Saddest Story in the World - Andrea Yates

In light of the fact that he executed thousands upon thousand of people at the drop of a hat in both the old and new testaments, I would not waste my time pondering that one.

 

Thanks Whatever and Pete. I studied what you pointed out and on first study it does seem that the death penalty, since it's a law and we must follow the law of the land, is appropriate. But this brings up another question, that is entirely off topic, but has been discussed in thread in the past.

If we read and believe that God places men in power as we have read in the Bible, then why do we complain about someone we don't like in office? Aren't we complaining to God about who he choose at that point?

One question answered, which bring up another..

Jamie

 

Jamie,

Good question. I would only respond that our current system not only allows, but encourages dissent, and as such, we are supporting the government by excercising our democratic freedom of speech. That is my opinion, though.

Obey the laws of the land, unless the law causes you to sin against God, then obey God.

Joseph Botwinick

 

It is unChristlike to seek or support the death of anyone.

Romans 13 is not promoting the death penalty. In context, it is a warning to Christians not to rebel against the government, probably because of high taxes or taxes that supported pagan temples. The "sword" is an image of authority, not exectution. Execution for rebellion was by crucifixion. Never, Never, Never is a Christian told to seek or support the death of anyone.

To say we must support it if a government sponsors it is madness! If the governments of the Middle East declare all Muslems who convert to Christianity are subject to the death penalty (which some have) are you telling me that Christians should support that? Nero, emperor when Paul wrote to the Romans, took several thousand Christians, dipped them in oil, and burned them alive on crosses in his garden to light up a party. Since he was the "government" at the time, should Christians have supported that? Of course not.

As Christians, we are never obligated to obey a government law that is contrary to the teachings of Christ. So what does scripture say about the death penalty?

Gen. 9 does not institute the death penalty. There is no mention of governments or trials. At best, it is a reference to near east custom of the "blood avenger". One man tracking down another to avenge the death of a relative. We don't want to live like that, do we?

In context, God is telling Noah and his sons (and all that follow) that animals can be used as food, but people are not to be killed because they are created in the image of God.

We know that God has not given an absolute statement concerning seeking the death of those who kill, because not everyone who kills recieved death.

Cain was a murderer prior to the flood and was not killed in return. Moses was a murderer after the flood and was not killed in return. David was a murderer after the law was given and was not killed in return. Paul was a murderer after Christ came and was not killed in return.

In John 8, Jesus changed the requirements to exectute the death penalty. He wasn't just trying to shame these people. He was referring to the Old Testament Law for execution (Deut. 17:7) The two witnesses where the first to throw the stones, then everyone else would follow. Jesus changed that by saying, "he who is without sin among you, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Only someone who is without sin can execute another. Since only God is without sin, only God can execute.

Do you think God needs our help to take someone's life? Of course He doesn't.

But what should our attitudes be toward the worst of sinners? Murderers and rapist and the like?

I Tim. 1:16 "Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life."

This passage is clear. Paul is the foremost sinner. He killed Christians. He was a murderer. One of the reasons Christ had mercy on him was to demonstrate perfect patience. Who was this demonstration for? For those who would believe. You and me. We are to have the same kind of perfect patience with the worst of sinners (even murderers) as Jesus had with Paul.

To seek or support the death of someone is the opposite of perfect patience. We should be praying for them instead. We should be witnessing to them instead. We should be making sure they have every second of their natural lives to come to Christ.

I Tim. 2:1, "First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men," v.3 "This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, (4) who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth."

So when Christians seek and support the death of someone, and they are executed, do you think God and His angels are rejoicing that another sinner was put to death while His children gave a hearty approval....or do you think Satan and his demons are laughing and mocking God, since another person made in the image of God was put to death while God's "children" gave their hearty approval?

Satan wants people to die. Jesus wants people to live.

Be like Jesus

It is unChristlike to seek or support the death of anyone.

peace to you

 

While she is indeed ill, the question is whether or not her illness was the prime reason she killed her children. It was determined that her illness did not. No, she was under her own control when she killed her own children, and that she knew right from wrong when she did it, despite the fact that she was ill at the time.

Because of that, she should undergo the sentence handed to her, which is capital punishment. I have no problem with the appeals process (which is due every citizen) in the mean time. Once the appeals process is completed, then she should receive her due sentence at the earliest convenience of the state.

You're right, there is no mandate for the death penalty in the NT. Neither is there a ban on the death penalty in the NT. However, the presence or anbsence of the death penalty in a society does not a "civilized" litmus text make. If the US ever decides to abolish the death penalty, fine. I won't lose any sleep. Until then, the death penalty can be perscribed according to the dictates of each state that utilizes it. I likewise lose no sleep over it.

 

Wow canadyjd,

Thanks for sharing. That made a lot of sense, and I can see now that I will have to pray and study this issue.

It's times like this when I really wished I had started studying the Bible a long, long time ago.

It took me 15 years to listen to God and his will, and now I feel like I am behind. I pray each day to have God help me learn his Word and do his will.

Thanks for the time you took to post this canadyjd, now I need to go study this more.

Thanks!
Jamie

 

I agree. Indeed I argued she should not be put to death. But . . .

Nooooo, at best it is God saying what should happen to those who killed those made in the image on God. Do you have any evidence that "in context" (as you say) this is some human saying and not God speaking. Seems pretty clear to me.

Your examples of Nero and Christians in Moslem countries is totally irrelvant. We are not supporting to death penalty for people who don't like Christianity. We are supporting the death penatly for those who kill others. If a Christian murdered someone else in a Moslem country, then yes, I would support them using the death penalty if they saw it fit.

Perhaps in most if not all cases, mercy is better. None of that changes what God himself says and therefor makes the death penalty unChristian (unless you think God is unChristianlike).

 

Pete Richert

I never said that God wasn't speaking in Gen. 9. The question is whether the purpose of the passage was to establish the death penalty. The context is clear that it is not. There is a general statement concerning the difference between men and animals. The animals are given for food. People should not be killed because they are created in the image of God. That is the context.

The rest is strong langugage that emphasizes the point that a man's life is precious in the sight of God. And yes, there is a suggestion of the near eastern custom of the "blood avenger" in this passage.

Nero and the Middle Eastern nations are relevant because of the claim that we must follow (according to the misreading of Rom.9) whatever the government proposes in order to be obedient to God.

As I stated before, God does not need our help in taking a person's life and He is the only one with the perfect wisdom and Holiness to make that decision.

It is unChristlike to seek or support the death of anyone, because Christ has never even suggested we should do so. In fact, from I Tim. 1:16 and other passages, we find what our attitudes should be, and that is one of mercy and long suffering.

peace to you

 

That would be quite a misreading of Romans 9! It would also be a misreading of Romans 13 (which is what I think you meant). No one was arguing you must obey the government when it is contrary to God's will. Indeed, the opposite was said.

At least we agree God is speaking. It sure does emphesize that man's life is precious. Hence the very reason God gave the penalty He did. "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; FOR in the image of God, He made man (ephesis Mine) Note the relationship of the two sentences.

I'm still lost where there is a suggestion of blood averger. God is speaking, and he said, "by man his blood shall be shed;" Is there a footnote or margin I'm missing

In the theocratic Isreal, God (yes, in the Mosaic law, no references to middle eastern culture) instigated death by stoning for offenses that were less then murder, including disobedience to parents, sex before marriage, and gathering wood on the sabbath. We are not under this law as a nation, and are not under obligation to have the same punishments. Indeed, I don't believe Genesis 9 gives a universal order that all governments must follow. So the US can decide if he does not want the death penalty. But to call it unChristian is to call God unChristian who wrote it in Genesis 9, and used it many times. I won't call God unChristian for His harsh punishments in the OT Law, nor for a punishment for a harsher crime today. It was indeed just of God to have a man who gathered wood stoned, because He knew the greater reality of spiritual death and the second death which is of much more importance that unbelievers face. It was an act of mercy to his fellow Isralites and to us readers today to see the severity of disobeying God.

 

No one said that Romans 13 is promoting the death penalty. What Paul did say is that the governing authority "is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer." It seems like somewhere in your response you would have mentioned God's wrath. Did God's wrath ever call for the death of certain sinners? Of course it did. Has God changed? Of course He has not. Is the death penalty always appropriate? I don't think anyone has argued for anything like that. But never, never, never is a Christian told to never seek or support the death of anyone.

That's very simplistic. Somehow you need to account for Pharoah and his army, for Sodom and Gomorrah, for the Caananites, for the men of Beth-shemesh, for Uzzah, for the Ninevites, etc. Surely Satan didn't overcome God in those instances.

 

Andrea Yates was psychotic at the time of her crime, after her arrest she was kept in hospital on the MAXIMUM allowed dosage of anti-psycgotic drugs and it still took considerable time for her to come out of the psychosis (temproarily).

This woman was abused by her husband, her pastor and failed by the societal structures that should have supported her. Frankly, I find this call to execution one of convenience, you as a society would rather not face the pressures that this child of God was put under, you would rather take the easy option.

Shame on you!

Kiwimac

 

I don't know about you, but murdering her 5 children does not seem to me to be strong evidence that she is a child of God.

The woman is a nut who needs to be put out of her misery.

I know plenty of people who have faced the same, and much worse pressure, as Andrea Yates, yet did not flip and decide to kill their children.

If she truly is as pitiful as you portray her to be, then wouldn't it be merciful and in her best interest to end her "pain" by executing her? It's not like we're advocating torture, or even a painful death. Just take her life, thereby assuring with 100% certainty that she can never kill again. Until she is dead, there will always be a chance she could kill again. I just hope her next victim, if there is one, is not someone you love.

 

I've always thought that being steadfast against capitol punishment for heineous crimes would be intellectually justifiable if one didn't believe in the life to come.

Believing as I do in the life to come, the sober thought of facing execution for one's crimes has a chance of forcing the accused to consider eternal things and perhaps even repent and receive forgiveness of sins.

 

Amen, Paul. Amen.

 

Those are called psycho-tropic drugs, and I am unaware of a law that limits their usage. (At least in the states I have experience).I do know they take weeks to establish a level where they can be effective. Do you have any info on the dosage she was given, the specific drug she was given, and the level of supervision she was under at the time ?

 

Let's start at the beginning

Andrea Yates was and is a tragic case, tragic for her, tragic for her family.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Yates

Please note the following information about Michael Woronieki

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Peter_Woroniecki

As for the information about Yates' condition after arrest, most of it comes from a former Disciple of Woroniecki

Source: http://www.xnforums.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=7;t=003599;p=1#000017

I hope this helps

Kiwimac

 

I think there are two discrete issues here:-

1. The 'rightness' or otherwise of the death penalty. This is pretty much a dead horse on these boards and I don't think anyone is going to convert anyone else to their POV by frantic prooftexting or otherwise.

2. Whether the defendant in this particular case had the necessary mens rea to be guilty of murder or whether she is guilty of manslaughter or not guilty by reason of insanity. That is more problematic and is more of a psychiatric issue than anything else. The critical point in time for this question is the time of each of the killings, not what state she was in two hours before or two hours later or at her trial. That is a matter for a court as advised by expert psychiatric witnesses to decide. (The examples of Saddam and Hitler are IMO red herrings since with the latter we have no such expert psychiatric testimony on open court to decide one way or the other and with the former we are unlikely to get it...although it would be interesting if we did...)

 

I think we should all be praying for the wife and children of this Woroneicki guy.

 

I agree.

Woroniecki is a dangerous man.

 

My sin of pride and self righteousness are no less severe as sin that hers! I am most thankful for God's mercy and want to extend that to her also! She should be kept in a state hospital, however, for life! She was ill and deserves our mercy but with protection for her horrific! As we give to others, we will be given! </font>[/QUOTE]While sin is sin, and we are all guilty of one sin or another. Her sin just happens to be a crime, a crime against innocent children. What you do concerning how you feel or see a persons sin is up to you, but when it is a crime, and a crime as heinous as murdering her own children, then how can we just do nothing but baby her.
In the NT there is nothing prohibiting execution of a deserving criminal, the two thieves were executed, yet Jesus did not condemn the pratice. And we have laws to tell us who is deserving of execution.
We are all accountable for our sins, God says we are, He tells us we will all give an account for our sins, yet you suggest she should not have too. If she has to give an accout to God, and it is a horrorable crime, a crime in our country, and a crime against those children, then how can any say she should not give an account of it to the people of this country.