The Death Penalty

[Randy]

If we did it God's way, then NO DEATH PENALTY.

What I wanted to state I stated in regard to the DP. I have no desire to promote or take away on this issue.

However for clarity what "I" consider lawful in Gods eyes I do not speak of in terms of error. Also the righteousness and unrighteous are in all walks of life. (their jobs)

 

[Lewis]

Question: "What does the Bible say about the death penalty / capital punishment?" http://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html Answer: The Old Testament law commanded the death penalty for various acts: murder (Exodus 21:12), kidnapping (Exodus 21:16), bestiality (Exodus 22:19), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), homosexuality (Leviticus 20:13), being a false prophet (Deuteronomy 13:5), prostitution and rape (Deuteronomy 22:24), and several other crimes. However, God often showed mercy when the death penalty was due. David committed adultery and murder, yet God did not demand his life be taken (2 Samuel 11:1-5, 14-17; 2 Samuel 12:13). Ultimately, every sin we commit should result in the death penalty because the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). Thankfully, God demonstrates His love for us in not condemning us (Romans 5:8). When the Pharisees brought a woman who was caught in the act of adultery to Jesus and asked Him if she should be stoned, Jesus replied, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her” (John 8:7). This should not be used to indicate that Jesus rejected capital punishment in all instances. Jesus was simply exposing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Pharisees wanted to trick Jesus into breaking the Old Testament law; they did not truly care about the woman being stoned (where was the man who was caught in adultery?) God is the One who instituted capital punishment: “Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed, for in the image of God He made man” (Genesis 9:6). Jesus would support capital punishment in some instances. Jesus also demonstrated grace when capital punishment was due (John 8:1-11). The apostle Paul definitely recognized the power of the government to institute capital punishment where appropriate (Romans 13:1-7). How should a Christian view the death penalty? First, we must remember that God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore, it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard. God has the highest standard of any being; He is perfect. This standard applies not only to us but to Himself. Therefore, He loves to an infinite degree, and He has mercy to an infinite degree. We also see that He has wrath to an infinite degree, and it is all maintained in a perfect balance. Second, we must recognize that God has given government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-7). It is unbiblical to claim that God opposes the death penalty in all instances. Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed, but at the same time, Christians should not fight against the government’s right to execute the perpetrators of the most evil of crimes. Recommended Resources: Logos Bible Software and The Death Penalty: Historical & Theological Survey by James Megivern. Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/death-pe...#ixzz2XlDm9YKD

Nothing more needs to be said

 

[Brother Mike]

Re: *

I see a double standard. if Christ paid that penalty while I do agree that laws do need to meted out but Im calling you out those sins that are legal in America and yet you have said that's under the blood. funny how many repented murders do we know.?

I have met several repented murderers, I shared a cell with one that loved the Lord and blessing to be put with that brother. Our leader murdered his wife, one of the most powerful men of God I have met.

Mike.

 

[Webers_Home]

*

The incident depicted at John 8:1-11 is a good demonstration of Jesus' insistence that he didn't come to repeal God's laws as per the Old Testament.

The woman was accused of adultery; which according to his Father's wishes as per the Old Testament, is a capital crime; no exceptions.

†. Lev 20:10 . . And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

However, it's God's wishes that no one be prosecuted for a capital crime sans the testimony of a minimum of at least two witnesses.

†. Deut 17:6-7 . . At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So shall you put the evil away from among you.

Since no one stepped forward to testify against the woman (even though she was caught in the very act) Jesus had no choice but to vote for acquittal.

Jesus' comment: "He among you without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" doesn't refer to sin per se; but rather, to the sin in question. In that case the sin was adultery; which leads me to suspect that the words Jesus wrote on the ground were the names of girlfriends that the Scribes and Pharisees had on the side and thought nobody knew about.

Buen Camino
/

 

[handy]

Re: *

Jesus' comment: "He among you without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her" doesn't refer to sin per se; but rather, to the sin in question. In that case the sin was adultery; which leads me to suspect that the words Jesus wrote on the ground were the names of girlfriends that the Scribes and Pharisees had on the side and thought nobody knew about.

I disagree that Jesus was specifically and only referring to the sin of adultery in this case... the Bible in no way says this. Jesus simply said, "He among you without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone". To say that He was specifically referring to the sin of adultery or that He was writing the names of girlfriends in the sand is to add much more to the Scriptures than is already there... I've heard several preachers do this, and it bothers me when it's done because it changes the meaning of the account from what it clearly is...that we are all sinners worthy of death and not one of us is in the position to accuse others... to something a little more easier for us to accept, if we happened to have not committed the sin of adultery that is.

There were witnesses to the woman's adultery, the account states several times that she was caught in the very act. The issue wasn't that there weren't any witnesses, but that the Pharisees wanted to try to find some grounds to accuse Jesus of violating the Law.

 

[Webers_Home]

*

This post relocated

 

[jasoncran]

if jesus didn't come to change the means of the atoning ways and to redeem as the law does have means to atone. its listed all throughout it. then what did he come to do?

we should pass then laws against other faiths? etc? you said god laws are the best.

 

[Randy]

if jesus didn't come to change the means of the atoning ways and to redeem as the law does have means to atone. its listed all throughout it. then what did he come to do?

we should pass then laws against other faiths? etc? you said god laws are the best.

I think the wise such as Paul (a leader and apostle) still saw all the law as law and considered the law in making judgments. The law of Jesus (love one another) doesn't allow room for mistreating people for their beliefs. It does however leave room for speaking/testifying to the truth. (the gospel message)

It would be unconstitutional to pass laws forbidding free expression of religion. We preach the gospel message.

A certain ruler asked him, “Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?â€

19“Why do you call me good?†Jesus answered. “No one is good—except God alone. 20You know the commandments: ‘You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not give false testimony, honor your father and mother.’a â€

21“All these I have kept since I was a boy,†he said.

22When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.â€

God knows the wisdom of having governments over people. Otherwise you have lawlessness.

R.

 

[Webers_Home]

The consequence for pre-mediated murder is capital punishment; no exceptions.

†. Ex 21:12-14 . . He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death. If a man acts with premeditation against his neighbor, to kill him by treachery, you shall take him from My altar, that he may die.

Same for adultery.

†. Lev 20:10 . . And the man that commits adultery with another man's wife, even he that commits adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Well; according to 2Sam 11:1-27, David committed both in one fell swoop by sleeping with Bathsheba, and then arranging for her husband Uriah to become a casualty in war.

The question is: If capital punishment is the consequence for David's behavior-- no exceptions --then how did God let David off without breaking His own laws? Does God have a double standard? one for Himself and one for His creations?

First I should point out that capital punishment, as per criminal justice, is out of God's jurisdiction. He has laid upon man the responsibility for policing himself.

Now; in the sphere of sin, God of course has the last word; and in David's case God had a way to terminate him while at the same time sparing his life. You see; David was an Old Testament prophet who not only knew about Christ; but also fully believed in him.

†. Ps 16:8-11 . . I have set The Lord always before me. Because he is at my right hand: I will not be shaken. Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the sheol, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. You have made known to me the path of life; you will fill me with joy in your presence, with eternal pleasures at your right hand.

Peter testified that David authored those words, and Peter interpreted David to be speaking of Christ. (Acts 2:25-31)

Bottom line is; David was executed for his sins the very same way that every other believer in Christ gets executed for their sins-- Christ's crucifixion.

†. Rom 6:3 . . Do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death?

†. Rom 6:6 . . Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him

†. Gal 2:20 . . I am crucified with Christ

†. Col 3:3 . . For you died when Christ died

All the Old Testament prophets believed in Christ.

†. Luke 1:69-70 . . He has raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of his servant David (as he said through his holy prophets of long ago).

†. 1Pet 1:10-12 . . As to this salvation, the prophets who prophesied of the grace that would come to you made careful search and inquiry, seeking to know what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating as He predicted the sufferings of Christ and the glories to follow.

Abraham was a prophet (Gen 20:7). And Abel was a prophet too (Luke 11:50-51). Therefore, they both believed in Christ, and were executed for their sins by means of his crucifixion.

†. John 8:56 . . Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

†. Rom 3:23-26 . . All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and [all] are justified freely by His grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate His justice, because in His forbearance He had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished-- He did it to demonstrate His justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

Buen Camino
<O:p</O:p/

 

[jasoncran]

ok. I know that he rendered it obsolete. do you understand what that means? it means that we don't have to the feasts nor the shabat. god ere the Hebrews always taught that sin was bad and the jews already knew that.

back to topic, what I find odd is that one member Is so pro-death penalty and forgets that honestly witness and even some evidence isn't really able to point to the who really done it and if we kill and innocent man for a crime he didn't do what does that say about us?
[MENTION=90622]Randy[/MENTION], so we shouldn't have first amendment rights? remember god still feels that way about a lot of things. we cant change men via laws.a theocracy is something I am addressing here.

 

[Randy]

ok. I know that he rendered it obsolete. do you understand what that means? it means that we don't have to the feasts nor the shabat. god ere the Hebrews always taught that sin was bad and the jews already knew that.

back to topic, what I find odd is that one member Is so pro-death penalty and forgets that honestly witness and even some evidence isn't really able to point to the who really done it and if we kill and innocent man for a crime he didn't do what does that say about us?
[MENTION=90622]Randy[/MENTION], so we shouldn't have first amendment rights? remember god still feels that way about a lot of things. we cant change men via laws.a theocracy is something I am addressing here.

Rendered what obsolete. Governmental authority? Passing laws and enforcing them? (government) Administering a justice system? I think not.

You must be speaking then of a righteousness by faith. I agree. However as a christian making judgments I would consider the law which was Holy in my decision. Such as the lawfulness in Gods eyes about the DP if one is found guilty of capital murder on the testimony of two or more witnesses.

If I were a DA I think there would be cases in which I would seek the death penalty if allowed by law. My faith allows that.

A penalty of a crime doesn't cause a trial to be unfair.


R.

 

[jasoncran]

[MENTION=90622]Randy[/MENTION],the torah. the torah, the torah is has parts rendered obeselete. we don't atone via animal sacrifices? do we? we don't have to circumcise our male children? we don't have to slay any atheist who lives in the land ?see my point, you are also picking the torah and what to enforce. im honest and I admit it but if were are going to say we believe in gods laws when me must then say we aren't we trying to change the constution to reflect that?

ie.
no religious freedom.
if you are witch, blasphemer you die
death for: adultery, fornication, sodomy
death for lying and disobiedient kids


do you agree with that?

 

[Lewis]

ie. no religious freedom. if you are witch, blasphemer you die death for: adultery, fornication, sodomy death for lying and disobiedient kids do you agree with that?

Hmmmm

 

[Randy]

[MENTION=90622]Randy[/MENTION],the torah. the torah, the torah is has parts rendered obeselete. we don't atone via animal sacrifices? do we? we don't have to circumcise our male children? we don't have to slay any atheist who lives in the land ?see my point, you are also picking the torah and what to enforce. im honest and I admit it but if were are going to say we believe in gods laws when me must then say we aren't we trying to change the constution to reflect that?

ie.
no religious freedom.
if you are witch, blasphemer you die
death for: adultery, fornication, sodomy
death for lying and disobiedient kids


do you agree with that?

No I wouldn't vote for that. However such laws would apply to all. The sexual immorality alone would open up positions in our government in which a christian might run for office and appeal such immorality laws. (smile)

I don't consider the DP mandatory (a command of God) for our nation in regard to when it might be a optional sentence such as one convicted of capital murder. Just lawful.

Randy

 

[jasoncran]

I don't want a theocracy, that tried and has failed. that is what the puritans tried.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I don't want a theocracy, that tried and has failed. that is what the puritans tried.

I agree.

 

[Northman]

I don't want a theocracy, that tried and has failed. that is what the puritans tried.

Just like EVERY other form of government thats been tried and even ones that are functioning, regardless of time or location. All govenment types have failed, every single one.

Now while i wouldnt advocate for a theocracy, im just like everyone else here...having absolutely zero say in what type of government goes where.

Do christians in your nation actually make policy now? When i lived there in the 90s it was obviously evident they didnt. Is there or has there ever been a "christian" nation? Doesnt reading the bible make it plainly clear that we cant run ourselves properly? I thought it was known that no nation could run by Jesus' standards til he came back to run things himself.

While i understand everyone is going to have an opinion, can anyone really storm in and say "this is right" or "this is wrong" or claim to have sole insight to what the Holy Spirit has to say on the matter?

Getting right back to topic...
Mild regurgitation - While living here in a nation and generally on a planet where the enemy has control over such things, id rather have it so the secular people have to fear for their own lives when it comes to commiting certain crimes, since they are the ones in control anyway. Such consequences make for a safer environment for everyone. As its been pointed put one way or another already in this thread, us as the faithful wouldnt really have anything to fear from this.

 

[TRUTH over TRADITION]

Without a doubt we can see from the scriptures that initiating a death penalty for certain infractions was not only allowed, but in certain circumstances commanded. With this fact in mind I can see how people can be in favor of it, however, I am no longer one of those people. I believe the death penalty is not an effective deterent for criminals and therefore should not be put in place unless it can be proven to work as a deterant to violent criminal activity.
I would think that our goal as a society is to make our world safer moreso than insuring that those who are a menace to societies get a punishment for being menaces.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I don't want a theocracy, that tried and has failed. that is what the puritans tried.

Do christians in your nation actually make policy now? When i lived there in the 90s it was obviously evident they didnt. Is there or has there ever been a "christian" nation? Doesnt reading the bible make it plainly clear that we cant run ourselves properly? I thought it was known that no nation could run by Jesus' standards til he came back to run things himself.

While i understand everyone is going to have an opinion, can anyone really storm in and say "this is right" or "this is wrong" or claim to have sole insight to what the Holy Spirit has to say on the matter?

Yeah. That is the main reason why I don't support a theocracy.

Without a doubt we can see from the scriptures that initiating a death penalty for certain infractions was not only allowed, but in certain circumstances commanded. With this fact in mind I can see how people can be in favor of it, however, I am no longer one of those people. I believe the death penalty is not an effect deterent for criminals and therefore should not be put in place unless it can be proven to work as a deterant to violent criminal activity.
I would think that our goal as a society is to make our world safer moreso than insuring that those who are a menace to societies get a punishment for being menaces.

We agree. That is basically what I was trying to say. But you managed to explain it better, I think.

 

[Lewis]

Is there or has there ever been a "christian" nation?

The Supreme Court in if my memory serves me right said in 1892' that this is a Christian nation. Yeah it was 1892' I found it' and here it is. But they have done everything against Christians since. But if you want to know why they declared America a Christian nation go here. Because it was a case of the Church vs The United States
Supreme Court Declares America a Christian Nation (1892)


These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Holy_Trinity_v._United_States
Supreme Court Declares America a Christian Nation (1892)