Featured Convicted Killer suffers During Execution....

How can it be said that it's not accurate if it's what they saw?

Something about this statement just drips with the devil's wickedness. It smells of the same type sanitizing the pro-abortionist takes when explaining how simple a procedure it is to murder a baby.

Somebody is telling a lie.

 

They drew conclusions that are not medically valid by what they saw. A body gasping for breath is not a sign of suffering. The body is mostly dead, including nerves carrying neuropathic information to the brain. Breathing is an semi-involuntary function, which means its much lower in the brain. That is, it continues after all the higher brain functions are dead. These are proven through EEGs being attached to dying persons. With their previous approval, of course.

How does "peaceful snoring" equate to blood-curdling screams of a child being ripped to pieces by a pair of forceps? You're being deliberately deflective of the issue for the advancement of your biased viewpoint.

Hm ... didn't you just say "How can it be said that it's not accurate if it's what they saw?"

I guess that's only valid if the observation confirms your preconceived notion, huh?

 

The one telling the lie is the one adding to Christ's words.

 

She's not a medical doctor. They said they saw the man gasping. How can she say that's not accurate if they saw the man gasping?

It would be different if she said she didn't see any gasping. But how is she gonna state what they saw to be inaccurate if they obviously saw it?

Nice attempt to medically explain it away too. But you're not a medical doctor either.

And what you call snoring, more than one person present is apparently calling gasping for air.

I didn't equate them. But how do you know what an unconscious man is feeling any more than you know what an unborn baby is feeling? Nothing but medical speculation.

I would venture that you're doing the same.

My point exactly.

 

You are reading things in to my comment that are not there.

1. Sympathy for the state of the condemned's soul does not equate with sympathy for his predicament. Particular crimes deserve specific punishments, according to both man-made laws and Scripture.

2. Your blanket contention that Christians who believe in the righteousness of the death penalty rejoice when it is applied is the type of reasoning that considers "I know you are, but what am I?" to be a valid argument.

 

Why are we talking about the state of his soul? Did some story mention that he was/was not a Christian?

I spoke to the Christian response on this board about killing another human being. I didn't speak to what he deserves any more than I spoke to what you or I deserve for our sins.

There was no blanket contention. I spoke to the so-called Christian response that I'm observing in this thread. And all it's done is continue to showcase the blanket nastiness that has come to be expected from the so-called "conservative evangelical Christian".

The behavior CONTINUES to be disgustingly unChristlike.

Conservative Christians should act more like Christ because behaving like Him IS the essence of being conservative.

But when it comes to loving your neighbor as yourself, or loving your enemies or that person who isn't like you, the lot of you continue to come across as liberally different from the love Christ displayed as can be.

 

Because of your implication of a total lack of sympathy for the condemned. It is good to pray for and seek his salvation. I do not believe that it is a part of a Christian's duty to pray for the avoidance of punishments for criminal acts.

 

Is that a blanket statement?

 

This thread hasn't been anything about praying for anybody's condemned physical body or spiritual soul and that much is evident. So I still don't know why that is even brought up.

The only thing that has clearly been expressed is that God's people are hungry to kill people guilty of breaking the same law that they break. The only thing that has continued to be clearly expressed in this thread is that a lot of folks comments and behavior show NOTHING of the love of Christ. And it's just sad.

That's silly as the essence of Christian salvation is seeking forgiveness to avoid the punishment of breaking God's law.

So if you're a follower of Christ and you sought His forgiveness for your trespasses, what in you forbids you from seeking it on behalf of your neighbor?

Is your neighbor a greater sinner than you?

 

It's a blanket statement for the lot of which I'm speaking.

 

There is nothing unloving about being just.

Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.
Romans 13:1-2

This man was not arbitrarily picked off the street and executed. He took a life in a place that demanded his life in return. He resisted the authority placed, by God, above him and in turn opposed the ordinance of God. The taking of a human life was among the first ordinances of God as delivered to Moses

"You shall not murder.
Exodus 20:13

Webster defines murder this way:

Malice is not part of justice. It is not malice we seek when a person is found guilty of murder. The civil demand to take the life of a person who has murdered is woven throughout the Biblical narrative. It is not unusual nor contrary to what has been done since the first murder. Of Cain, God heard the cry of the victim not the murderer. God was gracious to Cain which is His prerogative. The Law was not near as gracious. It demanded a life for a life taken.

God has granted to civil authority the right to continue what He codified as being civilly just. Civil justice is not an instrument of malice. Without civil justice we would be thrown into anarchy. It extends from the benign - you drive on your side of the street and I will drive on mine - to: if you take a life with malice we reserve the right to punish you proportionately.

It is not contradictory to seek civil justice while being concerned for the murderer's eternal state. By all means we should pray for the condemned's salvation yet "...justice roll down like waters..."

 

Liberals, whether political or theological, cannot grasp a God who is equally both loving and just.

 

Then justly gather every individual in the church guilty of breaking God's law as this man did and prescribe for them the same "justice". If your concern is being just, then Biblically be just.

Who said otherwise? The governing authorities have the right to govern as they choose. They can take a life as punishment just as they can grant divorce.

But to display glee to the point of choosing more"acceptable" ways to take a life continues to show just how far the church has fallen. There's is NOTHING of the love of Christ being demonstrated.

That's right malice isn't a part of justice. But that's all that's been displayed in this thread. Somewhere along the way, a whole bunch of folks have forgotten that once sin demanded justice for YOUR soul. But God's mercy said no.

Good codified for HIMSELF to dictate when a life should be taken and after the Cross, one would have prayed that CHRISTIANS got that God's mercy and love should be their default position.

What He demonstrates with His word to be His character and principles has NOTHING to do with what He allows sinful governments to do.

What is contradictory is the evangelical churches stance when it comes to life. But that's another discussion. But if there's been any expression of concern for his eternal state, you could have fooled me. I guess that's what"Better" suggestions of how to end his life means now.

 

Zaac:

Now this would be called "potty mouth" in kindergarten.
I will refrain calling it what I see, as my reply would be censored.

I will say that this is one, if not THE, most asinine statement to come from a "Christian" on this board.

The most I'll add is; "PHYSICIAN, HEAL THYSELF!" IOW, look in the mirror BEFORE you post - might save a few unnecessary hypocritical comments.:BangHead:

 

A most accurate summation of the "liberal vs conservative" debacle, with the added tendency of liberal rewording of God's word to suit their own agendas.

 

And that would be quite accurate. And when it comes to displaying God's love and mercy, the lot of you continue to be about as liberal theologically as they come.

So when He pours out His justice upon some of YOU for your liberalness in comparison to His character and amongst other things gives you more politically of what you don't want, remember that He still loves ya.:flower:

 

If a person in the church breaks a civil law they should be dealt with as such - civilly. There are mechanisms within the church for dealing with people who transgress the laws of God. Our church follows the principles of Matthew 18 when dealing with folk. The Amish do a better job than we do but I digress.

But Samuel said, "As your sword has made women childless, so shall your mother be childless among women." And Samuel hewed Agag to pieces before the LORD at Gilgal.
1 Samuel 15:33 NAS77

I would say our methods have improved over the years.

How, exactly, is justice redefined by the Cross? Jesus said He came to fulfill the Law, not abolish it.

What He demonstrates with His word to be His character and principles has EVERYTHING to do with what He allows sinful governments to do.

Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.
Romans 13:1 NAS77

There is malicious intent to end the life of an unborn child. We should continue to rage against it. There is no contradiction in standing for the life of an innocent and demanding the life of a murderer within the boundary of civil law. The unborn is the victim. God hears the cry of their blood as he heard Abel's

I can't speak for anyone else. I mentioned my concern for his eternal state. God has proven Himself to be Just, Gracious and Merciful. One does not preclude the other.

 

I never said otherwise about dealing with them civilly.

I'd say again, Samuel acted from the directive of God as all His agents did prior to Jesus going to the Cross.

Who said it was redefined? God gave the word of when to take a life in the OT and if HE wants to speak and give it again , He will.

But after the CROSS, regardless of what world governments decree, He fulfilled the law and showed in its completion that it is the essence of what HE is: LOVE.

Anybody who has been shown God's mercy and saved from an eternal hell that cannot see why Christians should be the last ones advocating for the death of anyone because of breaking laws, civilly or Biblically, should put on the brakes.

How do you know there is any less or more malicious intent than is expressed by some on this board? Malicious intent is a definition of this world. As your definition shows, it has nothing to do with how God's word defines murder.

 

Which places more value on human life: Allowing those who have stolen the lives of others to live or a legal death penalty for murderers, as a penalty in kind?