you in a week?

This is (IMO) one of the most misinterpreted scriptures in the Bible.

In those days, women had to keep their cooking fires (coals) going continually. If the fire went out as it sometimes did, she would have to go to a neighbor to "borrow" a live coal or coals. Women carried these coals in baskets on top their heads. If a neighbor was generous, she would "heap coals of fire upon her head" showing great generosity. However, if the neighbor was stingy, she would only receive a few coals, maybe just one. It was not revengeful at all. It was a favor.

We tend to misinterpret scriptures because we don't understand how life was in that era. We don't take into consideration that their lives was 360 degrees different than our lives today.

You can do that without becoming a doormat. Not seeking revenge, but letting authority bring justice.

With your reasoning, we might as well not have any laws. Then there would be anarchy. Is that what you propose? I'm sure its not.