The Death Penalty

[Poisonshady313]

God demands a few things in that verse:
- the blood of beasts
- the soul of man

He does not ever say that it's man's responsibility to provide these things. He also places just as much emphasis on the demand of blood of beasts as He does on the demand of souls of man.


Is that distinction in verse 6? Neither "killing" nor "murder" is in the verse. The phrase is translated as "shedding of blood"... is there a distinction in Hebrew between "judicious shedding of blood" and "unlawful shedding of blood"?

God deciding that this is the natural order of things, not rendering it unjust, indicates that it is just. After all, this situation would not be if God didn't want it that way.

If God said "whoever sheds the blood of man shall drop dead of a heart attack"... then I could see there needing to be a penalty for the man who sheds the blood of the man who sheds blood. God indicates that man shall shed the blood of a man who sheds the blood of man, an that this isn't wrong. Thus, there would be no reason to punish the executioner.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God deciding that this is the natural order of things, not rendering it unjust, indicates that it is just. After all, this situation would not be if God didn't want it that way.

The verse can also be interpreted something like "as you sow, so shall you reap", or "live by the sword, die by the sword". Neither of these are interpreted as commands... they describe logical consequences, even though they refer to human actions.

And saying "this will happen" is very different from saying "this is just".

If God said "whoever sheds the blood of man shall drop dead of a heart attack"... then I could see there needing to be a penalty for the man who sheds the blood of the man who sheds blood. God indicates that man shall shed the blood of a man who sheds the blood of man, an that this isn't wrong. Thus, there would be no reason to punish the executioner.

You kinda side-stepped the question. Are different words used in the Hebrew for "sheds" in this verse, yes or no? Does the grammar and word use in the original text in this verse differentiate between the first shedding of blood and the second?

 

[Poisonshady313]

The verse can also be interpreted something like "as you sow, so shall you reap", or "live by the sword, die by the sword". Neither of these are interpreted as commands... they describe logical consequences, even though they refer to human actions.

And saying "this will happen" is very different from saying "this is just".


You kinda side-stepped the question. Are different words used in the Hebrew for "sheds" in this verse, yes or no? Does the grammar and word use in the original text in this verse differentiate between the first shedding of blood and the second?

The words are the same. (slight difference to account for the different pronouns)

my other point stands, however. If this execution were not just, God would not deem it a natural consequence of murder... otherwise you'd have to say that Genesis 9:6 makes God unjust.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The words are the same. (slight difference to account for the different pronouns)

Thank you. My lack of knowledge of Hebrew was showing.

my other point stands, however. If this execution were not just, God would not deem it a natural consequence of murder... otherwise you'd have to say that Genesis 9:6 makes God unjust.

I see three possibilities:

- interpret the verse as you claim. Shedding of blood is both demanded and condemned, making it logically self-contradictory.

- interpret the verse as a command to kill murderers, and then to kill executioners. As you point out, this would be hard to reconcile with the idea of a just God.

- interpret the verse as a description of the state of things and not as a command. God can be just AND logic can be satisfied.

 

[PureX]

What is your justification for this opinion? Or is it your personal knee-jerk reaction to the death penalty?

My justification is simple logic. To respond to violence with more violence will only escalate the violence, and justify it, too. Many of the murders that happen in the U. S. happen because idiots think they've been "disrespected" in some way, and they respond to it the way they think they must: with deadly force. These idiots think this because they've been taught it from an early age, through a culture that holds up killing as the solution to every problem. The reason most killers kill, is the same reason you want to kill them in turn. It's idiocy compounded. The more criminals we kill, the more criminals we create by justifying our own killing of them.

Violence begets more violence. Even a glimpse of human history will bear this out.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Thank you. My lack of knowledge of Hebrew was showing.



I see three possibilities:

- interpret the verse as you claim. Shedding of blood is both demanded and condemned, making it logically self-contradictory.

- interpret the verse as a command to kill murderers, and then to kill executioners. As you point out, this would be hard to reconcile with the idea of a just God.

- interpret the verse as a description of the state of things and not as a command. God can be just AND logic can be satisfied.

If it is the state of things, that still means the "by man shall his blood be shed" man will be killed by someone else, and you descend into the second interpretation.

Not by the words themselves, but by the context of the situation, the shedding of innocent blood is condemned, and the shedding of guilty blood is demanded.

Sounds just and non-contradictory to me.

 

[Poisonshady313]

My justification is simple logic. To respond to violence with more violence will only escalate the violence, and justify it, too. Many of the murders that happen in the U. S. happen because idiots think they've been "disrespected" in some way, and they respond to it the way they think they must: with deadly force. These idiots think this because they've been taught it from an early age, through a culture that holds up killing as the solution to every problem. The reason most killers kill, is the same reason you want to kill them in turn. It's idiocy compounded. The more criminals we kill, the more criminals we create by justifying our own killing of them.

Violence begets more violence. Even a glimpse of human history will bear this out.

An atomic bomb ended world war 2. (well, 2 atomic bombs).

A killer wouldn't kill if he didn't think he'd get away with it. (Unless it was truly a crime of passion, in which case you might see a person turn himself in).

Ever hear a driver who blows through a red light declare "no cop, no stop"? They know that the expectation of inevitable negative consequences will change their behavior. A cop is more likely to write a ticket to a speeder or someone who runs a red light than the state is to put a murderer to death.

The authority of the state to put people to death isn't taken seriously because everyone figures they'll get off, plead for a lighter sentence, make parole, whatever it is.

Killers kill because of various reasons... someone cheated on them... someone stole from them... someone disrespected them, etc...

How many millions of people are stolen from, cheated from, and disrespected that DON'T commit first degree murder with at least 1 of several aggravating factors?

Teach the lesson that they can't get away with it... they'll be less likely to do it.

 

[McBell]

Even a glimpse of human history will bear this out.

Yes, please take a glimpse into the laws of Pakistan, the enforcement of said laws, and the resulting crime rate there.

 

[Poisonshady313]

For what it's worth, in 2005, the US executed 60 people.

In Pakistan, 2005, they executed 31.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For what it's worth, in 2005, the US executed 60 people.

In Pakistan, 2005, they executed 31.

Congratulations? :sarcastic

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If it is the state of things, that still means the "by man shall his blood be shed" man will be killed by someone else, and you descend into the second interpretation.

No, you don't. There's a difference between predicting an event and commanding it to happen.

Not by the words themselves, but by the context of the situation, the shedding of innocent blood is condemned, and the shedding of guilty blood is demanded.

Sounds just and non-contradictory to me.

Except that the words "guilty" and "innocent" appear nowhere in the verse.

 

[Poisonshady313]

No, you don't. There's a difference between predicting an event and commanding it to happen.


Except that the words "guilty" and "innocent" appear nowhere in the verse.

The words don't need to appear for a person to understand that when God sets up the world in a manner that "whomever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed", the first person doing the shedding is by no means innocent, and the person whose blood is being shed first is.

Whether it's a command or it's a prediction, the second man... "by man shall his blood be shed" is supposed to kill the "whomever". If this were unjust, and the second man merited punishment, Genesis 9:6 wouldn't exist, unless you will contend that God is unjust.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The words don't need to appear for a person to understand that when God sets up the world in a manner that "whomever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed", the first person doing the shedding is by no means innocent, and the person whose blood is being shed first is.

I think they would need to be there. The verse condemns any shedding of blood. Executing a person, even through whatever due process you like, is shedding of blood.

To get to the point where the verse commands shedding of blood, you have to somehow convince yourself that the words given don't mean what they mean.

Whether it's a command or it's a prediction, the second man... "by man shall his blood be shed" is supposed to kill the "whomever".

Why do you think it implies that? Going back to verse 2, do you think it implies that people are "supposed" to frighten animals?

If this were unjust, and the second man merited punishment, Genesis 9:6 wouldn't exist, unless you will contend that God is unjust.

You're making an inference not in the text when you assume that the verse is describing a punishment. With much less in the way of mental gymnastics, it can be interpreted as a prohibition against violence, with a warning about the consequences (note: consequences, not punishment) if the prohibition is not followed.

Do you think declaring that violence begets violence implies that violence is desirable?

Consider this statement: "if you play with matches, the house will burn down." It does not imply that burning the house down is the "just" or "demanded" punishment for playing with matches. It doesn't even declare that the house burning down is desirable. It describes a logical consequence, not a punishment. In the same way, verse 6 can be seen as a description of a consequence, not necessarily a punishment.

And this is something we know anyhow: violence is self-sustaining. Violence does beget violence. Especially in a time before organized justice systems, killing a person would put a target on you for vengeance from the family of your victim, even if the person you killed was over a matter of vengeance for some other heinous crime.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Consider this statement: "if you play with matches, the house will burn down." It does not imply that burning the house down is the "just" or "demanded" punishment for playing with matches. It doesn't even declare that the house burning down is desirable. It describes a logical consequence, not a punishment. In the same way, verse 6 can be seen as a description of a consequence, not necessarily a punishment.

"Just" isn't necessarily desirable.

If you play with matches, the house will burn down. That is the standard of justice. If the house burns down but nobody played with matches... this is unjust.

But the house burning down is what is just given the circumstance of playing with matches.

I should think, if you're playing with matches, the house burning down is a hell of a punishment.

 

[Poisonshady313]

Why do you think it implies that? Going back to verse 2, do you think it implies that people are "supposed" to frighten animals?

Verse 2 speaks not of what the person will do, but of what the animals will do.

The animals will fear you.

To mean to frighten the animals, it might say something like "you shall cause the animals to fear you."

Verese 6 speaks not of what the first person shall do, but what the second person shall do.

By man shall his blood be shed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But the house burning down is what is just given the circumstance of playing with matches.

No, it's not. It's completely out of proportion to the severity of the "offense", therefore it is unjust as a punishment.

As a consequence, the idea of justice doesn't even enter into it.

I should think, if you're playing with matches, the house burning down is a hell of a punishment.

Say your community was given that prohibition. You catch your neighbor playing with matches, but it doesn't cause his house to burn down. Would you deliberately set his house on fire to "punish" him?

 

[Poisonshady313]

Say your community was given that prohibition. You catch your neighbor playing with matches, but it doesn't cause his house to burn down. Would you deliberately set his house on fire to "punish" him?

No... but if he plays with matches, and his house does burn down as a result, my response is "How did you not see that coming?"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No... but if he plays with matches, and his house does burn down as a result, my response is "How did you not see that coming?"

There you go: just as "if you play with matches, your house will burn down" does not demand that people go out and commit arson, "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed" does not demand that people go out and kill murderers.

 

[Poisonshady313]

There you go: just as "if you play with matches, your house will burn down" does not demand that people go out and commit arson, "whoever sheds the blood of man, by man his blood shall be shed" does not demand that people go out and kill murderers.

In the statement about matches, there is no second person involved at all.

"your house will burn down" is entirely different than "someone will come along to burn your house down".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the statement about matches, there is no second person involved at all.

Arrgh.

Okay. Let's try again. Replace "if you play with matches, your house will burn down" with "if you walk through this part of town, you'll get mugged."

Does a person walking through that part of town demand that you (or someone else) mug him or her?