There is no contradiction between thou shall not kill and the death penalty. Murder is not punishment or carrying out a sentence. Murder is taking innocent life, not guilty life. Liberals don't know the difference. That's why they'll get mad at you for putting to death a muderer, but defend your right to kill an innocent human being because it's smaller than them and defenseless. Someone is really confused.

Maybe it says murder and not kill, but that is the first time I have ever heard it. I'm pretty sure it doesn't say anyone who murders is to be put to death, though. Kind of goes back on that whole forgiveness thing doesn't it?

Whenever I bring up the issue of whether it is moral to kill a man, any man, the classic response used over and over and over is the appeal to family. "What if it was your sister, your brother, your father, your mother?" I'm not sure how you can expect people to put themselves hypothetically in that situation, if they do, it is surely not the emotional mind set that is true to people who actually find themselves in that situation in real life. If he simply just dies, nothing really has been accomplished. I would want the person to regret what they did, so I think solitary confinement for life is the right solution. To add my own personal evil twist to it, if that's what you're asking me to do, I would have the person in a very small, completely black room, by themselves, on constant high doses of LSD, to the point where their mind would completely tear itself apart, probably in several ways, but at least in thinking - What got me here?

But when all the dust settles, I think we all know that there's a HUGE difference between me going out and killing you in cold blood, and me being executed because I killed you in cold blood.

We can do the dance of semantics, but there's a difference between murder and justice. Both have the same end result - death - but they're NOT the same.

I agree, in part.

The question remains is whether you think death is an acceptable form of justice in this case. I have heard people criticize other countries that have public beheadings. Now, we certainly can claim moral supremacy in the fact that we do not resort to the brutal and gory act of beheading anybody. I ask you where else we can claim moral supremacy here, as in, in what other way are we different?

Personally, I believe as a society we have advanced beyond the point of needing execution.

On the other hand, if I kill you in cold blood and - being found guilty - do not forfeit my life through execution, that is basically saying that your life was worth nothing.

How?

And a Christian should heed the words of Christ "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" or "turn the other cheek." Jesus never endorsed any form the execution so Christians should not either.

What do you mean, "How"?

Criminal A embezzles money from his company - making off with $50,000.
Criminal B murders you in cold blood.

Both Criminal A & B are tried, convicted and sentenced. Both crimninals receive 20 years in prison.


Congratulations, your life was worth nothing more than $50,000 of embezzled money - which was probably insured anyway.

What does that have to do with the laws of a secular government - one that believes in the separation of church and state?

I'm still not following. In your hypothetical situation, Criminal B gets the same sentence as Criminal A even though he murdered somebody and Criminal A just embezzled $50,000. That does not seem very likely to me. Criminal B would most likely get a life sentence.