TMCM - Possibly. But there is no evidence that Paul particpated in any actual killings, just that he stood by in approval, much the same as those who are "supporting" bin Laden and other terrorists. bin Laden and his ilk ARE killing innocents because they "believe" differently than the extremist Muslims. But if one of bin Laden's supporters should have a "conversion experience" and then speak out against bin Laden and the Islamic terrorists, they would want him killed. THEY have, and DO, behead (impose the death penalty) with NONE of the safeguards that we employ. Do you, or have you, seen ANY Muslim country or cleric demanding that the "beheaders" be brought to trial, much less be "killed" themselves, or do you hear "excuses" for their heinous behavior? Even Saddam is getting trial, instead of "Summary Execution" that HE imposed on anyone who disagreed with him. In point of fact, just ask Salmone Rushdie, merely SPEAKING against extreme Islamists "warrants" the death penalty by them.

It is the FUNCTION of the State to carry out tasks that are better NOT left to the individual to pursue according to their own idea of "justice." The Death Penalty IS a valid consequence for some actions, but it is NOT the "first choice" in any case where the State is prosecuting, rather than the individual. Left to the individual, we would be in severe need of "Old Testament Cities of Refuge." Today, those "Cities of Refuge" ARE the courts, judicial system, and prisons.

You see, I don't believe, for example, that anti-abortionists have any right to blow up abortion clinics and potentially kill others any more than I think environmentalist "tree huggers" have a right to destroy logging equipment or burn forests to "protect" them, even if someone gets killed in process.

Now, if you could assure me that a person convicted of murder would NEVER get out of jail, and WOULD die if they attempted escape, I might agree. Because the purpose is BOTH punishment for the crime AND protection of the citizenry from any future possibility of harm at the hands of the guilty party. Unfortunately, we quickly tend to forget and dismiss "victim's rights" and focus lopsidedly on "evil-doers 'rights'."

Actions have consequences. Parole boards and liberals who think any punishment is "cruel and unusual" tend to circumvent the "will of the people" and let the evil-doers back into society to strike again...until it gets so bad that the Death Penalty becomes "appropriate." And then they want to do away with THAT option too.

Rationalization is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

NOPE, no apology necessary. I was not offended, but also asked for potential clarification from you too.

myschae - Very understandable questions, and legitimate questions. You are the first, in a long time, who seems sincere in asking questions, rather than merely using them to "attack." You sound like someone who, though they may not ultimately agree to accept Christ as Savior, is OPEN to hearing and discussion so that you can gather enough information to make and "informed choice."

As such, I would be willing to attempt to answer some of your questions. However, I would suggest a separate thread of your own for this because experience has taught me that continuing such a discussion on another thread is not only hard to do, others will likely "take offense" at "God talk".

So if you want to, I'll discuss it with you. Just pick a thread and I'll try to respond. Don't expect "quick answers," because you have legitimate, and often involved, questions.

myschae - Can do. I'll get you some of those "extrabiblical" references you are looking for.

Myschae - you are in no different a place than I was until I was 24 and "got the proof" that I was looking for and accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior and became a "babe in the faith," beginning my lifelong journey of Sanctification (becoming more Christ-like in my walk and understanding).

It's a "good place to be." Your heart may be "troubled" at times, but it's not hardened. Here's the real "hard part" to get your mind around, NO ONE comes to belief in Christ as their Savior without the Father drawing them. Now is not the time to go into all of that, but suffice it to say that a "questioning heart" is a "listening and open heart." The "door" is not shut and bolted.

My "job," as a Christian, IS to give an answer, a reason, for WHY I believe what I believe. God has commanded us, (as you may have misinterpreted or taken out of context things I have said previously here or on other threads) to love Him with all of our heart, soul and mind. It is NOT solely emotion, it is not solely intellect, it is the COMPLETE and TOTAL person.

God bless.

I don't understand.

So far the following rationalizations have been offered for the death penalty:

1. OT law
2. Jesus's "fulfillment of the law" plus his silence on the issue
3. Paul's upholding of the right of governments to determine and carry out punishment
4. Instances of punishment by death in Revelation

The first example gets us into the murky territory of literalism. I don't have a tent in my backyard to head into when I menstruate. So why should I arbitrarily support another OT law?

Which leads to the second example. The example given of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery does not, in my reading, condone the death penalty. If anything, it points to the inability of any human to take the life of another based on the acknowledgement that all are sinful and hypocritical. The woman was caught in adultery. OT law was clear. If Jesus upheld the law while granting the woman mercy by pointing to the personal guilt of the accusers, why do we not do the same with those holding the needle for lethal injection?

Plus, there *was* someone there who had no sin in him. Who had every right to cast the first stone. Jesus. Instead of picking up a stone and taking aim at the woman, he chose to write. Why? If we are taking his silence on the issue of capital punishment as tacit approval of the OT law, then why are we discounting his actions?

Which leads us to Paul. If the government of America and its decisions are to be supported, then so is the government of Canada and its decisions. We don't have capital punishment in Canada. So then it is simply a death row inmate's misfortune to be born in a country or poor choice to commit a murder in a country that believes in a particular consequence?

In another related example, many of us pre-A would have said that the consequences of adultery would and should be divorce. We tell all new WSs that the legitimate consequence for their actions is divorce but encourage them to be remorseful and hope for mercy on the part of the BS. We encourage BSs to exercise mercy based on signs of true repentance. Would it not be the more "just" thing to thunder at all BSs to head straight to divorce court to ensure WSs receive the consequences of their actions?

G

LOW O..THIS ALSO IS MY POINT OF VIEW..I COULDN'T HAVE SAID IT ANY CLEARER OR BETTER...

I find everyone's comments on this thread very interesting. There are many diverse opionions about abortion and the death penalty....it makes me proud to be an American that we all live in a country where we can agree to disagree <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I am pro choice.....and against the death penalty, and I'll tell you why...

I don't want the government intervening on our bodies or the decisions of life and death.

I do not engage in the debate over morality, or even religious positions because their are so many varied opinions out there that do not represent the whole.....it's really a non-issue.

I completely understand how both of these topics can be emotional triggers for many.....for me it's not.

The government has no right to tell me what to do or not to do with my body, and they don't have the right to take a life...period. There's no contradiction there for me.

We all make choices in life, and we have to live with those choices even if it means we sit in prison for the rest of our lives thinking about what we did...and the same goes for abortion.

But I firmly believe that's between the person and their higher power.

But no human man/woman will tell me what I can do with my own body and when someone who commits a crime should die.

Thanks for letting me share,

Rachel

griselda - because you misinterpret the referenced passage to "bend it" to your desire.

Christ did NOT say that the death penalty was wrong, he told those who thought they were "sinless" to cast the first stone. It was to "convict" them of their own sinfulness, not to "excuse" or "commute" the woman's "sentance." He was addressing their hypocrisy and their attempt to "trap him." He knew their motives were NOT directed at the woman, they were directed at HIM and she was just the "Tool" they were trying to use.

When all had left and THE Judge of ALL remained, HE told her that though HE was sinless and had the right to impose the Mosaic Law on her, He chose mercy "this time" and told her to go and LEAVE permanently her life of sin.

Not unlike our own judicial system that rarely, if ever, imposes the death penalty without repeated crimes leading up to it.

What Jesus did NOT do was to release her from the "death penalty" that all humans are under. That would require her accepting Him as her Lord and Savior, and we don't know (because the Sripture is silent on this matter) if she did. But it is possible she did.

But one thing is certain, Jesus had not yet "finished his work" here on earth and would yet be raised up for all to see. Then they would have "no excuse" and would have to decice. Their own decision would then save or condemn them.

Actions DO have consquences.

Whistles75 - I understand what you are trying to say. But let's also understand that the government DOES tell us what we can and can't do with OUR bodies. (i.e. suicide).

Furthermore, EVEN IF you were granted total autonomy over YOUR body, defined by your unique DNA structure and coding, the baby growing within any woman IS NOT "her body" and only has ONE HALF of her DNA. That baby is a distinct individual, totally different in genetic makeup from all the other "cells" and "tissues" of her body.

Yes, at this stage of development that baby is totally dependent upon the mother for sustinance, so it is totally dependent upon mother, father, someone else, for sustinance after it is born, until it can grow and continue developing to where it can "fend for itself."

To be against the death penalty is a philosophical choice you make FOR someone else who is not "genetically you." Yet you argue for taking the life of another who is not "genetically you" merely because YOU want to.

Is there a contradiction there? Is there a need for more thinking....the difference between a totally innocent human being, who cannot speak for itself, and a human being who HAS CHOSEN to act mortally against another human being who who has killed in direct opposition to your stated belief: "they don't have the right to take a life...period. "

This compelling logic...and the very basis of my anti-abortion stance.

I agree with you on this FH

Reply to Whistles....



So if a pregnant woman carrying a 30 week baby in her uterus decides she wants to terminate the pregnancy, you're all for it?

She is deciding to kill a viable fetus ... and the government has no business intervening on her decision that involves life and death.

What do you think ought to happen to the UCLA woman who left her baby in a dumpster? The baby died.... but if she'd made her personal decision to have an abortion a week earlier ... no murder charge... right by you?

What about the inequities in our criminal justice system?

What about the high likelihood of murderers with high-price lawyers getting off?

What about the higher likelihood of the lower-class getting the death penalty?

I think that my GOD and my JESUS would not condone this...

G and Lo..I agree with the GOVERNMENT not PLAYING GOD...

There is inherent DANGER with MAN making GODLY DECISIONS....about HUMAN LIFE...

IMHO....

FH

I understand exactly what your saying....

However, my point is about government intervention when it comes to life and death.

Suicide falls up there with psychological issues....and the government has no criminal policy on it. I realize there are religious consequences for taking your own life, however, my views about the death penaltly and abortion have nothing to do with morality or religion - mainly because I believe religion should not be a part of our government.

And ...I don't want the government telling me what religious views I should have either <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Now, I am not anti governmet....although it may seem to be by this discussion. I just fundamentally believe in human rights. Maybe I'm bias because I am a woman and I am fully aware of the history of our gender, not to mention I come from a family of strong woman that have always been feminine activists. To many years have gone by where woman haven't had rights ....

I want you to know something though.....I personally would never get an abortion unless it was life or death for me.

However, along with the government....I don't have the right to pull the switch on a convict nor the right to judge anothers choice on her pregnancy.

I feel that these are gateways to more laws regarding life and death issues that go against our human rights.

I also don't get into a discussion about when the baby is a fetus or a zygot.....I mean come on the baby has a heart beat at 5 weeks - so it's a living thing, whatever name you want to give it. Never-the-less, if it's growing in someone elses body.....I don't have the right to force them to do something they don't want. Now that doesn't mean I won't try to talk to them or get them to think things through before making a big decision, but in the end it's their ultimate choice.


Thanks for responding, I've read many of your posts over the years and have appreciated your intelligence and caring for others.

Rachel

Whistles...



The pregnant woman wants to take heroin ... OK by you? Should the government step in to intervene if her tests show she's using a drug like heroin?

Late term abortions are only legal until 24 weeks....not to mention it's a completely different procedure all together after the 16th week. No one condones aborting a fetus that could live with medical assistance outside the womb.....

It is legal to have an abortion whether your for it or not. The goverment has decided a womans right to her body is inherent. And their has been years where it wasn't and the deaths of woman who attempted to do it on their own without proper medical care was tradjec.

For example should we condone 10 year old child soldiers to fight in wars because we recruit 17 year old in our own military?

There's a huge difference between early and late term abortions.



I don't know this case, however, I wouldn't agree to gas her if that's what your asking... <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

We can't solve for all problems it would be impossible. There will always be the crazies in the world, the people who take advantage of the system,those who are criminal, and then those who are just plain ignorant.

The bottom line, is we can only make those major life and death decisions for ourselves. Yes, it is sad their are those women out there who dump their babies in the trash, however, can you imagine how many more would be abandoned, neglected, diabled, hurt, dumped if abortion was illegal?

Rachel

If she's keeping the baby......then we have a right to step in because .....we are paying for it in the end. Who do you think is going to pay for that child's medical care when he or she is delivered? The government via the taxpayer.

Again, we're talking about a mother who probably needs help with her addiction. She has lost control over her own body and in those circumstances someone does need to step in.

We're talking about women who have full control of their minds; not addicted, suicide driven women with psychological issues.

Rachel

Reply to Whistles....



So you are saying there are some decisions about our bodies that the government might properly and rightfully intervene with?

You may want to re-phrase your previous comment.... if you think that there are exceptions to the no intervention stance.

We have the right to "step in" when we are paying for something??? Are you saying that?

Are you willing to pay taxes for the abortions of unwanted babies but not medical care of babies who were exposed in utero to heroin?

True. But what if we imprison him at age 23 and he doesnt get out until he is 63. How you restore him?? You cannot. Sure, he is still living and breathing. But his life is for all intents and purposes...over. It was taken from him. He really is no different from the guy who was executed.


As I said, the guy that spent all of his life in jail...his life has also been taken from him and it is irreversible. There really is no difference.


And I can respect that. But McVeigh did not need his time on this Earth to prove his innocense. Scott Peterson doesnt need the rest of his life to prove his innocence. If we catch Osama and take him to trial, he doesnt need the rest of his life to prove his innocence. They are as guilty as the day is long. They have chosen death as their consequence, since they know what the punishment of their crime would entail. They chose to be executed by executing others. Like I have said before, if my son chose to rob a bank...then he chose to go to jail for 20 years. He made that choice.

Just like He!!. People ask..."How can God send people to He!!?" Well, He doesnt send people to He!!. We chose to go to He!!. We have a choice to make. Either accept Jesus as Lord and Savior, or accept He!!. It is a choice.

Tookie had a choice to make. Behave himself and not kill those people....or have poision run thru his veins until he died. He chose that. He knew what he was doing and what it meant. I am all for letting the murderer get what they chose. Afterall, they wanted to be executed...otherwise, they wouldnt have put themselves in that situation.


First off, Jesus was not saying that no one was capable of judging her. He was saying they were hypocrites and also they were not following the law. You see, without the man there that they caught her in the act with, then they could not enforce the law. They had to punish both...or neither!

The second thing Jesus was trying to do there was dealing with hypocritical judgments. You see, the Bible says He knelt down and wrote in the sand. And as He did, they all left. Now, the Bible does not say specifically what He wrote. But it does say that as he wrote what He wrote, they all left.

So what is it that Jesus wrote that caused them to drop their rocks and walk away? If you go back to what the Law said, then it is very easy to figure out. Remember, He first pointed to the part of the Law that says that both the man and woman are to be stoned. And now He is writing in the sand. Well, it is easy to figure out what He wrote, based on the rest of the Law concerning adultery and judgment...and easy to figure out based on the reactions of the crowd.

Jesus was writing names. Women's names. Names of women that the men that made up that crowd that they had committed adultery with. How do I know? Look at the Law. The Law was clear...adultery could be punished with the death penalty. Jesus was writing down these names and saying "I know what each of you have been up to. I know about YOUR adultery." He was calling them hypocrites.

The reason they all left was that as soon as they had stoned that woman, they would have had to step in the pit themselves and be stoned for their adultery.

Jesus was pointing out a very key Biblical principle. Many times, people misquote the Bible and say that we should not judge, especially Christians. But that is NOT what the Bible says. It says that we should not judge hypocritically, because if we do, we will also be judged in the same way. As a matter of fact, if a Christian is truly following God and is not hypocritically judging, they are the BEST judges.

We can be better judges when we use God's standard and have God involved in the process. A Christian has this ability due to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and their relationship with Christ. If they rely on that, then their judgment will be true everytime!


Slavery was different in many cases back then. Many times, a destitute person would sell himself into slavery in order to work off his debt and get a new start. It was actually a form of welfare.

But in all cases of slavery, whether voluntary or involuntary, what Paul was saying was that at this point in history, this is a reality. And if you are a slave, life will go better for you if you do the following.

Just as God allowed divorce for adultery. He permits it. But why does He permit it. Because of the hardness of our hearts. Because the WS wont follow God...and many times the BS wont either due to the pain of the betrayal. God intends EVERY marriage to be for life. Everyone of them. So each one that fails, also fails God. If a BS cannot stay in the marriage due to the adultery and wants to file for divorce, God will permit it...but it is NOT His will. Of course, the WS never has a justification for divorce. And if there is no adultery or sexual immorality, then neither spouse has a case for divorce.

In His arms.