The death penalty and Christianity - how does that work?

waitasec said:

but then they conveniently ignore
deuteronomy 21:18-21

18 If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, 19 his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. 20 They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” 21 Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid.

strange...:sarcastic

Click to expand...

It was explained to me that it's physically impossible to be as gluttonous and as drunk as would qualify for the glutton and drunk of this passage. There's discussions about why this passage exists, but nobody has ever been executed according to this statute.

Poisonshady313 said:

It was explained to me that it's physically impossible to be as gluttonous and as drunk as would qualify for the glutton and drunk of this passage. There's discussions about why this passage exists, but nobody has ever been executed according to this statute.

Click to expand...

Where are the qualifications?

Poisonshady313 said:

It was explained to me that it's physically impossible to be as gluttonous and as drunk as would qualify for the glutton and drunk of this passage. There's discussions about why this passage exists, but nobody has ever been executed according to this statute.

Click to expand...

how do you know?

and where is the line drawn between rebellious/stubbornness and gluttony/drunkenness...perhaps one can become drunk with their rebellious and stubborn nature...

Sleeppy said:

Where are the qualifications?

Click to expand...

waitasec said:

how do you know?

and where is the line drawn between rebellious/stubbornness and gluttony/drunkenness...perhaps one can become drunk with their rebellious and stubborn nature...

Click to expand...

That's a question for someone like Levite or Harmonious.

All I'm saying is, things are not so simple. Jews don't go around killing unruly children.

The death penalty no matter how one wants to spin it is about LEX TALONIS. It is about vengeance pure and simple. in the Christian tradition vengeance isn't a good thing, it is something best left to God.

Regarding the OP:

The commandment in question is a rule for the individual, not a society. The new testament doesn't make it clear whether or not the death penalty should be accepted or not so it's open to interpretation.

End result is some groups of Christians support it and others don't.

CynthiaCypher said:

The death penalty no matter how one wants to spin it is about LEX TALONIS. It is about vengeance pure and simple. in the Christian tradition vengeance isn't a good thing, it is something best left to God.

Click to expand...

"Vengeance is mine", sayeth the Lord.

Bah, don't Christians get to have any fun?

Poisonshady313 said:

That's a question for someone like Levite or Harmonious.

All I'm saying is, things are not so simple. Jews don't go around killing unruly children.

Click to expand...

but what about then?

i think this is getting a little bit off topic but what i don't understand is that this law was supposedly a law from god, right?

consider the 10 commandments...
the idea that these commandments were attributed to god doesn't make sense...it's as if the israelites were unaware that stealing and killing were wrong things to do...of course they knew that, but why give the credit to god for something the israelites already figured out for themselves?
why not say, thou shall not condemn people based on their race?
wouldn't that make his commandment as a constant rather than an evolving understanding what god meant...?

capital punishment is an act to condemn people
as a christian, who claims that jesus has forgiven that act if one gives it to god and as a christian who also condones capital punishment undermines why jesus died in the 1st place. as this stance says, 'jesus has forgiven you but i haven't'

it's a contradiction.

waitasec said:

but what about then?

i think this is getting a little bit off topic but what i don't understand is that this law was supposedly a law from god, right?

consider the 10 commandments...
the idea that these commandments were attributed to god doesn't make sense...it's as if the israelites were unaware that stealing and killing were wrong things to do...of course they knew that, but why give the credit to god for something the israelites already figured out for themselves?
why not say, thou shall not condemn people based on their race?
wouldn't that make his commandment as a constant rather than an evolving understanding what god meant...?

Click to expand...

If I had to guess, I would say that God commanded not to murder and not to steal as part of the Decalogue to show that civil justice is as important to God as ritual.

Harmonious said:

If I had to guess, I would say that God commanded not to murder and not to steal as part of the Decalogue to show that civil justice is as important to God as ritual.

Click to expand...

maybe, however god still gets the credit and why must god have to show/prove anything?

Poisonshady313 said:

Jews don't go around killing unruly children.

Click to expand...

Well that takes all the fun out of this.

I have always thought putting shock collars on mouthy 12 year olds might have great effect however.

waitasec said:

maybe, however god still gets the credit and why must god have to show/prove anything?

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If God is speaking to a primarily believing Jewish audience, it isn't so much a matter of "Now you'll HAVE to believe in Me!" as much as it is a matter of looking back at the whole business and understanding what just happened.

God didn't just give the 10 Commandments; He gave the Jews 613 commandments, and non-Jews 7.

However, the 10 Statements (I am the Lord, Your God... is more of a statement than a commandment) were unlike all the other commandments because all of Israel them. Hearing the voice of God was so overwhelming that beyond those 10, Israel asked God to give His word via Moses.

If you view the purpose of the Torah as a teaching tool, then it makes sense to learn that the first five (including honoring parents) were between God and man, and the second five were between man and man, and God is interested in the Jews focusing as much, if not more so, on civil justice as other commandments.

I'm not precisely sure why you would question the idea that God commanded civil law.

God commanded Noah Seven Laws, and five of them are civil.

You know, if you actually paid attention to Chapter 1 in Isaiah, you would see that God is particularly annoyed with the Jews at that time because people were more focused on bringing the right sacrifices and not at all paying attention to justice for orphans and widows, and the destitute.

What would be the justification for God's anger as described by Prophet Isaiah if God hadn't commanded such a thing earlier? Civil law is as important, if not more important, than ritual law.

That is why half of the Decalogue is about civil law. Or so I would guess.

waitasec said:

how do you know?

and where is the line drawn between rebellious/stubbornness and gluttony/drunkenness...perhaps one can become drunk with their rebellious and stubborn nature...

Click to expand...

In the Talmud, where it explains the exquisite details involved in the justice system, and the general running of the courts, including the ways and means of due process, and case law up to a point, it says that in the history of Torah law, not one child was ever killed by a Jewish court for being rebellious.

It is worth noting that if a court of Jewish law put one person to death in 70 years, it was known as "a bloodthirsty court".

The fact that so many commandments carry the death penalty isn't so much to kill the violators as much as it is to show the severity of how much God doesn't want the transgression.

Due process involves witnesses, and all sorts of things. And a confession from the suspect immediately commutes a death sentence. A unanimous decision from all the judges that a suspect is guilty is a complete acquittal, as getting 23-71 people to all agree on a person's guilt without dissent is considered, by Torah law, either collusion or mob mentality.

waitasec said:

but what about then?

i think this is getting a little bit off topic but what i don't understand is that this law was supposedly a law from god, right?

consider the 10 commandments...
the idea that these commandments were attributed to god doesn't make sense...it's as if the israelites were unaware that stealing and killing were wrong things to do...of course they knew that, but why give the credit to god for something the israelites already figured out for themselves?

Click to expand...

Apparently, not everyone figured this out for themselves.

Simply discussing the death penalty as a bad thing is useful because unlawful death as a bad thing is ingrained into society. Before the Israelites went to Egypt at the time of Joseph, Abraham was worried about the covetousness of the Pharaoh and the king of Gerar for Sarah. Apparently, it wasn't against the law to kill off an inconvenient husband so that the king could "get the girl." That was the reason that Abraham told the people in those places that Sarah was his sister. It wasn't because he enjoyed putting her in danger; it was an exercise in getting around people who didn't follow the Seven Laws of Noah as due practice.

I.e. - The civil half of the Decalogue wasn't common sense.

During the time that Jews left Egypt, the royal dynasty of Egypt was often incestuous, and Canaanites often did human sacrifice as a matter of course.

Again, I say that while YOU might say that the civil side of the Ten Commandments are common sense, it wasn't back when it was given.

why not say, thou shall not condemn people based on their race?

Click to expand...

You are asking why God commanded some laws and didn't create others? Really?

Besides the absurdity of asking people who believe that God commanded all the 613 commandments "Why God didn't create even MORE commandments", that particular example of a law would have been rather difficult, as God commanded the complete annihilation of Amalek, and the destruction or exile of the Seven Canaanite nations.

If God Himself condemned people based on their race (not color of their skin, mind, but from whom they were descended), it would have been contradictory to command Jews to ignore that specific set of commandments. (If you are asking why God commanded THOSE commandments, that is a topic for a different thread, I think.)

wouldn't that make his commandment as a constant rather than an evolving understanding what god meant...?

Click to expand...

No.

nnmartin said:

It seems as if quite a few Christian areas and followers support the death penalty.

How can that be the case if it actually goes against the Commandment of 'thou shalt not kill'

wouldn't life imprisonment be more in line with the theology here?

Click to expand...

I don't view process execution through a justice system to be one and the same with murder.

I'm not sure that I'll ever have a sound opinion either way, as to whether it's just or not.

Harmonious said:

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If God is speaking to a primarily believing Jewish audience, it isn't so much a matter of "Now you'll HAVE to believe in Me!" as much as it is a matter of looking back at the whole business and understanding what just happened.

God didn't just give the 10 Commandments; He gave the Jews 613 commandments, and non-Jews 7.

However, the 10 Statements (I am the Lord, Your God... is more of a statement than a commandment) were unlike all the other commandments because all of Israel them. Hearing the voice of God was so overwhelming that beyond those 10, Israel asked God to give His word via Moses.

If you view the purpose of the Torah as a teaching tool, then it makes sense to learn that the first five (including honoring parents) were between God and man, and the second five were between man and man, and God is interested in the Jews focusing as much, if not more so, on civil justice as other commandments.

I'm not precisely sure why you would question the idea that God commanded civil law.

God commanded Noah Seven Laws, and five of them are civil.

You know, if you actually paid attention to Chapter 1 in Isaiah, you would see that God is particularly annoyed with the Jews at that time because people were more focused on bringing the right sacrifices and not at all paying attention to justice for orphans and widows, and the destitute.

What would be the justification for God's anger as described by Prophet Isaiah if God hadn't commanded such a thing earlier? Civil law is as important, if not more important, than ritual law.

That is why half of the Decalogue is about civil law. Or so I would guess.

Click to expand...

you know if you pay attention to current events the social commentaries of the day are are complaining about the same things...

did the israelites know that killing and stealing were wrong...?
do you think while they were wondering in the wilderness all that time they didn't know the difference between good and evil ?

of course they did. they figured out a system to sustain solidarity...their god was just a symbol of what set them apart from the rest of the tribes. just like all the other tribes had their own god.

i am the lord YOUR god, pretty much lays out the boundaries for whom these laws were given to. the israelites. this was what kept the group grounded with a common purpose, ceremonial differences circumcision and all that jive.

waitasec said:

did the israelites know that killing and stealing were wrong...?
do you think while they were wondering in the wilderness all that time they didn't know the difference between good and evil ?

Click to expand...

I will assume that you didn't get up to my post that came after the one you are addressing, so I will repost what I said.

Harmonious said:

Apparently, not everyone figured this out for themselves.

Simply discussing the death penalty as a bad thing is useful because unlawful death as a bad thing is ingrained into society. Before the Israelites went to Egypt at the time of Joseph, Abraham was worried about the covetousness of the Pharaoh and the king of Gerar for Sarah. Apparently, it wasn't against the law to kill off an inconvenient husband so that the king could "get the girl." That was the reason that Abraham told the people in those places that Sarah was his sister. It wasn't because he enjoyed putting her in danger; it was an exercise in getting around people who didn't follow the Seven Laws of Noah as due practice.

I.e. - The civil half of the Decalogue wasn't common sense.

During the time that Jews left Egypt, the royal dynasty of Egypt was often incestuous, and Canaanites often did human sacrifice as a matter of course.

Again, I say that while YOU might say that the civil side of the Ten Commandments are common sense, it wasn't back when it was given.

Click to expand...

waitasec said:

of course they did. they figured out a system to sustain solidarity...their god was just a symbol of what set them apart from the rest of the tribes. just like all the other tribes had their own god.

Click to expand...

But as I said above, not all other tribes had something like useful moral equivalency. Some did. Many didn't.

Not every tribe out there had the benefit of Hammurabi.

i am the lord YOUR god, pretty much lays out the boundaries for whom these laws were given to. the israelites. this was what kept the group grounded with a common purpose, ceremonial differences circumcision and all that jive.

Click to expand...

I'll agree with you there.

nnmartin said:

But in one of my other recent threads, it seemed to be made out that OT law had been passed over with the coming of Jesus.

Therefore, this part of Genesis cannot be used as justification.

Click to expand...

Then you just destroyed your own OP...

"thou shalt not kill" ALSO comes from the OT Law....

nnmartin said:

It seems as if quite a few Christian areas and followers support the death penalty.

How can that be the case if it actually goes against the Commandment of 'thou shalt not kill'

Click to expand...

nnmartin said:

wouldn't life imprisonment be more in line with the theology here?

Click to expand...

From a term Paper I wrote: