Small pro-life victory!

3,499 Views | 52 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by gordo97
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Granted, New Hampshire hasn't executed anyone since 1939, at least that is now longer on the table.
swimmerbabe11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dumpster Fire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I also agree with ending government sanctioned post-birth abortions.
SoulSlaveAG2005
How long do you want to ignore this user?
powerbelly
How long do you want to ignore this user?
chimpanzee
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I can't support the death penalty personally, it doesn't seem necessary and, in modern practice, seems an awfully inefficient application of justice.

On a moral/philosophical level, opposition to it seems a fairly recent concept.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
chimpanzee said:

On a moral/philosophical level, opposition to it seems a fairly recent concept.
Not really. I'd argue Christ's comments when the adulterous woman was brought to Him was clearly anti-death penalty. When presented the situation to sanction it, He responded w/ His famous line of "let him without sin cast the first stone".

But then we look at other church fathers within the ante-Nicene period, it is clear that, at the very least, it was a view that existed at the time. Some of our Orthodox brothers can probably provide more input, as they seem far more educated on the teachings of the early church. Here are some that would lead me to believe that there was a prominent anti-death penalty camp:
Quote:

"Above all Christians are not allowed to correct by violence sinful wrongdoings."
~ Clement of Alexandria
Quote:

"The Christian does not hurt even his enemy."
~ Tertullian
Quote:

"We Christians cannot endure to see a man being put to death, even justly."
~ Athenagoras
Quote:

"For when God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those beings which are esteemed lawful among men.Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all, but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal."
~ Lactantius
I don't think it was so much a matter of whether or not capital punishment was just, but that it was an act that destroyed those who bore God's image. Clearly the church seemed to veer far from these teachings, as we see throughout the middle ages especially, but a moral/philosophical argument against capital punishment has at least existed for 2,000 years.
Repeat the Line
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Did Christ turn weapons into garden tools? Would be nice to see you, or Claiborne, or Marty get as riled up about 3,000 babies slaughtered each and every day as ya'll do against the Pro 2A crowd.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Automated Chatbot said:

Did Christ turn weapons into garden tools? Would be nice to see you, or Claiborne, or Marty get as riled up about 3,000 babies slaughtered each and every day as ya'll do against the Pro 2A crowd.

This is about the death penalty. It isn't about abortion or guns. Stay on topic.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PacifistAg said:

chimpanzee said:

On a moral/philosophical level, opposition to it seems a fairly recent concept.
Not really. I'd argue Christ's comments when the adulterous woman was brought to Him was clearly anti-death penalty. When presented the situation to sanction it, He responded w/ His famous line of "let him without sin cast the first stone".

But then we look at other church fathers within the ante-Nicene period, it is clear that, at the very least, it was a view that existed at the time. Some of our Orthodox brothers can probably provide more input, as they seem far more educated on the teachings of the early church. Here are some that would lead me to believe that there was a prominent anti-death penalty camp:
Quote:

"Above all Christians are not allowed to correct by violence sinful wrongdoings."
~ Clement of Alexandria
Quote:

"The Christian does not hurt even his enemy."
~ Tertullian
Quote:

"We Christians cannot endure to see a man being put to death, even justly."
~ Athenagoras
Quote:

"For when God forbids us to kill, he not only prohibits us from open violence, which is not even allowed by the public laws, but he warns us against the commission of those beings which are esteemed lawful among men.Therefore, with regard to this precept of God, there ought to be no exception at all, but that it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred animal."
~ Lactantius
I don't think it was so much a matter of whether or not capital punishment was just, but that it was an act that destroyed those who bore God's image. Clearly the church seemed to veer far from these teachings, as we see throughout the middle ages especially, but a moral/philosophical argument against capital punishment has at least existed for 2,000 years.



Either Christ followed the OT law, or he was a sinner. So you can't use Jesus as an anti-death penalty proponent. Especially in light of what he'll be doing on his second visit.
Repeat the Line
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PacifistAg said:

Automated Chatbot said:

Did Christ turn weapons into garden tools? Would be nice to see you, or Claiborne, or Marty get as riled up about 3,000 babies slaughtered each and every day as ya'll do against the Pro 2A crowd.

This is about the death penalty. It isn't about abortion or guns. Stay on topic.


I know. Defending the unborn isn't as trendy or self-gratifying.
Hyacinth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
And what OT law would that be? Keep in mind that Christ was the new covenant (testament), so He replaced the Davidic covenant, etc.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Automated Chatbot said:

PacifistAg said:

Automated Chatbot said:

Did Christ turn weapons into garden tools? Would be nice to see you, or Claiborne, or Marty get as riled up about 3,000 babies slaughtered each and every day as ya'll do against the Pro 2A crowd.

This is about the death penalty. It isn't about abortion or guns. Stay on topic.


I know. Defending the unborn isn't as trendy or self-gratifying.

Lol okay. Or, you know, this is a thread about the death penalty. Again, stay on topic. You're more than welcome to start an abortion thread to 'defend the unborn', then we could discuss our shared opposition (including Claiborne) to abortion. But that's not the topic here.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I used to be a strong supporter of the Death Penalty. I am no longer.

Philosophically, I still believe that society has the right to "defend" itself by putting to death anyone who will certainly kill someone if given a chance. I consider it the societal level of "self-defense".

This would ONLY be OK if there were no other way to prevent this person from killing again.

Now in practice there are two major issues with this.
1) there are non-lethal ways to prevent someone from killing another. These should be allowed and not restricted as "cruel and unusual" and
2) I don't trust government to get it right.

The Death Penalty should not be used as vengeance; only protection. But there are better, non-lethal methods of protection which make the death penalty unnecessary.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

The Death Penalty should not be used as vengeance


I don't think it's just about vengeance, it's also about justice. Just like how our own sin condemns us to death.

For practical purposes I have little issue with states not using the death penalty.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Philosophically, I still believe that society has the right to "defend" itself by putting to death anyone who will certainly kill someone if given a chance. I consider it the societal level of "self-defense".

I don't think I can agree with your presumption of future guilt concept. This seems to go against the standards of society.
PacifistAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Frok said:

Quote:

The Death Penalty should not be used as vengeance


I don't think it's just about vengeance, it's also about justice. Just like how our own sin condemns us to death.

For practical purposes I have little issue with states not using the death penalty.
I think this highlights the key differences in perspective, which is over what "justice" means...retribution or restoration. Retributive justice is about punishment, and I'd argue that it is, at its core, 'vengeance'. It is society saying "you broke this rule, therefore we will seek revenge against you as a form of punishment". But I believe that the biblical narrative is more focused on retributive justice. It's about restoring what was lost, or righting a wrong. Sometimes justice is not possible, as in the case of murder. A victim can't be restored. That wrong cannot be righted. No amount of bloodshed in the form of punishment will restore what was lost, so it really just becomes an act of revenge, imo.

I love The Bible Project videos, and they do a great one on justice that I think you would enjoy, if for no reason other than to hear another perspective.

Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
One of the rare cases where you and I are in agreement.

One slight difference is I can get on board with it in some cases, but I'm not sure how you write the law so that it would only apply in those cases. It's very much an "I'll know it when I see it" kind of thing. The Las Vegas or Sutherland Springs, or Pulse shooters for example - if any of them had survived I'd have no problem seeing them get the death penalty. We know exactly who did the crime, and it was a doozy of a crime in each case. But what's the statute look like that ensures we only catch them and not the guy who gets convicted on much less iron-clad evidence?
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

It's very much an "I'll know it when I see it" kind of thing. The Las Vegas or Sutherland Springs, or Pulse shooters for example - if any of them had survived I'd have no problem seeing them get the death penalty. We know exactly who did the crime, and it was a doozy of a crime in each case. But what's the statute look like that ensures we only catch them and not the guy who gets convicted on much less iron-clad evidence?

This is basically a vengeance model though, right? if the crime is heinous or callous enough, then they should die?
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I suppose so. Like I said, I can get on board with it in certain cases, it's just hard to specify what those cases are ahead of time.
Martin Q. Blank
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dad-O-Lot said:

I used to be a strong supporter of the Death Penalty. I am no longer.

Philosophically, I still believe that society has the right to "defend" itself by putting to death anyone who will certainly kill someone if given a chance. I consider it the societal level of "self-defense".

This would ONLY be OK if there were no other way to prevent this person from killing again.

Now in practice there are two major issues with this.
1) there are non-lethal ways to prevent someone from killing another. These should be allowed and not restricted as "cruel and unusual" and
2) I don't trust government to get it right.

The Death Penalty should not be used as vengeance; only protection. But there are better, non-lethal methods of protection which make the death penalty unnecessary.
The death penalty is not for protection. It is for justice.
diehard03
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I understand that. I was just clarifying so it made sense in my head.

While I disagree with it, I can understand that logic rather than trying to appeal it being a deterrent or the cost of incarceration.

I think we can all agree that how we as human correctly implement it is another chasm to cross.
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yeah, I would say the number of cases where I'd be ok with the death penalty would likely be so low that it wouldn't functionally make much of a difference if I were the person deciding when to use it. Because of the implementation problems I'm pretty much 100% opposed.
Quad Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
There are really three parts to justice: retribution, rehabilitation, and prevention. The death penalty can't rehabilitate someone. It can provide retribution, but so can other things. However, the death penalty does provide prevention of future crimes. However, we may have proven over time that it isn't enough of a deterrence to future criminals because these crimes keep happening. I'm personally against it because we are wrong a shocking number of times and the method in which people are killed is inhumane.

The earlier suggestion of keeping the death penalty for someone like the Las Vegas shootings could backfire on you by creating a martyr for other crazies out there. The best thing that could happen to those people is to never know their name and disappear entirely.
Beer Baron
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

The earlier suggestion of keeping the death penalty for someone like the Las Vegas shootings could backfire on you by creating a martyr for other crazies out there. The best thing that could happen to those people is to never know their name and disappear entirely.

Agree with this. I really admire what New Zealand has done with the mosque shooter they had. Has anyone ever seen his face or learned his name?
Frok
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I watched RA's video and it recommended this video in the suggestions. I thought it was an interesting summary of justice and why it's so hard to come to an agreement on it.

94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Hyacinth said:

And what OT law would that be? Keep in mind that Christ was the new covenant (testament), so He replaced the Davidic covenant, etc.


You really don't know what you're talking about. Jesus fulfilled the Law by meeting its demands. This is Christianity 101.
aggiedad20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The Death Penalty was ordained by God and intended as a means of divine justice for as long as man inhabits Earth. Unfortunately man always seeks a way that seems right to him...anyone with the slightest Biblical knowledge knows that God was the original Judge, Jury & Executioner. His morality far surpasses man's pacifism, but men always have a better way. Sad...

94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Dad-O-Lot said:

I used to be a strong supporter of the Death Penalty. I am no longer.

Philosophically, I still believe that society has the right to "defend" itself by putting to death anyone who will certainly kill someone if given a chance. I consider it the societal level of "self-defense".

This would ONLY be OK if there were no other way to prevent this person from killing again.

Now in practice there are two major issues with this.
1) there are non-lethal ways to prevent someone from killing another. These should be allowed and not restricted as "cruel and unusual" and
2) I don't trust government to get it right.

The Death Penalty should not be used as vengeance; only protection. But there are better, non-lethal methods of protection which make the death penalty unnecessary.


I believe you are being logically inconsistent. Do you think that taxes should be abolished because you don't trust the government to spend them properly?
fat girlfriend
How long do you want to ignore this user?
PacifistAg said:


I'd argue Christ's comments when the adulterous woman was brought to Him was clearly anti-death penalty. When presented the situation to sanction it, He responded w/ His famous line of "let him without sin cast the first stone".



By that logic, you'd have to argue that he's anti-prison.
aggiedad20
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Religious liberals always use passages that are misunderstood or misapplied as an attempt to justify their defiance to God. The thief on the Cross comes to mind and the adulterous woman is no different. How many witnesses were there? How many were necessary under Mosaic Law? Where are the men? Weren't they subject to the death penalty as well? To say Christ used this encounter to forbid justice is laughable and more evidence how Scripture is consistently taken out of context by those who wish to feel more intellectually compassionate.
Dad-O-Lot
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
94chem said:

Dad-O-Lot said:

I used to be a strong supporter of the Death Penalty. I am no longer.

Philosophically, I still believe that society has the right to "defend" itself by putting to death anyone who will certainly kill someone if given a chance. I consider it the societal level of "self-defense".

This would ONLY be OK if there were no other way to prevent this person from killing again.

Now in practice there are two major issues with this.
1) there are non-lethal ways to prevent someone from killing another. These should be allowed and not restricted as "cruel and unusual" and
2) I don't trust government to get it right.

The Death Penalty should not be used as vengeance; only protection. But there are better, non-lethal methods of protection which make the death penalty unnecessary.


I believe you are being logically inconsistent. Do you think that taxes should be abolished because you don't trust the government to spend them properly?
you put the same value on money as you do human lives?

Frankly, I think the government takes way too much of our taxes and most should be abolished.

I also think government has a responsibility to protect citizens, but there can be no recovering from an innocent man being put to death.
People of integrity expect to be believed, when they're not, they let time prove them right.
94chem
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Then it sounds like your issue is with government.
Hyacinth
How long do you want to ignore this user?
94chem said:

Hyacinth said:

And what OT law would that be? Keep in mind that Christ was the new covenant (testament), so He replaced the Davidic covenant, etc.


You really don't know what you're talking about. Jesus fulfilled the Law by meeting its demands. This is Christianity 101.


You said He either followed the law or was a sinner, and then went on to talk about what He would do on his return. Jesus was free of sin, so the only answer to your statement is option A. However you contradicted yourself in saying in light of what He will be doing upon His return. What law are you referring to? The 10 Commandments, the Pharisees laws, Hammurabi's law?

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you, but I'm assuming you're pro-death penalty and you're trying to use the second coming as proof that Jesus is okay with the death penalty.
Page 1 of 2
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.