Who cares if it is a deterrent, in my estimation it is the ultimate punishment, as it should be. If it deters also it is a bonus, it should be viewed as punishment first.
Who are you? :idunno:
toldailytopic: Is the death penalty unchristian?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
Who cares if it is a deterrent, in my estimation it is the ultimate punishment, as it should be. If it deters also it is a bonus, it should be viewed as punishment first.
Who are you? :idunno:
Deuteronomy 5:28-33
28 “Then the Lord heard the voice of your words when you spoke to me, and the Lord said to me: ‘I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken to you. They are right in all that they have spoken. 29 Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever! 30 Go and say to them, “Return to your tents.” 31 But as for you, stand here by Me, and I will speak to you all the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments which you shall teach them, that they may observe them in the land which I am giving them to possess.’
32 “Therefore you shall be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 33 You shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess.
28 “Then the Lord heard the voice of your words when you spoke to me, and the Lord said to me: ‘I have heard the voice of the words of this people which they have spoken to you. They are right in all that they have spoken. 29 Oh, that they had such a heart in them that they would fear Me and always keep all My commandments, that it might be well with them and with their children forever! 30 Go and say to them, “Return to your tents.” 31 But as for you, stand here by Me, and I will speak to you all the commandments, the statutes, and the judgments which you shall teach them, that they may observe them in the land which I am giving them to possess.’
32 “Therefore you shall be careful to do as the Lord your God has commanded you; you shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left. 33 You shall walk in all the ways which the Lord your God has commanded you, that you may live and that it may be well with you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which you shall possess.
I'd agree. But who are you? :idunno:
"Just a fly in the ointment. A monkey in the wrench."
:chuckle:
I did if you understand that most homicides are crimes of passion and that crimes of passion are, by definition, irrational acts. Irrational acts are not impacted by rational laws. They aren't cost/benefit analysis.
Rather, you're being willfully obtuse on the point, which is your prerogative in opinion.
You haven't sustained any assertion with support and on this point so, as between us, I have the greater authority, knowing the law, the particular system and having the associated experience of that system. And I've given you more than my feeling on the matter.
Not exactly. Any death penalty will impact those who bring a sort of cost/benefit analysis to the consideration. As for the rest: google U.S. statistics on capital punishment and/or studies involving jurisdictions where capital punishment is on the books compared to where it isn't relative to crimes of passion.
You mean his standard for the Jews of that day, with their limitations and particular proclivities. They also lived by laws we don't observe. Your reckoning is just another way of expressing an opinion, not a fact. If you want to place us under the law of Leviticus, by way of, you're going to have to make the case why and distinguish why we then don't take their part whole hog, so to speak.
You mean the standard given to a particular people. God's standard within the context of the Jewish life. Do you adopt all of that? If not, why not and why the distinction?
You say that. But that's just you restating your opinion. I think God gave a practical, just way of dealing with a problem of moral conduct pre Christ. I also think he allowed for slavery. I don't believe that institution is Christian. It was Jewish. It was of its day and within that provided a moral context.
You missed the sarcasm then. They failed the law. People aren't made better by law.:rotfl: Which bible have you been reading?Not obedient to and ignorant of the law.
We have a history of societies laying claim to that. They were soon corrupted and immoral failures. That's part of what became of our nation and its founding laws.
You're an intelligent man. Don't act as though you're talking to someone who isn't. I've given you a clear answer and a noteworthy exception that shouldn't be repeated.
You've yet to make any point with either. Have you one? Else, I'm done repeating that response.
And now to bed. Jack will be expecting me bright eyed in about...six hours more or less.
:e4e:
God says otherwise.
And this is not evidence. It's just your opinion. You have no way to gain evidence for your idea that a swift and painful execution would not be a deterrent. To gain such evidence, you would have to see the conditions I am talking about installed.
Obtuse? Not really. You have an opinion and I'm asking for evidence. You continue to present your opinion as if it is evidence. I don't think it obtuse to ask you to respond properly. :idunno:
The assertion is that God installed the death penalty with wisdom in that it would properly punish and act as a deterrent. I use this fact to support a return to a similar process of a swift and painful justice system. The evidence is not available for the differences in data points between the two systems. Thus we are left with your opinion against mine.
And, yes, you have more invested into man's justice system.
Simple. Read up on what laws God repealed and what laws were not. For example, God explicitly removed the prohibition on eating unclean animals. God never repealed the death penalty. Nor did He ever make a distinction between murderers who consider their crime for a long time or short as you do.
Oh, you want to talk about slavery now?
That's not entirely correct.
People do fail according to the law. But they will fail less according to God's laws than they will if the law spirals downward with them.
And thus... what?
Was your clear answer "Yes" or "No"?
God.
Deuteronomy 17
12 Now the man who acts presumptuously and will not heed the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God, or the judge, that man shall die. So you shall put away the evil from Israel. 13 And all the people shall hear and fear, and no longer act presumptuously.
I agree. Justice is his main goal. And mine. But it is a deterent, God said they would not longer act presumptuous.
Why am I not surprised you ignore the Scripture I posted...
:bang:
One in which that is the law of the land.:dunce::duh:
Jesus spent a lot of time correcting the Pharisees and Sadducees on their misinterpretations and misapplications of the law.
Seriously? You don't see how there was, because of all the miscarriages of justice, a shadow of doubt and even beyond that an inability to make any judgment?
Care to quote?
:sozo:I'M NOT CLAIMING THERE WERE NEVER ANY WITNESSES, YOU IDIOT!
I'm saying there were no witnesses when they were asked for.
Seriously, how stupid are you?
So what? They weren't there when Jesus asked for witnesses. That's the only relevant issue here.
- All the priests at that time were Levites. And regarding the laws recorded in the verses I posted they were the same thing. If one was a Levite but not a priest they had no bearing on such matters. That's why I used the term "Levitical priest."
- He was not recognized as such by the men who brought the woman before Him, idiot.
- "Rabbi" only means "teacher." He was not qualified in the eyes of men to be any more than that. Just as if I tutored my nephews in spelling because I always aced the subject in school I am still not qualified to be a professor at a university.
Neither am I.
Exactly. Arguments from silence are a fool's weapon.
Neither am I.
What does "without cause" mean to you? Do you understand that clause?
What I'm saying is that I have plenty of cause to call you a fool. Just as Paul had plenty of cause to call the Galatians foolish.
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
I am at work so very quick post in reposne on two general points and ill go back point for point later.
The first is manners, I am treating you agruments seriously, im not flamin you and I am trying to argue through serious issue of disagreement with a degree of civlity and respects thats due to someone searching for truth and taking the bible seriously.
I would appretiate it if that was returned, this place could do with a level of civility returned to its debate. Lets disagree strongly but with some class.
The 2nd is I think on some points you are givign your interpretation of what a scripture means the same authority of the scripture.
For example,
We agree that this case broke the spirit and the intent of the law, because only the woman was brought before Jesus. It was corrupt compared to the law as given.
You have clealry respresented and described this by scripture, and we are in agreement on the point.
However you then interpret this to mean that the sentence is void, because the law has not been perfectly implemented. This is not directly based on scriputure, but on your interprtation of how the law would role our based on how you belive modern legal systems work.
This hasnt been clealry demonstarted by scripture and I don't belive it can be. this is your interpratation and I belive it is flawed.
Therefore I belive you are giving personal interpretation too much credence.
Anyway more later
The first is manners, I am treating you agruments seriously, im not flamin you and I am trying to argue through serious issue of disagreement with a degree of civlity and respects thats due to someone searching for truth and taking the bible seriously.
I would appretiate it if that was returned, this place could do with a level of civility returned to its debate. Lets disagree strongly but with some class.
The 2nd is I think on some points you are givign your interpretation of what a scripture means the same authority of the scripture.
For example,
We agree that this case broke the spirit and the intent of the law, because only the woman was brought before Jesus. It was corrupt compared to the law as given.
You have clealry respresented and described this by scripture, and we are in agreement on the point.
However you then interpret this to mean that the sentence is void, because the law has not been perfectly implemented. This is not directly based on scriputure, but on your interprtation of how the law would role our based on how you belive modern legal systems work.
This hasnt been clealry demonstarted by scripture and I don't belive it can be. this is your interpratation and I belive it is flawed.
Therefore I belive you are giving personal interpretation too much credence.
Anyway more later
Have you not noticed that every thing you post about your opinions, is contrary to what is decent, moral, and Biblical? Is that because you are stupid, or evil?
This Charming Manc
Well-known member
Suprisingly I don't hold that view Nick.
Are you not aware that peopel can hold different opnions than you without being evil or stupid?
You may be shocked to find that agree on some issues;
On the issues we disagree on does these seem evil
You may disagree but its hard to say thsoe are evil motives.
Are you not aware that peopel can hold different opnions than you without being evil or stupid?
You may be shocked to find that agree on some issues;
- I'm 100% pro life
- I'm 100% saved by grave through faith
- I'm not pro gay
- I'm not a comminist and think its a fataly flawed system
- I'm not an athiest
On the issues we disagree on does these seem evil
- I'm pro gun control control guns to see less people murdered
- I'm anti death penalty because I dont want to see people die
- I'm pro gospels because I belive the words of Jesus are important
- I'm anti unfettered capitalism because I believe the love of money is the root of all evil
You may disagree but its hard to say thsoe are evil motives.
No, He doesn't.
Yes, it is and you and anyone interested could confirm it.
Sure I do. I only just told you how. Your counter is degree. You want people to believe that someone killing in the throes of an irrational passion will be pulled into rational abatement by the potential for swift punishment.
That's not rational, Stripe. Sooner/later, rational process doesn't control irrational action.
Nope. Supra.
That's our difference in chief. :e4e:
Sure, He does.
Nothing to do with "why". All to do with "if".
:idunno:
God says otherwise. He set this system up without considering irrationality as an excuse.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
"Almost as bad"?! How is the death of an innocent person wrongly convicted and executed any less than a guilty man released onto the streets? What 'good' comes from the death of the innocent Stripe?
No, He doesn't. :nono:Sure, He does.
Your counter is degree. You want people to believe that someone killing in the throes of an irrational passion will be pulled into rational abatement by the potential for swift punishment.
No idea what that's aimed at. :idunno:
No He doesn't. God doesn't get easily observable (or anything) phenomena wrong. That's where we come in...and by "we" I mean you, mostly.
He set up our system a bit differently-though we don't excuse crimes of passion short of insanity.
And that does it for me. So you can have the last word/repetition. Always good bumping into you. :e4e:
Sure, He did:
Numbers 35
...the murderer shall surely be put to death.
30 Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty. 31 Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.
1 Timothy 1:9
knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
Ezekiel 13:19
And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?”
...the murderer shall surely be put to death.
30 Whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death on the testimony of witnesses; but one witness is not sufficient testimony against a person for the death penalty. 31 Moreover you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.
1 Timothy 1:9
knowing this: that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,
Ezekiel 13:19
And will you profane Me among My people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, killing people who should not die, and keeping people alive who should not live, by your lying to My people who listen to lies?”
Can you show us scripture where God says to house, feed, educate and release rapists based on the judgement of twelve random people plucked off the street?
While you're at it, can you show us where God made allowances for murderers of a certain type?
lightbringer
TOL Subscriber
John Mortimer
New member
Incredible! The Christ appears before your eyes, (at least in words), and you want to talk about why you think the death penalty is "christian". I have no respect for you or your ilk, Mr "Knight"... go ahead and ban me permanently. THAT will be an honest expression of your consciousness.
What's this about morons and petards? :dunce: What makes it so dumb, is that he deliberately did it to himself.
:mock: John Mortimer
Then stop portraying yourself s Manchester's village idiot.
:bang:
No!
The sentence is only void insofar as if the requirements could be met there would be a case and the sentence would then stand.
But the absence of the man is irrelevant in light of the fact that the other two requirements were unmet. Even if they had brought both of them they still did not bring them before a priest and a judge, nor were there any witnesses when asked for, as they had all left.