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".chimpanzee said:
On a moral/philosophical level, opposition to it seems a fairly recent concept.
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
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.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
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.
PacifistAg said: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".chimpanzee said:
On a moral/philosophical level, opposition to it seems a fairly recent concept.
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 AlexandriaQuote:
"The Christian does not hurt even his enemy."
~ TertullianQuote:
"We Christians cannot endure to see a man being put to death, even justly."
~ AthenagorasI 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.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
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.
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.
Quote:
The Death Penalty should not be used as vengeance
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 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.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.
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?
The death penalty is not for protection. It is for justice.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.
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.
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.
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.
By that logic, you'd have to argue that he's anti-prison.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".
you put the same value on money as you do human lives?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?
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.