Executions

[AvalonXQ]

how can a christian support capital punishment without being a hypocrite?

I'm not sure where you believe the hypocrisy comes into play. Capital punishment seems complete in line with passages like this:

1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

For a Christian to kill a man in vengeance would be contrary to Jesus' teachings. For a Christian to bring the man to the government and have the government lawfully kill him, would not be.

 

[bikerdruid]

I'm not sure where you believe the hypocrisy comes into play. Capital punishment seems complete in line with passages like this:



For a Christian to kill a man in vengeance would be contrary to Jesus' teachings. For a Christian to bring the man to the government and have the government lawfully kill him, would not be.

you can quote paul all you want, but jesus himself would never support it.
you know, turn the other cheek and all...

this is like an american supporting torture in renditions...others are doing the torture, not us...
hypocrisy by definition.

 

[Drachasor]

you can quote paul all you want, but jesus himself would never support it.
you know, turn the other cheek and all...

this is like an american supporting torture in renditions...others are doing the torture, not us...
hypocrisy by definition.

The Bible covers a lot of conflicting beliefs. Slavery support? You can find it. No long hair on men? That too. Wiping out infidels? They got it. Not wiping them out? That too.

Basically you can pick and choose whatever you want. Jesus even was given some really fiery dogma here and there that doesn't jive with the rest of what he is said to have said.

 

[AvalonXQ]

you can quote paul all you want, but jesus himself would never support it.

I disagree. Jesus didn't speak out against the lawful exercise of government authority; in fact we have examples of him paying his taxes and prohibiting his followers from attacking the police.

Both Jesus and Paul speak out against litigiousness. They urge generosity and forgiveness. But nowhere do they argue against justice or the power of the crown to punish the guilty. In fact, as in the above passage, Christians are urged to let the authorities do it rather than do it themselves.

 

[bikerdruid]

Christians are urged to let the authorities do it rather than do it themselves.

that is still hypocrisy.
americans are still guilty of torture when they have foreign countries doing it for them.
getting your neighbour to kill your wife, is still murder.

just keep kidding yourself...it's what christians do....

 

[AvalonXQ]

getting your neighbour to kill your wife, is still murder.

I thought Ivor was the only one on this thread falsly equating execution with murder.
"Hypocrisy" is saying one thing and doing another. You keep trying to apply it here, but it just doesn't stick.

 

[Segnosaur]

Right. If the only consequence of ending someone's life is having one's desire to end anyone else's life removed, without a significant change in personality or impact on circumstances, I think the murder rate would go way up.

The murder rate is much lower in Europe than in the USA even though no European country has the death penalty. Clearly the reasons people commit murder or not are far more influenced by factors other than whether or not the death penalty is considered an option.

Keep in mind that the posting you were responding to was not necessarily talking about the death penalty being a deterrent... it was talking about your hypothetical case of a "magic cure for murder". (Your exact statement was: What if we could 'fix' killers? Should they be released if they posed no more risk than you or I?)

In that situation you're certainly not having any deterrence (neither from a jail sentence nor from threat of execution), if a killer is 'fixed' and released immediately.

Its a different situation than "will a death penalty deter crime more than a life sentence".

 

[Babbylonian]

I disagree. Jesus didn't speak out against the lawful exercise of government authority; in fact we have examples of him paying his taxes and prohibiting his followers from attacking the police.

When government authority emanates directly from the people (which it certainly didn't when Jesus is supposed to have walked the Earth), that interpretation breaks down pretty severely.

In the US at least, self-identified Christians comprise a significant enough portion of the population that they could easily embrace more fully the teachings of Jesus and vote down capital punishment, even if in general they're not willing for their society to entirely "turn the other cheek" when it comes to crime and punishment.

 

[bikerdruid]

I thought Ivor was the only one on this thread falsly equating execution with murder.
"Hypocrisy" is saying one thing and doing another. You keep trying to apply it here, but it just doesn't stick.

just keep telling yourself this.
i'm sure you can make yourself believe it.
promoting capital punishment is still hypocrisy for a christian.
the teachings of jesus are against it.
tolerance and forgiveness are part of his teachings, killing for vengeance is not.

 

[Segnosaur]

just keep telling yourself this.
i'm sure you can make yourself believe it.
promoting capital punishment is still hypocrisy for a christian.
the teachings of jesus are against it.
tolerance and forgiveness are part of his teachings, killing for vengeance is not.

Amazing how you can use your mental powers to psychically link to the brain of jebus and tell exactly what exactly he was thinking (especially considering the individual never existed.)

And while the bible did have sections on "tolerance and forgiveness", overall the book is a horrible mess of contradictions that can be used to prove just about anything. The fact that you've become fixated on the idea that "jebus message of forgiveness = no death penalty" does not mean that such interpretation is automatically correct. Its just your interpretation, neither better nor worse than anyone's.

Perhaps you can point out the passage of the bible where jebus specifically condemns the death penalty.

 

[bikerdruid]

Perhaps you can point out the passage of the bible where jebus specifically condemns the death penalty.

perhaps you can just ignore all of jesus' teachings where he taught forgiveness and tolerance.
he never specifically condemned mass murder, war and raping children.
however, most christians would have no problem understanding that these things are against his message of 'love'.

 

[AvalonXQ]

When government authority emanates directly from the people (which it certainly didn't when Jesus is supposed to have walked the Earth), that interpretation breaks down pretty severely.

I disagree. One can distinguish what's appropriate for an individual verses what requires a collective decision. A justice system in a democracy is not equivalent to allowing each individual to punish as he sees fit.

 

[Segnosaur]

perhaps you can just ignore all of jesus' teachings where he taught forgiveness and tolerance.
he never specifically condemned mass murder, war and raping children.
however, most christians would have no problem understanding that these things are against his message of 'love'.

Who said I'm ignoring it?

I recognize there are contradictions in the bible. You don't seem to understand that particular point.

Oh, by your argument, a "christian community" is one where there are absolutely no laws whatsoever, since even a "jail sentence" or even a fine is something that is not "forgiving".

 

[AvalonXQ]

just keep telling yourself this.
i'm sure you can make yourself believe it.
promoting capital punishment is still hypocrisy for a christian.
the teachings of jesus are against it.
tolerance and forgiveness are part of his teachings, killing for vengeance is not.

Jesus taught justice, condemnation, and punishment.
Clearly Jesus distinguished between killing for vengeance and punishing the wicked. You refuse to do so.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Keep in mind that the posting you were responding to was not necessarily talking about the death penalty being a deterrent... it was talking about your hypothetical case of a "magic cure for murder". (Your exact statement was: What if we could 'fix' killers? Should they be released if they posed no more risk than you or I?)

In that situation you're certainly not having any deterrence (neither from a jail sentence nor from threat of execution), if a killer is 'fixed' and released immediately.

Its a different situation than "will a death penalty deter crime more than a life sentence".

You seem to have assumed the 'fixing' would take no time at all. Perhaps in the distant future that might be a possibility, but I was thinking more of getting rid of cages and treating those who commit crimes as people who need to be changed in some way to reduce the risk of them re-offending. I don't think it would be a quick process in many cases and to have any chance of success it would require a reduction in an individual's liberty, so I still think a deterrent effect would be present. The main difference would be that there would be no punishment as such, but rather treatment (taking as long as it takes) to fix a faulty person.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You seem to have assumed the 'fixing' would take no time at all. Perhaps in the distant future that might be a possibility, but I was thinking more of getting rid of cages and treating those who commit crimes as people who need to be changed in some way to reduce the risk of them re-offending. I don't think it would be a quick process in many cases and to have any chance of success it would require a reduction in an individual's liberty, so I still think a deterrent effect would be present. The main difference would be that there would be no punishment as such, but rather treatment (taking as long as it takes) to fix a faulty person.

That answers the question I asked you earlier.

And, yes, if the treatment had a deterrent effect, I would support using it instead of punishment.

 

[bikerdruid]

Jesus taught justice, condemnation, and punishment.
Clearly Jesus distinguished between killing for vengeance and punishing the wicked. You refuse to do so.

jesus also taught that it was cool to keep slaves.
and you are right...i refuse to distinguish between capital punishment and killing for vengeance.
but, that is what true morality forces me to do.
rationalize it as you wish. you know you waaaant to....

 

[Segnosaur]

Keep in mind that the posting you were responding to was not necessarily talking about the death penalty being a deterrent... it was talking about your hypothetical case of a "magic cure for murder". (Your exact statement was: What if we could 'fix' killers? Should they be released if they posed no more risk than you or I?)

You seem to have assumed the 'fixing' would take no time at all.

That's because you never gave any details about what you meant by "fix killers". You didn't specify if it were something that would happen instantly or something that would take a significant length of time.

Perhaps in the distant future that might be a possibility, but I was thinking more of getting rid of cages and treating those who commit crimes as people who need to be changed in some way to reduce the risk of them re-offending. I don't think it would be a quick process in many cases and to have any chance of success it would require a reduction in an individual's liberty, so I still think a deterrent effect would be present. The main difference would be that there would be no punishment as such, but rather treatment (taking as long as it takes) to fix a faulty person.

Again, I can't really tell whether that would be a good idea or not... you claim a "reduction in liberty", but no cages... not exactly a situation that seems doable (if you wanted to maintain safety). How would you control the prisoners to keep them from escaping? (Promises of sex from hot 18 year olds?) Seems to me that the less "punishment" you give the less "deterrence" you provide.

And again, I should point out that we've pretty much gone full circle... with you first proposing this "magic fix", to discussions about it being a deterrence, to you falsely assuming we were talking about death penalty deterrence, back to you talking about your "magic fix".

 

[sarge]

That answers the question I asked you earlier.

And, yes, if the treatment had a deterrent effect, I would support using it instead of punishment.

I would not. Punishment is a valid response to criminal activity, and not simply for any deterrent effect it might have. Punishment serves its own, legitimate goal.

I could get next to rehabilitation concurrent with or subsequent to punishment. That's assuming we find an effective rehabilitation regimen. So far, our efforts have been generaly failures.

 

[Drachasor]

I could get next to rehabilitation concurrent with or subsequent to punishment. That's assuming we find an effective rehabilitation regimen. So far, our efforts have been generaly failures.

There have been some good programs. Thing is, the US justice system is more about punishment than anything else. Rehabilitation doesn't get much money, time, or effort.