Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Observer |
Okay, we can uphold that definition of justice without the death penalty.
Quote:
|
But, regardless what you believe, the LAW "Thou shalt not murder" was written by God FIRST. That's why we have the law.
|
Says you. Most historical accounts that I have read place Moses' life around the end of the Hyksos era which lasted from ca. 1674-1548 B.C.E. But the Code of Hammurabi is dated at about 1780 B.C.E. That is over one hundred years before the beginning of the era that Moses supposedly lived at the end of. Hammurabi wrote a law against murder before the commandments. The codex of Ur-Nammu is an even older record of a law written against murder before the commandments (Circa 2050 B.C.E.) I would love to see evidence of laws written by God that predate these.
Quote:
|
That's because there is an amendment that reads But like it or not, our laws against murder and stealing comes from the 10 commandments.
|
Then why do civilizations that were totally cut off from the 10 commandments have laws against murder? My point is we do not need the 10 commandments to come to the conclusion that murder is wrong.
Quote:
|
How about "turning the other cheek" while a man rapes your wife? You're saying "don't resist an evildoer". It's clear your understanding isn't in the right perpectve.
|
I just read Christ's words. If you have to add to them and rationalize your viewpoint on them, I would guess your understanding is in the right perspective. But what did Jesus do? He was mocked, spit on, beaten, and killed and never defended himself. But more interestingly, he knew and promised his followers that they would suffer suffering also. James wrote that you should consider it joy when you face trials and tribulation including when others persecute you. Now, I would not stand by and watch any of that happen because I am not a christian and do not have faith in an everlasting life and don't believe Jesus' words are the inspired words of God.
Quote:
|
The death penalty isn't the only institution that contain risks in exchange for social benefits. Source |
That is a totally weak analogy because cars don't intentionally kill people. The death penalty is absolutely premeditated and intentional. The issue is not just if innocent people will die, but if we can reduce the number. Your slippery slope argument can go both ways- if we accept some innocent loss of life why not accept more? If we kill everyone there will be no more murder! This argument is a lot rhetoric but demonstrates a general lack of understanding of my position.
Quote:
|
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.
|
Says you. That is not an argument. It is a statement. I cannot argue against it except to say "No. I am right."
Quote:
|
Capital punishment insures that the murderer never kills again, thus protecting others that he might kill....even in prison.
|
It does. I will grant you that. But at what cost? I will lead you in a simple exercise that will demonstrate basic reasoning skills that are used to make decisions. First we determine the goal, in this case it is to prevent murderers from killing more people. One way we can do that is to execute them. If they are dead they cannot kill any more. But I have an argument that innocent people can accidently be killed also, so there is a risk of a negative effect to that option. The other way we can prevent murderers from killing again, that is to lock them up for life. I admit there is a risk that innocent people could be locked up, but I think that is a lower risk as I would rather be wrongly imprisoned than wrongly executed. Therefor, we can accomplish the same goal with a lower risk of a negative effect. Shazam!
Quote:
|
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!
[/quote]
At best you have a vague description of some executive power of government. Bearing the sword could mean anything from war to regular police powers.
Quote:
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
|
First Paul is giving a defense of himself trying to spare his life, not giving a lecture on ethics. Second, I think Jesus outweighs Paul any day. Third, Paul does not advocate for the death penalty, he just says that he will face the consequence if he committed a crime.
Quote:
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
|
No, Jesus said that he would submit to their actions without complaint because it was part of God's plan. Just like when he tells his followers to submit without complain because it is part of God's plan. Further he says that those handing him over to be executed are committing a "sin".
That is your opinion, a human opinion.
For those who don't know, that is Christian Talk for "I don't know." Show me the context that is presents a consistent view of Christ's teachings.
Quote:
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.
|
I gave you three specific arguments that independently defeat your position and all you say is context and common sense? I will repeat my arguments that attack your context and common sense points. "First, Jesus did not qualify his statement by saying "If a Roman strikes one cheek..." instead he leaves it a universal statement. Surely not everyone would strike the other cheek like the Romans did. If this command was only for practical purposes, it is bad advise since in some cases turning the other cheek would make the blow much worse since it would leave you completely vulnerable. I think better practical advise would have been "if someone strikes your cheek, raise your arms to block a likely second attack."
Second, Jesus does not give any advise of what to do next. If he intended for this to only be a practical tip and not a universal truth, he would have needed to instruct them what to do next.
Third, this was not the only teaching Jesus gave that tells Christians to not resist evil done to them... "Do not resist an evil person."
Quote:
|
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.
|
Jesus did not put his foot down, he died a slow painful death without a curse.
Quote:
|
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?
|
I don't know. Lot offered his virgin daughters to the rapists of Sodom in the name of God, maybe God is into that.
Quote:
|
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?
|
Can you give me any evidence that Christ's followers were being slapped on a weekly basis? I think this is silly.
Quote:
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.
|
I tried searching for this and found it in none of my biblical commentaries. Please tell me where you got this info from. Besides, this is inconsistent with the language of the proverbs where that verse comes from, at least in my opinion. But either way, that has little to do with the death penalty debate.