Just to play devil's advocate (no pun intended): Isn't what you just said a circular argument? Tookie killed people. Bible says:Thou shall not kill. So kill Tookie. Do we kill the guy who killed tookie now?

 

Sounds good to me But at what point do you integrate religious law with earthly law?

 

I am afraid I don't follow.. to me, all earthly law is based on religous law. I am not trying to be a smart alec, I truely want to understand the question...

 

Ah good point but the state has deemed the neccessary punishment for murder, death. The Bible is left for interpretation as well. I believe the "Thou shall not kill" applies to simply going up to someone and killing them. Tookie commited heinous crimes and the state deemed it appropriate. Others before me have stated that they'd kill in self defense, I would too. I don't find it to be much of a sin to kill if my own life is threatened. If the person at the head of state said to kill Tookie unjustly, then yes he is just as evil and should be dealt an appropriate punishment.

 

Oh, haha, sorry, I just write off the top of my head sometimes...

I guess I mean, by earthly law, I meant government. The way I see it, the sole purpose for govt. is for protection of life and property. By religious law, I meant the bible/ten commandments/morality/right vs. wrong etc.

With my defintion, I don't believe earthly law is based on religious law. They may be similar, but their reasoning is different. For instance, religious law states it is wrong to steal because it is immoral. Earthly laws states one cannot steal because it belongs to someone else.

 

Didn't someone just go up to Tookie and kill him?

Sorry to keep pushing you, but by that logic we would need to kill Tookie in self-defense to make it OK. Am I right?

 

Actually, the commandment is Thou Shall Not MURDER.

God knew when He created men with free wills that not all would follow and obey Him. However, He also knew that many would want to love and serve Him. In giving men free will, He also had to establish laws for men to live by. When we look at the Ten Commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, we can see that these laws were given for the good of mankind. One of these laws is in verse 13: "Thou shalt not kill." You may wonder if God said "do not kill," why He would then decree that a murderer should be put to death. The reason is that the Hebrew meaning of the word translated as "kill" actually means "murder" or "to slay someone in a violent manner unjustly." So, in the Ten Commandments God is saying, "Thou shalt not murder."

Actually God Started the Death Penalty -

Genesis 9:5-6: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man."

Leviticus 24:17-22: "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God."

 

Where we find most of our problems with the two sides of capital punishment is that really both sides hold a truth of God. God's law of justice for the taking of a life demands that life be taken; yet, God's spiritual law of mercy and forgiveness grants that a murderer can be forgiven and restored. How can we reconcile this? We must understand that God instituted civil authorities to maintain order in the earth. God uses them to restrain evil and they should be obeyed for this purpose. In the New Testament we see that even Jesus surrendered to the governing authorities because He was submitted to God.

John 19:11: "Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above..."

Romans 13 (RSV)
1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

From these verses we see that governments can elect to practice capital punishment, the harshest form of punishment.

 

..death penalty should be handed out within hours of the conviction , not years .
... maybe Tookie will come back as a Blood

 

Thanks ScionDad, that's kind of what I was trying to say but you said it much better. I'm tired and a have a final exam in an hour

 

If someone is a threat to innocent people, it is our duty to protect them. We aren't judging them, as God is the final judge, after death. We just make the meeting occur a little sooner.

I'm sure that Christians have no problem killing convicts. . . they've been killing people in the name of God ever sice the beginning. Remember the Crusades? The Indians? Gee. . . what happened to the Aztecs. . . I don't think religion has anything to do with this.

 

what tookie is dead lol jokeing this is bull poop he should have been put down like a rabbit dog a long time ago

 

 

It's hard for be to validate these, as I do read the bible, but I'm not Christian. . . go figure.

But if someone was about to kill 5 million people, and you could stop the murderer by killing him, would you not?

In a sense, inaction leads to more death. And your inaction would be the indirect cause of murder. So wouldn't you be a murderer?

Should we not have gone to war with Germany in World War II? If I understand your point correctly, we would have let Germany win the war, because it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to win the war without killing a single person. So as good Christians, we should have just let Hitler win? Is that what you're saying?

 

Pdrizzle. . . are you a vegetarian? Do you eat meat? Are the lives of 5 million cows worth the life of 1 person. Are the lives of 3 billion people worth the life of one? What about 5 people. . . that Tookie killed. . . The valuation of life is VERY difficult, especially when it comes to politics.

What if you had to choose to save the lives of either 10 children or 5 adults? How about 1 murderer and the extremely high statistical chance that he will kill 4 more people? It's not entirely black and white.

 

Ah ok. I see, so it is in the way "kill" is interpreted. "Kill" means "murder" and "murder" means "slay in a violent, unjustly manner." So we can safely assume dealth penalty (i.e. crucifixtion) was OK way back when the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) were written. I get that part: the death penalty back then was OK (even for adultery, blasphemy, etc). I just get confused by the Gospels in the New Testament which stress mercy, reconcilliation, etc. I thought the whole crucifixtion story was sort of an anti-death penalty message.

 

I agree with djct on this one.

I know Catholic history ain't pretty, but whatever doctrine they have now sounds good....I copied this from americancatholic.org:

Just cause. - War is permissible only to confront "a real and certain danger," i.e., to protect innocent life, to preserve conditions necessary for decent human existence and to secure basic human rights.
Competent authority. - War must be declared by those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or individuals.
Comparative justice. - In essence: Which side is sufficiently "right" in a dispute, and are the values at stake critical enough to override the presumption against war? Do the rights and values involved justify killing? Given techniques of propaganda and the ease with which nations and individuals either assume or delude themselves into believing that God or right is clearly on their side, the test of comparative justice may be extremely difficult to apply.
Right intention. - War can be legitimately intended only for the reasons set forth above as a just cause.
Last resort. - For resort to war to be justified, all peaceful alternatives must have been exhausted.
Probability of success. - This is a difficult criterion to apply, but its purpose is to prevent irrational resort to force or hopeless resistance when the outcome of either will clearly be disproportionate or futile.
Proportionality. - This means that the damage to be inflicted and the costs incurred by war must be proportionate to the good expected by taking up arms.

 

You're right, the death penalty has nothing to do with religion. It is all about public protection, not any sort of moral judgment. The real issue is whether death or life in prison is sufficient to protect public safetry and order.

I brought up the religion thing cause I was curious about the religious right's stance on the death penalty considering they like to bring up the morality issue when it comes to public policy.

 

Hey, sorry you may already have the answer you wanted, but I got busy with work....

To me, the 2 types of law are intertwined... The Bible says not to steal because it is immoral, very true.. but man's law says not to because it isn't yours, that makes it immoral for you to take it....In my little mind, they are the same, just fewer words. I am probably wrong, but it's what gets me thru the day.
All man's laws can be traced back to the top 10....in one form or another.

 

That is such TRIPE and such a unfounded conception. It ranks up there with Separation of Church and State LIE.

First of all, men have been killing other men since, well Cain and Abel. The Crusades if you would choose to read a history book (several is a better option) was in response to the Islamic movement of Mohammad in the 7th Century push across Asia and Europe. Taking back what was once theirs was the "Crusades"....but in todays society, that's NOT PC to say. Hmmm, looks similiar to what's happening today with Mohammads Islam...but that's another history lesson..

A man breaks into your home and steals your coat, shirt, pants, shoes, hat and leaves. Once gone, the thief robs a bank wearing the clothes he stole from you. The police come to your door and arrest you for robbing the bank. You say obviously it was not you. The police say....it looked like you, your hat, your shirt, coat, shoes....Nope it was you! You respond....It may have LOOKED like me on the outside...but on the inside it was not me. They may have LOOKED like Christians....BUT