Convicted Killer suffers During Execution....

[Zaac]

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?

And there you go playing God.. Let God be God all by Himself. He alone is capable of placing the correct value on human life.

 

[Rolfe]

And there you go playing God.. Let God be God all by Himself. He alone is capable of placing the correct value on human life.

Playing God by asking a question? Seriously? I am trying not to think that you are simply trolling for its own sake, but with this post I am having difficulty giving you the benefit of doubt.

 

[Rolfe]

I will admit that I am biased against murderers. My family has lost two members in two separate incidents to the hands of others...one a policeman. It is not a matter of vengeance, but of punishment and of an acknowledgement of the value of human life.

 

[Don]

And there you go playing God.. Let God be God all by Himself. He alone is capable of placing the correct value on human life.

ERROR.

Why are you mixing secular law with spiritual law?

Are you saying we should have a theocracy?

 

[Zaac]

I will admit that I am biased against murderers. My family has lost two members in two separate incidents to the hands of others...one a policeman.

I'm sorry for your loss Rolf. My family also has been touched by the hands of seemingly senseless murder.

But it's in the midst of tragedy that we can most clearly see God at work. The world EXPECTS people to demand an eye for an eye. But God says:

38“You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth. 39But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.



43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:38-48

The world demands an eye for an eye. Jesus Christ showed them a different way. There should automatically be mercy coming out of the Christian if the One who delivered ultimate mercy is in there.

But for us, who have been shown mercy to almost seem excited about the different ways to civilly take the life of another person...something is extremely wrong.

It is not a matter of vengeance, but of punishment and of an acknowledgement of the value of human life.

So sinful men acknowledge the value of human life by taking the life of another sinful man? Somehow, I don't think the same folks who are okay with abortion have given much thought about acknowledging the value of human life.

 

[Zaac]

ERROR.

Why are you mixing secular law with spiritual law?

Are you saying we should have a theocracy?

It would be you making the error. Why should we have a theocracy in this dying world system when God has already got one planned for His Kingdom on Earth?

And who is mixing secular law with spiritual law? The secular can choose to murder as a punishment if they like because again, like divorce, God allows them to. But like divorce He shows it to still be sinful and contrary to the mercy of Christ extended upon the Cross.

 

[Don]

It would be you making the error. Why should we have a theocracy in this dying world system when God has already got one planned for His Kingdom on Earth?

And who is mixing secular law with spiritual law? The secular can choose to murder as a punishment if they like because again, like divorce, God allows them to. But like divorce He shows it to still be sinful and contrary to the mercy of Christ extended upon the Cross.

Then why did He write to us that rulers are "the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil"?

 

[Zaac]

Then why did He write to us that rulers are "the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil"?

For the same reason He turned Pharaoh's heart. He has historically in His word shown the use of bad governments and rulers to execute His wrath upon him that doeth evil.

He did it repeatedly with Israel.

But He also shows those governments and rulers to be agents working their own brand of justice that has nothing to do with His justice.

The principles of His word show that His people because of what HE has done on the Cross should because of the One who indwells them be people known for their love and mercy because the ultimate love and mercy has been given to them.

We're known for stuff.. But it definitely isn't our love and mercy.

 

[padredurand]

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.

Malicious intent is defined clearly by God's Word.

Malicious intent to cause death and the penalty is clear in this passage:

Numbers 35:16-21 NAS77
16 'But if he struck him down with an iron object, so that he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.
17 'And if he struck him down with a stone in the hand, by which he may die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.
18 'Or if he struck him with a wooden object in the hand, by which he may die, and as a result he died, he is a murderer; the murderer shall surely be put to death.
19 'The blood avenger himself shall put the murderer to death; he shall put him to death when he meets him.
20 'And if he pushed him of hatred, or threw something at him lying in wait and as a result he died,
21 or if he struck him down with his hand in enmity, and as a result he died, the one who struck him shall surely be put to death, he is a murderer; the blood avenger shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.

Those words are nestled between provisions for cities of refuge for a person who unintentionally causes the death of another. Refuge did not mean that the offender was no longer responsible for their deed. It meant they could not be killed without due process.

Numbers 35:10-15 NAS77
10 "Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, 'When you cross the Jordan into the land of Canaan,
11 then you shall select for yourselves cities to be your cities of refuge, that the manslayer who has killed any person unintentionally may flee there.
12 'And the cities shall be to you as a refuge from the avenger, so that the manslayer may not die until he stands before the congregation for trial.
13 'And the cities which you are to give shall be your six cities of refuge.
14 'You shall give three cities across the Jordan and three cities in the land of Canaan; they are to be cities of refuge.
15 'These six cities shall be for refuge for the sons of Israel, and for the alien and for the sojourner among them; that anyone who kills a person unintentionally may flee there.

Numbers 35:22-24 NAS77
22 'But if he pushed him suddenly without enmity, or threw something at him without lying in wait,
23 or with any deadly object of stone, and without seeing it dropped on him so that he died, while he was not his enemy nor seeking his injury,
24 then the congregation shall judge between the slayer and the blood avenger according to these ordinances.

 

[Don]

For the same reason He turned Pharaoh's heart. He has historically in His word shown the use of bad governments and rulers to execute His wrath upon him that doeth evil.

He did it repeatedly with Israel.

But He also shows those governments and rulers to be agents working their own brand of justice that has nothing to do with His justice.

The principles of His word show that His people because of what HE has done on the Cross should because of the One who indwells them be people known for their love and mercy because the ultimate love and mercy has been given to them.

We're known for stuff.. But it definitely isn't our love and mercy.

So where I see you miscommunicating is that you're speaking of attitudes; whereas the rest are speaking of absolutes.

 

[padredurand]

"The rejection of capital punishment is not to be dignified as a 'higher Christian way' that enthrones the ethics of Jesus. The argument that Jesus as the incarnation of divine love cancels the appropriateness of capital punishment in the New Testament era has little to commend it. Nowhere does the Bible repudiate capital punishment for premeditated murder; not only is the death penalty for deliberate killing of a fellow human being permitted, but it is approved and encouraged, and for any government that attaches at least as much value to the life of an innocent victim as to a deliberate murderer, it is ethically imperative."


Carl F. H. Henry, ThD, PhD, Twilight of a Great Civilization, 1988

 

[Gina B]

Perhaps I misunderstood your point. I read your post as being sympathetic to the criminal and allowing him the choice.

And what would it matter, if our end goals were the same?

Arguing because you do not like someone's point of view, as opposed to arguing because it is a bad idea - very different.

Both sides have to be able to reason on this issue. Showing a degree of empathy is going to get you a lot further in your goal than slamming your fist on the table and saying "Kill them and do it my way, and your views are invalid." Even if someone else's views are wrong, there are thoughts and emotions behind them, just like with yours. That makes them worth at least a respectful discussion.

 

[Rolfe]

And what would it matter, if our end goals were the same?

Arguing because you do not like someone's point of view, as opposed to arguing because it is a bad idea - very different.

Both sides have to be able to reason on this issue. Showing a degree of empathy is going to get you a lot further in your goal than slamming your fist on the table and saying "Kill them and do it my way, and your views are invalid." Even if someone else's views are wrong, there are thoughts and emotions behind them, just like with yours. That makes them worth at least a respectful discussion.

Now I think that it is you who misunderstand my point.

A side issue- You attribute a quote to me: "Kill them and do it my way, and your views are invalid." I said no such thing.

 

[Zaac]

"The rejection of capital punishment is not to be dignified as a 'higher Christian way' that enthrones the ethics of Jesus.

I didn't reject it. I just believe that Scripture shows capital punishment to be of the same vein as divorce. God allows it but it's still wrong if not a specific directive from Him as seen in the OT.

The argument that Jesus as the incarnation of divine love cancels the appropriateness of capital punishment in the New Testament era has little to commend it.

Who said it cancels it? I said as I've always said: if it is a directive from God as in the OT, go for it. But the last time I checked, post Jesus and the Cross, God hasn't given anyone a directive to take the life of another sinner.

And I'll say as someone else mentioned a long time ago. This same government that some of you situationally laud for capital punishment is the same government that okays the murder of babies.

Nowhere does the Bible repudiate capital punishment for premeditated murder; not only is the death penalty for deliberate killing of a fellow human being permitted, but it is approved and encouraged, and for any government that attaches at least as much value to the life of an innocent victim as to a deliberate murderer, it is ethically imperative."

Nothing but words rendered from emotional rationalizing. It was repudiated at the Cross.

And again, I didn't say it wasn't permitted. Divorce is also permitted.

 

[plain_n_simple]

Ask yourself the question Zaac: "What is the difference between these attitudes and the world's attitude toward this subject?" Zero. The answer is always grace.

 

[Zaac]

Ask yourself the question Zaac: "What is the difference between these attitudes and the world's attitude toward this subject?" Zero. The answer is always grace.

That's what remains so overwhelmingly heartbreaking is that people don't see that those who have been forgiven should be screaming grace. Instead, we have just what you said: a bunch of folks whose attitudes differ none from the world's.

 

[pinoybaptist]

..........God hasn't given anyone a directive to take the life of another sinner.

...................

and the same government that Paul said to submit oneself to is a government of pagans and idol worshippers.

God has given the state or a government the right to take life, not the individual, and if that government murders babies and allows homosexual marriages or promotes divorce, then the same God who gave it permission will judge it, in His time.

 

[Zaac]

and the same government that Paul said to submit oneself to is a government of pagans and idol worshippers.

God has given the state or a government the right to take life, not the individual, and if that government murders babies and allows homosexual marriages or promotes divorce, then the same God who gave it permission will judge it, in His time.

There's a difference between PERMITTING and DIRECTING. He hasn't given the government the RIGHT because it isn't right. He ALLOWS them just as He does with divorce.

But you are precisely right. God will judge them in His due time.

But His people should already be able to look at the finished work of the Cross and, unlike the lost world and their eye for an eye thinking, be aligned with His grace and mercy.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

"The rejection of capital punishment is not to be dignified as a 'higher Christian way' that enthrones the ethics of Jesus. The argument that Jesus as the incarnation of divine love cancels the appropriateness of capital punishment in the New Testament era has little to commend it. Nowhere does the Bible repudiate capital punishment for premeditated murder; not only is the death penalty for deliberate killing of a fellow human being permitted, but it is approved and encouraged, and for any government that attaches at least as much value to the life of an innocent victim as to a deliberate murderer, it is ethically imperative."


Carl F. H. Henry, ThD, PhD, Twilight of a Great Civilization, 1988

If we love him, we will follow his commandments.

 

[plain_n_simple]

He came to save the world, not condemn it. You will find in many places that word "command" has nothing to do with the ten.