Pope Declares Death Penalty Unacceptable in All Cases

[Jhoon]

I’m hearing you and @acri1 , I just hear so many horrible stories of criminals getting slaps on the wrist and I suppose, in my heart I just want heavy punishments to be the price that super criminals pay. The death penalty just isn’t smart economically

You folks and your anecdotal stories.

 

[98Ntu]

What a redundant post.

How so breh?

 

[98Ntu]

You folks and your anecdotal stories.

You seem touched that I am pro-death penalty. Talk to me and explain yourself like an adult

 

[Jhoon]

To me the Life in prison is actually more cruel than the death penalty. The thought of spending the rest of my life in a tiny cell with no women, awful food, no technology, amenities, no fresh air, and constantly being at risk of be raped or abused by inmates or staff is worse than death

And just think: this is considered normal. The justice system in this country is neither just, or organized.

 

[Jhoon]

You seem touched that I am pro-death penalty. Talk to me and explain yourself like an adult

Nah, you’re an idiot.

 

[98Ntu]

Nah, you’re an idiot.

It is intellectual cowardice to attack a man’s ideas but never engage in debate with him. I put myself out there regularly cuz debate and inquiry make the world go round. You’re trolling me and that’s fine. That’s what you want to bring to the table Bless you brother

 

[valet]

theres no specification in the sixth amendment though. it doesn't say thou shalt not kill the innocent. it refers to all human beings.

Well, if that's the case then how do we know that isn't referring to animals as well? Thou shalt not kill could mean don't kill human or animals. We know that's not the case because there is specific instructions in the law about sacrificing animals. Same thing with human beings. If it just meant all human beings life then why does Genesis 9:6 say "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man." Right here it's clear: If you take someone life then your life will be taken. So obviously, all human life isn't what being said here because even in that same law, we see that certain laws required people to be put the death. There are wars where God instructed them to kill. If it meant all human life, and then you have instructions to put people to death, then that's a contraction. Though shalt not kill has also being translated as thou shalt not murder in some translation. Which gives a better since of what it means, imo. Because you have clear commandments of killing in some wars the Jews had to do.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

I read the link and it misses the point. The adultery law is clear: Leviticus 20:10 10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. That was the law. If that's the case then once again, where was the niguh who was banging her at? You had to stone both of them. They just brought the woman, which shows you something fishy was going on.

How do you know that they haven't already stoned the husband? How do you know they didn't try to get the husband, but he escaped? How do you know they didn't find the girl pregnant, proving she had committed adultery, but she refused to give up who the man was? How do you know the man wasn't a Roman soldier or someone else they couldn't touch?

You're trying to make your entire argument based on a guess that shows up nowhere in the text. Since you don't know what happened to the man, you make up a wild theory. But you don't know what actually happened to him and Jesus never mentions him. For all you know, he's already been judged.

Jesus makes three statements in the story. They are,

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin.”

None of those statements have anything to do with the man. All three have to do with our right to condemn another.

You propose that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, Jesus would have said, "I condemn you both. Kill them." That is at odds with everything we know about Jesus and everything he says here.

As far as his question he is without sin cast the first stone. That was not a question of whoever is sinless cast the first stone because nobody is obviously is sinless.

Exactly, obviously no one is sinless so no one can condemn another to death. That's the whole point, that's why the woman walked free.

You want her to just be walking on a technicality. Why should she be free just because some Pharisees are hypocrites? You commit the crime, you do the time, right? Is there some principle of the Law, "Guilty people should be punished unless someone else is a hypocrite"? You're making up a new principle totally out of the blue.

If you take that standard to it's logical conclusion then nobody judge anybody in that Jewish culture. It would just be anarchy. Obviously the New Testament allows judgement. You see Apostle Paul judging a man in I Corinthians 5 for sleeping with his step mama. You see Jesus telling people to judge whether someone was a false prophet or not. Judgment is good. We do it all the time. Hypocritical judgment is what's bad. Matthew 7 which is the condemn passage is clear. If you judge then you gotta make sure you ain't doing the same thing. And if you are then take care your issue first then you can judge your bro. He didn't say you can't judge your bro. He said take the log out your eye first. Then you take the speck out your brother eye. How could you do that unless you're able to judge. You just can't judge hypocritically about it. For example, if I tell a bro to stop smoking crud but I'm doing the same thing, then that's hypocritical judgement. I gotta stop doing it first before I tell bro he should stop doing it.

Jesus said "Do not judge, do not condemn" and "Do not judge or you will be judged" for a reason. You're suggesting that he meant to say, "Judge all you want, just don't be a hypocrite about it." But that doesn't fit into any of the sayings or anything about Jesus's life at all. He makes clear over and over again that we shouldn't judge others.

If your interpretation was true, Jesus would have said, "He who has not committed adultery can cast the first stone." But he didn't. If your interpretation was true, Jesus would have cast the first stone himself. But he didn't.

You're confused because you're missing the difference between judging another action and judging a person. You can judge that an action is wrong. You can even judge that someone should face consequences for their actions. But you can't judge their whole life away, you can't judge that you're better than them, you can't judge that they deserve to die and you deserve to live.

That is God's alone to decide.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Another couple Biblical arguments from the link I posted:

Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the Lord. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." - Isaiah 55:8-9

God can be willing to forgive even the wicked person, because his ways are far higher than our ways. God will freely pardon, because his thoughts are not our thoughts. How can you say that you are a perfect enough judge to end the life of another, when you know that God might make the decision to forgive instead?

Let's say you're condemning a murderer to death. Let's say that he's already truly repented. Why would you condemn a repentant man to death? What is the good of that? Let's say instead that he has not repented yet. Who are you to decide that his chance to repent is over and he should be sent to hell? Either way, you're playing God.

You heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you: love your enemies! Pray for people who persecute you! That way, you’ll be children of your father in heaven! After all, he makes the sun rise on bad and good alike, and sends rain both on the upright and on the unjust.”

“You heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you: don’t use violence to resist evil! Instead, when someone hits you on the right cheek, turn the other one towards him.”

“You heard that it was said to the ancient people, ‘You shall not murder’; and anyone who commits murder shall be liable to judgment. But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”

- Matthew 5:43-45, 5:38-39, 5:21-22

“So you have no excuse—anyone, whoever you are, who sit in judgment! When you judge someone else, you condemn yourself, because you, who are behaving as a judge, are doing the same things. God’s judgment falls, we know, in accordance with the truth, on those who do such things. But if you judge those who do them and yet do them yourself, do you really suppose you will escape God’s judgment?

Or do you despise the riches of God’s kindness, forbearance and patience? Don’t you know that God’s kindness is meant to bring you to repentance? But by your hard, unrepentant heart you are building up a store of anger for yourself on the day of anger, the day when God’s just judgment will be unveiled—the God who will “repay everyone according to their works.” - Romans 2:1-6

God makes the sun rise on good and bad alike, God is the one who said that it's not our role to separate the weeds from the wheat. So who are you do decide that someone's life is over and they're worthy of death?

Jesus said that the days of "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" are over. But you're going to argue that the worst one of those, "A life for a life," is still acceptable? Even when Jesus suggests that even a person who is angry is just as liable to judgement as a murderer is?

You don't have the right to sit in judgement of another person. You can judge an action, you can tell the difference between right and wrong. But you can't decide who is going to heaven and who is going to hell, you can't decide whose time it is to die and who gets to live, you cannot condemn another. That is God's alone to decide.


Jesus is not a sinner. Jesus is not a hypocrite. Jesus could have decided to kill the woman himself. BUT HE DIDN'T. Just like Jesus didn't judge Paul the murderer worthy of death either. How do you know whether Jesus would judge any individual worthy of death or not? Would you be willing to kill someone who Jesus would have forgiven?

 

[valet]

How do you know that they haven't already stoned the husband? How do you know they didn't try to get the husband, but he escaped? How do you know they didn't find the girl pregnant, proving she had committed adultery, but she refused to give up who the man was? How do you know the man wasn't a Roman soldier or someone else they couldn't touch
Because they said the woman was caught in adultery so it wasn't that she was pregant. She got caught getting d'ed down. Adultery is having sex. Sure, those things could have happened that he was a Roman soldier, someone they couldn't touch or they could have tried to get him but he escaped. But it's no reason to believe that. What we do know is that the law is clear, that they were to stone them. That's what the law taught.

You're trying to make your entire argument based on a guess that shows up nowhere in the text. Since you don't know what happened to the man, you make up a wild theory. But you don't know what actually happened to him and Jesus never mentions him. For all you know, he's already been judged


Jesus makes three statements in the story. They are,

“Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”
“Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”
“Then neither do I condemn you. Go now and leave your life of sin.”

None of those statements have anything to do with the man. All three have to do with our right to condemn another.

You propose that if the Pharisees had brought both the man and the woman, Jesus would have said, "I condemn you both. Kill them." That is at odds with everything we know about Jesus and everything he says here.




Exactly, obviously no one is sinless so no one can condemn another to death. That's the whole point, that's why the woman walked free.

You want her to just be walking on a technicality. Why should she be free just because some Pharisees are hypocrites? You commit the crime, you do the time, right? Is there some principle of the Law, "Guilty people should be punished unless someone else is a hypocrite"? You're making up a new principle totally out of the blue.




Jesus said "Do not judge, do not condemn" and "Do not judge or you will be judged" for a reason. You're suggesting that he meant to say, "Judge all you want, just don't be a hypocrite about it." But that doesn't fit into any of the sayings or anything about Jesus's life at all. He makes clear over and over again that we shouldn't judge others.

If your interpretation was true, Jesus would have said, "He who has not committed adultery can cast the first stone." But he didn't. If your interpretation was true, Jesus would have cast the first stone himself. But he didn't.

You're confused because you're missing the difference between judging another action and judging a person. You can judge that an action is wrong. You can even judge that someone should face consequences for their actions. But you can't judge their whole life away, you can't judge that you're better than them, you can't judge that they deserve to die and you deserve to live.

That is God's alone to decide.

Help to me understand. Did the Jewish law teach that certain behaviors like beastility, incest, adultery, cursing parents led to death. Was that it taught or no? If so, did Jesus teach that Jewish law was wrong?

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

I’m hearing you and @acri1 , I just hear so many horrible stories of criminals getting slaps on the wrist and I suppose, in my heart I just want heavy punishments to be the price that super criminals pay. The death penalty just isn’t smart economically

the other issue is theres too many stories of people being sentenced to death, executed and then exonerated by new evidence after the fact.
the biggest thing for me is regardless of individual cases i dont trust the american government with the authority to use the death penalty.

 

[Baka's Weird Case]

Well, if that's the case then how do we know that isn't referring to animals as well? Thou shalt not kill could mean don't kill human or animals. We know that's not the case because there is specific instructions in the law about sacrificing animals. Same thing with human beings. If it just meant all human beings life then why does Genesis 9:6 say "Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man." Right here it's clear: If you take someone life then your life will be taken. So obviously, all human life isn't what being said here because even in that same law, we see that certain laws required people to be put the death. There are wars where God instructed them to kill. If it meant all human life, and then you have instructions to put people to death, then that's a contraction. Though shalt not kill has also being translated as thou shalt not murder in some translation. Which gives a better since of what it means, imo. Because you have clear commandments of killing in some wars the Jews had to do.

its true that there are times in the old testament part of gods covenant involved the necessity of murder. again, i just think that the new testament and the teachings of jesus set a different expectation.

 

[Professor Emeritus]

Help to me understand. Did the Jewish law teach that certain behaviors like beastility, incest, adultery, cursing parents led to death. Was that it taught or no? If so, did Jesus teach that Jewish law was wrong?

Murder does lead to death. Like Jesus said, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." But what he meant by that is NOT that it is a Christian's responsibility to punish people for sin by killing them. That's why he forced Peter to put down his sword when he said that, why he forced the Pharisees to put down their rocks. What he is saying is that death leads to death, both physical and spiritual.

Jesus was the fulfillment of the whole law. He clearly taught that the time for the old law was over, and that the time for taking killing into our own hands is over. Just like many other Jewish laws were taken out of practice, you know, like the Sabbath, circumcision, sacrificing in the temple, only eating certain foods, refusing to eat with or marry Gentiles, and so on. Again, I direct you to a passage from the breh's essay:

Advocates for the death penalty invariably point to Old Testament law for support. It is important to reflect that if we actually relied on Old Testament law, we would decree that the death penalty be enforced for adultery, kidnapping, false witness in death penalty trials, bestiality, disobedience/abuse of parents, homosexuality, witchcraft, Sabbath-breaking, false prophecy, blasphemy, marrying foreigners, and owning an animal who kills someone.48

Christ states that in the New Covenant, we have a new way of life. We now have a heart of flesh, not a heart of stone. We are now under Christ’s Law. And the center of Christ’s Law is the Prodigal Son, the redemption of sinners, the refusal to follow through and stone the woman, the rebuke of Peter who takes up the sword (even in the defense of his Lord) and the praise of those who take up the Cross instead. In Paul’s words we are the “strange procession”49 who willingly accepts the death penalty unto ourselves, not the power-hungry leaders of Gentiles who wield it.

In fact, the Jews themselves soon moved away from condemning others unto death. Two prominent rabbis of the late first century, Rabbi Tarfon and Rabbi Akiba, stated: ”Had we been in the Sanhedrin none would ever have been put to death” and Rabbi Simeon ben Gamaliel says that for the Sanhedrin to put someone to death ”would have multiplied the shedders of blood in Israel.” By 200 A.D., the Mishnah records that Jewish law now required that a death penalty trial have 23 judges, at least two eyewitnesses to the act, and that relatives, women, slaves, and people of poor reputation could not qualify as witnesses. These conditions made it practically impossible for a death penalty to be carried out. The Mishnah states that a court that executes even one man in seven years is ”ruinous”, and records Rabbi Eliezar ben Azariah going further to say, ”Or one in every seventy years.”50 It is unknown whether this movement reflects the influence of Jesus and the Church on the Jews, or simply a parallel movement towards greater understanding of the limitless potential of God’s mercy.

 

[valet]

Murder does lead to death. Like Jesus said, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." But what he meant by that is NOT that it is a Christian's responsibility to punish people for sin by killing them. That's why he forced Peter to put down his sword when he said that, why he forced the Pharisees to put down their rocks. What he is saying is that death leads to death, both physical and spiritual.

Jesus was the fulfillment of the whole law. He clearly taught that the time for the old law was over, and that the time for taking killing into our own hands is over. Just like many other Jewish laws were taken out of practice, you know, like the Sabbath, circumcision, sacrificing in the temple, only eating certain foods, refusing to eat with or marry Gentiles, and so on. Again, I direct you to a passage from the breh's essay:

So isn't that article showing the "old way", which God commanded, was to kill those who did those things? If that change, then that's fine but I'm trying to first understand if that's the foundation or not?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

To me the Life in prison is actually more cruel than the death penalty. The thought of spending the rest of my life in a tiny cell with no women, awful food, no technology, amenities, no fresh air, and constantly being at risk of be raped or abused by inmates or staff is worse than death

I'm surprised people disagree with this. I'd rather die than do life in jail