Defending the Truth

1. But if the law required there to be an execution he should have told the crowd to kill both the man and the women. But he let both go. If your argument is true about letting a killer life devaluing the life of the victim, then Jesus surely devalued the law by letting these criminals go free. Finally, you assert that many of the accusers had been with this woman, but that is pure speculation and I have seen no reason to believe that is true.

2. Actually according to Jesus, she could have been committing adultery by herself. Jesus tells us that anyone who looks with lust is guilty of adultery.

3. It is true that Jesus was pointing out a double standard, but I think you are not digging deep enough. It was not just that one (or several) of the men were guilty of committing adultery with her. It was that they were all guilty of sin also. If it were just the fact that they had slept with her Jesus could have asked someone who had not to do the stoning. But the fact that Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." None is without sin, so none should cast the first stone.

4. I don't know. Can you give me an example of Jesus praising the death penalty.

If you want to hold murderers to the OT death penalty standard, shouldn't we hold adulterers and everyone else to the same death penalty standard? Do you support putting teenagers who are having premarital sex to death, or are you not upholding God's Law?

I wouldn't say it sets a bad example at all. If anything it shows minors what can happen when they lose their tempers and kill their mates, relatives, etc..

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.

Okay, we can uphold that definition of justice without the death penalty.



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.



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.



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.





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.


Says you. That is not an argument. It is a statement. I cannot argue against it except to say "No. I am right."


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!

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.
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.

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.


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."

Jesus did not put his foot down, he died a slow painful death without a curse.

I don't know. Lot offered his virgin daughters to the rapists of Sodom in the name of God, maybe God is into that.



Can you give me any evidence that Christ's followers were being slapped on a weekly basis? I think this is silly.



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.

A typical response of someone who tries to justify questionable morals by quoting the bible. Phrases like "It's mans opinion" tells me that you've run out of steam. Now, what's required is for you to actually think and not quote scripture, or have it quoted to you, if you don't take that leap of faith and trust yourself then anything you say will be extremely boring.I'm not trying to insult you, but just letting you know that i was yawning quite alot when i was reading your posts on this thread.

I believe in God, and I was told that murder is wrong. What government in this world can truely earn the status of doing the pure good of the bible? None. Therefore what bodies in this earthly world has the divine authority to take anothers life?

Answer these questions and try and find your justifications in the Good Book. You can interpret gods word anyway you please, but do not insult God's word by twisting it to justify your barbaric views. Your reaction is completely emotional driven by the revulsion of the crime itself. Lift your head up and look beyond, God taught you to love and forgive. He did not give you a divine right to take another's life, or to vote for someone who upholds this blasphemous act (ie state executions). Who but God can decide that?

Besides that, what are the benefits of capitol punishment? My country banned it when the brits left in..in...a time before man had known, and to me its a barbaric throwback to when we grunted hairly and behaved badily. Looking at the States I see a really advanced forward looking country behaving backward. Executions serves no purpose, it certainly doesn't address high murder rates, nor does it serve any real social purpose. I think it negates life itself, and if we accept that then we're worse than wolves...we're animals.

BTW this is my first post, so hello America!! Be warned i'm a bit mad. i'm irish. But yanks are cool.

Enough of me bloody cousins are yanks! So apologies if my posts offend thee. But I will behave and tell it like a vulcan does but I shall defend myself with insults and other negative forms of communication. It is my divine right.

Welcome to the forum. Happy posting!

People who commit crimes against humanity must face a judge and jury of their peers... God gives that judge or the criminal's jury the right to decide the criminal's fate for whatever crime he has committed. That's the way I understand the text. If the judge and jury decide that the criminal is to be sentenced to death for his crimes, then I feel God is acceptable of this.

I also feel the death penalty serves as a deterant for people that commit crimes against humanity. I feel we have less murders as a result of death penalty laws.

The death penalty teaches all criminals that they will never ever commit their crimes again. No parole is ever possible and no one will ever be harmed by them again becaue they are dead.

Over 90% of all violent crimes are committed by 7% of the criminals.

It sure would cut down on violent crimes if those 7% were dead.

Act 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
Act 25:11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.


Acts 25:10-11 involves Paul, a Christian, talking to Festus, a Roman appointed by Nero.
Paul yields to the power of a NON-CHRISTIAN government. He stands in judgment before the Caesar who was also not Christian.

a) Paul never makes any statement that the possible death sentence would be just. It wasn't a Christian matter. It was a ROMAN matter dealing with a ROMAN law and a ROMAN sentence.
Jesus was put to a "death sentence". Does that mean he supported the death penalty?

b) Paul never says anything about whether or not the government had the RIGHT to put him to death.

c) Paul was a Roman subject to Roman laws. He made no statements as to the CHRISTIAN judgment of the ROMAN laws.


Jhn 19:11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power [at all] against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.

a) He never said anything about "opposing" or "supporting" capital punishment in his case. He simply yielded to it, because that's supposedly what "the father" wanted.

b) He never said anything in this bible passage about not opposing capital punishment in his teachings.

c) I'm amazed at the significance you put on how he supposedly "does not say" something in THIS particular passage. There are other passages where he DOES EXPLICITLY say something in the context of capital punishment.


Jhn 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
Jhn 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
Jhn 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
Jhn 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].
Jhn 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Jhn 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
Jhn 8:9 And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

Jesus was presented with a woman whereby JEWISH LAW EXPLICITLY stated she should be put to death. There is no real dispute on this.
Jesus's response was simple: "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."