Evolving Standards of Decency

[1PeaceMaker]

And stripe, I asked you an important question about abortion which you avoided... speaking of evolving standards...

 

[Stripe]

Isn't mercy preferable to the opposite of mercy (which is to make certain "sacrifices," or whatever word you prefer)?

Men are not permitted to show mercy to those guilty of capital crimes; they are commanded to not show mercy when it comes to justice.

And it is possible to have justice without mistakes.

No, which is to never be merciless, because you might do something bad.

Which is to forego justice, which is bad.

Our choices have consequences.

Yes, they do. Denying justice causes injustice to abound.

Mercy is no perversion.

Nobody said it was.

No. After rocks and burial, you have nothing. Whereas we have a prison economy where law abiding people earn their bread as guards and maintenance crews, etc, and where inmates are housed safely away from others, able to work below minimum wage for their upkeep. The result is a net increase in the value of the economy.

:darwinsm:

Even if you were correct in that prisons are a net benefit for the economy, that would not justify them, let alone establish a case against the death penalty.

What the executioners did to Jesus was a sin, else he wouldn't have had to pray to the father to forgive them as they crucified them.

Mm hmm.

That's not an example we want to follow.

However, without the death penalty, we would not have salvation.

So while I can understand an emotional response wanting nothing to do with capital punishment, it does have a rational defense, not to mention a historical and worthy justification.

 

[PureX]

March 2, 1998, Patrick Kennedy called 911 to report that his step daughter had been raped. Court documents reveal:
"When police arrived at [Kennedy’s] home between 9:20 and 9:30 a.m., they found [the girl] on her bed, wearing a T-shirt and wrapped in a bloody blanket. She was bleeding profusely from the vaginal area.... [She] was transported to the Children’s Hospital. An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that [the girl’s] injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery."

Kennedy was convicted of the crime and sentence to death in the State of Lousiana. However the US supreme court overruled, and Kennedy was given a life sentence.
A few statements of interest from the supreme court about this case .....
1. When the law punishes by death, it risks its own sudden descent into brutality, transgressing the constitutional commitment to decency and restraint.

2. The death penalty can be disproportionate to the crime itself where the crime did not result, or was not intended to result, in death of the victim.

3. Rape is without doubt deserving of serious punishment; but in terms of moral depravity and of the injury to the person and to the public, it does not compare with murder, which does involve the unjustified taking of human life

4. Evolving standards of decency must embrace and express respect for the dignity of the person, and the punishment of criminals must conform to that rule

Is this an example of decay / erosion of a civil society when the "dignity" of a perpetrator such as Kennedy, seems more important than the dignity of the victim?

I'm sorry that you didn't like the ruling, but it's reasonable and proportionate, which was it's intent.

You want vengeance, and that's not your to gain.

Personally, I think our system for dealing with criminality should drop the whole idea of "just punishment" and focus on responding to criminality as a public security issue. This rapist should be locked up until such time as he is deemed safe to release, which may well never happen, because child rapists are rarely ever truly reformed. In which case he would spend the rest of his life in prison. Not because it's a "just punishment", but because he is not fit to live in a free society.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Men are not permitted to show mercy to those guilty of capital crimes; they are commanded to not show mercy when it comes to justice.

You should consider 3 things:

One, God showed mercy to David and all his house, including all who are of his house in Jesus Christ our head. He wasn't put to death.

Two, you speak of the exact law Jesus abrogated (Deuteronomy 19:21) in Matt 5:38.

And it is possible to have justice without mistakes.

Using errant, corrupt men?

Which is to forego justice, which is bad.

It's not bad to forgive and be merciful else Jesus wouldn't have said "blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." And it wasn't bad when God showed David mercy. He did not die.

Yes, they do. Denying justice causes injustice to abound.

It's not just to selectively enforce the law with no regard for mercy towards the innocent. It is just to protect the innocent, which can be done mercifully, while still deterring crime.

Even if you were correct in that prisons are a net benefit for the economy, that would not justify them, let alone establish a case against the death penalty.

Jesus already gave us enough ammo to season our reactions with mercy.

Mm hmm.
However, without the death penalty, we would not have salvation.

You might as well have claimed that without murder we would not have salvation. That was an incorrect application of the death penalty by men, to understate the problem.

So while I can understand an emotional response wanting nothing to do with capital punishment, it does have a rational defense, not to mention a historical and worthy justification.

"Nothing to do with capital punishment?" How did we get there from "let's not kill child rapists" Let's not move goalposts. I never took an absolute hard line against the death penalty. I only argued in favor of mercy, especially where it has provable benefits and does not further endanger innocents.

If I was going to take an absolutely hard line on the death penalty I'd have to sit back and leave that to those more studied and certain in the matter.

As far as I've thought it through, it seems like in many instances we could use far more mercy, per Jesus instructions.

In the case of child rape, it seems like we accomplish more good for all, including and especially the children, if we refrain from utilizing the death penalty.

 

[Stripe]

God showed mercy to David... He wasn't put to death.

God was the only authority above David. He did not pass on that standard as universal. His command was to "not show mercy."

You speak of the exact law Jesus abrogated (Deuteronomy 19:21) in Matt 5:38.

Deut 19:21 says to take an eye for an eye and "do not show mercy" in the context of the law that is to be upheld by a national government. Matt 5:38 says:"You have heard it said: Do not take an eye for an eye...'"

However, His "I say to you" is not an abrogation, but rather an admonition directed toward individuals. Jesus said He did not come to abolish (abrogate) the law (v17-20).

If you believe "you have heard it said" implies aborogation, then you run into trouble with other passages in that chapter:

Verse 21: "Do not murder." Has that been "abrogated"?
Verse 27: "Do not commit adultery." Has that been "abrogated"?

Using errant, corrupt men?

No. Using good men.

It's not bad to forgive and be merciful else Jesus wouldn't have said "blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy." And it wasn't bad when God showed David mercy. He did not die.

But it is bad when a government decides executing a child rapist is wrong.

It's not just to selectively enforce the law with no regard for mercy towards the innocent. It is just to protect the innocent, which can be done mercifully, while still deterring crime.

Which has nothing to do with what I endorse. The death penalty is the best protection for the innocent.

You might as well have claimed that without murder we would not have salvation.

Except God installed the death penalty and outlawed murder. Therefore, the death penalty must be good, while murder must be bad.

That was an incorrect application of the death penalty by men, to understate the problem.

And yet good came of it. Nothing good can come of murder.

"Nothing to do with capital punishment?" How did we get there from "let's not kill child rapists" Let's not move goalposts. I never took an absolute hard line against the death penalty. I only argued in favor of mercy, especially where it has provable benefits and does not further endanger innocents.

Mercy is not permitted for those who commit capital crimes.

As far as I've thought it through, it seems like in many instances we could use far more mercy, per Jesus instructions.

Which is exactly backward. Jesus said this guy would have been better taking a long walk off a short pier.

With an engine block chained to him.

In the case of child rape, it seems like we accomplish more good for all, including and especially the children, if we refrain from utilizing the death penalty.

I prefer Jesus' standard to yours. :up:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

God was the only authority above David. He did not pass on that standard as universal. His command was to "not show mercy."

Christ is your head and you have only one Master, correct? Isn't this a time for mercy, like to the house of David?

Deut 19:21 says to take an eye for an eye and "do not show mercy" in the context of the law that is to be upheld by a national government. Matt 5:38 says:"You have heard it said: Do not take an eye for an eye...'"

So... stoned anyone for Sabbath breaking lately? :think:

However, His "I say to you" is not an abrogation, but rather an admonition directed toward individuals. Jesus said He did not come to abolish (abrogate) the law (v17-20).

Yet you live in a dispensation where you no longer stone Sabbath breakers, correct?

Verse 21: "Do not murder." Has that been "abrogated"?
Verse 27: "Do not commit adultery." Has that been "abrogated"?

These are not the ordinances that have been blotted out. The ten commandments are contained in Matt 7:12

No. Using good men.

How's that going? Men have appointed "good" judges, and they decided not to kill child rapists. They also don't kill fetus murderers.

But it is bad when a government decides executing a child rapist is wrong.

Not if it shows mercy to children and the innocent who sometimes are falsely blamed for an assault.

Which has nothing to do with what I endorse. The death penalty is the best protection for the innocent.

If you apply the death penalty equally across all capital offenders, you would blot out the rest of humanity in the process. Children would starve, Nuke plants would melt down. Economies would crash. Bridges would fall into disrepair. We would have to execute a huge proportion of the population for adultery and abortion alone to be equally reactive to all death penalty offenses.

Except God installed the death penalty and outlawed murder. Therefore, the death penalty must be good, while murder must be bad.

You don't still kill goats for God. It's not good to do anymore.

And yet good came of it. Nothing good can come of murder.

You just contradicted yourself. They sinned by murdering Jesus - you already agreed with that. Jesus brought forgiveness before he was crucified. Jesus could raise the dead and forgive sins before the cross. The cross was prophesied as a result of sin. Don't confuse the two things. The blood of Christ serves us as blood serves living members of a body. It's not the murder of Christ that saves but the holy blood of Christ's salvation which flows through a living body feeding members like you and me.

Mercy is not permitted for those who commit capital crimes.

Jesus is our example yet he saved a woman from stoning. He permitted her mercy, even knowing that she had actually sinned as accused.

Which is exactly backward. Jesus said this guy would have been better taking a long walk off a short pier.

Jesus pointed out that death is a better fate than becoming a spiritual murderer. That's not a fatwa, that's a fact.

I prefer Jesus' standard to yours. :up:

When you learn what it means to have mercy and not sacrifice, then I will believe you.

 

[6days]

Christ is your head and you have only one Master, correct? Isn't this a time for mercy, like to the house of David?

Not an easy answer to that. Yes Christ is merciful.... but He also is just.

 

[Ktoyou]

Cruel punishment would be hurting the body severely before killing, such as in a few gangster movies seen, pouring gas on someone.
Unusual would be hanging someone by the feet from a tall building and then cutting the rope.

These are two examples.

 

[Stripe]

Christ is your head and you have only one Master, correct? Isn't this a time for mercy, like to the house of David?

Repeating a question that has been answered is a waste of time.

So... stoned anyone for Sabbath breaking lately? :think: Yet you live in a dispensation where you no longer stone Sabbath breakers, correct?

I love it when people answer their own questions. :thumb:

These are not the ordinances that have been blotted out. The ten commandments are contained in Matt 7:12

So why are you trying to blot them out?

How's that going? Men have appointed "good" judges, and they decided not to kill child rapists. They also don't kill fetus murderers.

Clearly we do not have good judges. :dizzy:

Not if it shows mercy to children and the innocent who sometimes are falsely blamed for an assault.

That's not mercy! That's a lack of injustice.

If you apply the death penalty equally across all capital offenders, you would blot out the rest of humanity in the process. Children would starve, Nuke plants would melt down. Economies would crash. Bridges would fall into disrepair. We would have to execute a huge proportion of the population for adultery and abortion alone to be equally reactive to all death penalty offenses.

Now you're just being silly.

You just contradicted yourself.

Nope. Good can come of an innocent man being executed.

No good can come from murder.

Jesus is our example yet he saved a woman from stoning. He permitted her mercy, even knowing that she had actually sinned as accused.

Are you just going to keep raising objections without engaging in the challenges you face to what you believe?

If you believe "you have heard it said" implies aborogation, then you run into trouble with other passages in that chapter: Verse 21: "Do not murder." Has that been "abrogated"? Verse 27: "Do not commit adultery." Has that been "abrogated"?

Jesus pointed out that death is a better fate than becoming a spiritual murderer. That's not a fatwa, that's a fact.

When you learn what it means to have mercy and not sacrifice, then I will believe you.

Straw-man arguments will not help you.

 

[Stripe]

Cruel punishment would be hurting the body severely before killing, such as in a few gangster movies seen, pouring gas on someone.
Unusual would be hanging someone by the feet from a tall building and then cutting the rope.

These are two examples.

Yeah, we should have those for this guy. :up:

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Repeating a question that has been answered is a waste of time.

Dude, it's more than a question. What happened to David is mercy. Mercy to a man accountable to his one Master, like us.

I love it when people answer their own questions. :thumb:

You accept that something was abrogated relating to death penalty offenses, such as breaking the Sabbath commandment, same place where we find the commandment against adultery and murder,

So why are you trying to blot them out?

The death penalty you speak of is not in the ten commandments but in the ordinances.

Clearly we do not have good judges. :dizzy:

And where do you expect to get them? Since you can't pick just judges, why give them the power to use the death penalty at all?

That's not mercy! That's a lack of injustice.

Injustice is the opposite of mercy. And mercy can be shown to the just and the unjust.

Now you're just being silly.

How many babies have died, and how many are guilty today of murder?

How many have committed adultery?

Kill those offenders and watch humanity die with them.

Nope. Good can come of an innocent man being executed.

No good can come from murder.

Are you arguing that Jesus wasn't murdered?

When a woman has a baby because she was raped, something good comes of it.

Doesn't justify the rape, however. Those things are bad for society and not examples to follow.

Are you just going to keep raising objections without engaging in the challenges you face to what you believe?

WWJD. Jesus forgave a woman guilty of a capital crime. So can we. Yes, it's about mercy and it's also right.

Straw-man arguments will not help you.

You didn't quote an argument. You quoted my opinion. My opinion of your perception is that, like Meshak, you need to learn what it means to have mercy, not sacrifice, if you want to follow Jesus' example.

 

[Stripe]

Dude, it's more than a question. What happened to David is mercy. Mercy to a man accountable to his one Master, like us.

Repeating a point that has been countered is a waste of time.

You accept that something was abrogated relating to death penalty offenses, such as breaking the Sabbath commandment, same place where we find the commandment against adultery and murder,

1. The sabbath was not abrogated in that passage, as has been shown.
2. You accept that the "something" was not abrogated in that passage. And given the topic we are discussing brings about the death penalty and you agree it was not abrogated, your entire line of reasoning through this passage has been disassembled.

The death penalty you speak of is not in the ten commandments but in the ordinances.

Therefore, something. :idunno:

Injustice is the opposite of mercy.

Straw-man arguments won't help you. Nobody is endorsing injustice.

When a woman has a baby because she was raped, something good comes of it. Doesn't justify the rape, however. Those things are bad for society and not examples to follow.

Uh huh. The rapist should be executed.

WWJD. Jesus forgave a woman guilty of a capital crime. So can we. Yes, it's about mercy and it's also right.

Did He? Can you provide the verse that says He forgave her?

You didn't quote an argument. You quoted my opinion. My opinion of your perception is that, like Meshak, you need to learn what it means to have mercy, not sacrifice, if you want to follow Jesus' example.

You keep saying "sacrifice."

It has no effect because it has nothing to do with this conversation.