Capital punishment

[eta34]

Sorry, Barang. I think you would be hard pressed to prove it is a command. David, Moses, and Cain all committed murder and were not put to death.

[socal m1 shooter]

Even vicious serial murderer Ted Bundy was trying to bargain for his life when he was executed. He murdered so many, yet he didn’t want to die himself. [...]

Yet there were some who believed that Bundy was saved before he was executed. James Dobson was the last interview Bundy granted, just the night before his execution, and Dobson has gone on the record saying that Bundy's conversion was sincere. You can watch the interview on YT and see for yourself. Of course, Dobson can't see the heart, but what did Bundy stand to gain by making a false show of repentance? It was reported that he spent the night after the interview, before he was executed, in prayer with a minister.

[...]

That said, I know Capital punishment is against Gods law. He commanded “Thou shall not kill!”

Before a person attempts to apply the Bible, they should be clear on what it meant to the original audience, how the original audience understood it. As observed upthread, there is a difference between killing and murder.

There are two different Hebrew words (ratsakh, mut) and two Greek words (phoneuo, apokteino) for “murder” and “killing.” One means “to put to death,” and the other means “to murder.” The latter one is the one prohibited by the Ten Commandments, not the former. In fact, ratsakh has a broader definition than the English word “murder.” Ratsakh also covers deaths due to carelessness or neglect but is never used when describing killing during wartime. That is why most modern translations render the sixth commandment “You shall not murder” rather than “You shall not kill.” However, a very large issue can arise depending on which translation one studies. The ever-popular King James Version renders the verse as “Thou shalt not kill,” therefore opening the door to misinterpreting the verse altogether. If the intended meaning of “Thou shalt not kill” was just that—no killing—it would render all of the God-endorsed bloodletting done by the nation of Israel a violation of God’s own commandment (Deuteronomy 20). But God does not break His own commandments, so, clearly, the verse does not call for a complete moratorium on the taking of another human life.
[...] Source.

[...]
Some groups just don't want the Bible to get in the way of their beliefs.

The Bible is thoroughly filled with internal cross-references, and the Carrie Nations are guilty of taking scripture out of context, in the same way southerners around the time of the Civil War turned to scripture to support slavery.

About a decade ago a professor of computer science partnered with a pastor to create an illustration of more than 63,000 Bible cross-references. A low-resolution version of this image is below.



Most believers, particularly in North America, have very little direct knowledge of the Bible, and this surprises them. J. Vernon McGee wrote “The greatest sin today in the church is the man sitting in the pew who is ignorant of the Bible,” and repeated that in one form or another many, many times in his writings and messages. I'm sure he had a good reason for putting so much emphasis on that.

Sorry, Barang. I think you would be hard pressed to prove it is a command. David, Moses, and Cain all committed murder and were not put to death.

David and Moses are notable for coming after the command given in Genesis 9:6.

[Barang]

Sorry, Barang. I think you would be hard pressed to prove it is a command. David, Moses, and Cain all committed murder and were not put to death.

i don't have to prove it. God said it so i will not disagree with my Creator. consider new testament's "for the wages of sin is death." yet Enoch and Elijah didn't see death but were taken up to heaven.

God will show mercy to those He chooses and He uses people to accomplish His plan. We can ask Him later when we get to heaven but in the meantime, His Word is final.

[tsmithson]

Lots of different principles have been touched upon In this thread.

Is capital punishment morally consistent with the Gospel of Christ?
We need a correct understanding of things as they really are to better answer that question.

Jesus Christ as a spirit was the God speaking in the Old Testament to Moses.
Jesus in his progression to become like his Father(The God of the universe “God The Father”). Jesus Christ was born of God The Father and Mary. He received a body, died and his spirit went to the spirit world for 3 days, then was Resurrected back Into his dead body that was Eternally Glorified through the power of the Resurrection but still had the marks of his crucifixion.
We as eternal spirit children of God The Father through the Atonement And Resurrection of Christ are on the same progression to become like our Father.
Our spirits are eternal and will never die or disorganize into nothing.

God is the God of LOVE and loves all his children. Death in this life is part of the plan and as all who are born to this earth will be Resurrected to their body’s again and live eternally, the consequences of the fall of Adam are overcome with Christ.

When the God of LOVE flooded the earth he did it because he loved his disobedient children. When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed it was because God loved them. He is the God of LOVE and will always love and do what is best for his children.

God is not mocked whatsoever a man sows so shall he reap.

Death is one way God stops his children from heaping more Negative consequences upon themselves, their children and others.
It took me awhile to learn this principle. Ponder and pray about it.

The death penalty is merciful when needed. Prison can be a slow torture.
Solitary Confinement is a form of torture.
The God of LOVE knows how to help his children when they are beyond our help.

[Sailormilan2]

Before a person attempts to apply the Bible, they should be clear on what it meant to the original audience, how the original audience understood it. As observed upthread, there is a difference between killing and murder.

Most believers, particularly in North America, have very little direct knowledge of the Bible, and this surprises them

Completely agreed with.

[The War Wagon]

Armed Lutheran Radio is producing a book on "Amed Lutheran Apologetics," in which I know the 5th Commandment, Ex.22: 2, and several other pertinent verses will be covered. I'm looking forward to seeing how they treat this subject in particular.

[GM4spd]

A lot of good discussion and I go with the pro capital punishment crowd but this is a difficult one. If you think of CP as avenging a wrong,it doesn’t really work. Hebrews 10:30 “ Vengeance is mine,I will repay”. Even if CP is wrong,it does eliminate second offenders but I’m not sure that is a legitimate argument from a Biblical point of view. I do know a lot of people get the terminology wrong,the
Bible says “ thou shall not murder”, it doesn’t say “ thou shall not kill”. Huge difference.

[Rizzo]

You reap what you sow.
and...
Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Those pretty much cover it.

[Dave Hoback]

[QUOTE=socal m1 shooter;24296102]Before a person attempts to apply the Bible, they should be clear on what it meant to the original audience, how the original audience understood it. As observed upthread, there is a difference between killing and murder. /QUOTE]

All of God’s children are the ORIGIONAL audience. How anybody “understands” scripture has no bearing on the message. There are those God has given The Spirit & those without. But none of us have it completely right. None can understand God’s Word beyond what He reveals to His children.

I don’t believe there is a difference in God’s eyes. They are both the result of sin. It’s part of man’s law where the difference comes in. There is only ONE unforgivable sin. And murder itself isn’t the one. Those who have The Spirit know.

[mtenenhaus]

It's so hard for me to know what's right or how to best answer this question....i was a biochemist at one point in my life and when faced with an academic challenge or biochemical query one of our early considerations in addressing the problem would be to try and establish the "rate limiting step" and "pertinent variables".

tragically there have been more than a few instances of people found to be innocent after the fact

similarly one would be remiss to neglect cultural, emotional and principled biases which come into play particularly as sensibilities, dogma and people evolve.

there was a time when educated leaders, authorities, courts and religions considered failure to convert to the religion du jour merited death. witches were identified and murdered. epileptics tortured and murdered. today hopefully we would agree these death sentences were more than unjust, inappropriate and horrible.

i imagine that generations from now we will appear and prove to be as primitive and biased as prior generations were judged or noted to be.

[Dave Hoback]

It's so hard for me to know what's right or how to best answer this question....i was a biochemist at one point in my life and when faced with an academic challenge or biochemical query one of our early considerations in addressing the problem would be to try and establish the "rate limiting step" and "pertinent variables".

tragically there have been more than a few instances of people found to be innocent after the fact

similarly one would be remiss to neglect cultural, emotional and principled biases which come into play particularly as sensibilities, dogma and people evolve.

there was a time when educated leaders, authorities, courts and religions considered failure to convert to the religion du jour merited death. witches were identified and murdered. epileptics tortured and murdered. today hopefully we would agree these death sentences were more than unjust, inappropriate and horrible.

i imagine that generations from now we will appear and prove to be as primitive and biased as prior generations were judged or noted to be.

This is well thought & expressed, however it is assuming future generations becoming more knowledgeable of right vs wrong & coming more to a moral center. Yet Scripture has already outlined the end days returning to the time of Noah. Evil upon evil. This is where we are heading.

[socal m1 shooter]

Before a person attempts to apply the Bible, they should be clear on what it meant to the original audience, how the original audience understood it. As observed upthread, there is a difference between killing and murder.

The points you are trying to make are unclear to me.

Your first paragraph seems to be saying that we should ignore thousands of years of careful study of the Word of God and just go with what we believe He reveals personally to us, or what seems good to each of us. This is not wise, not to mention improper. I'm not trying to straw-man you, but I think it is incorrect to take a command like "you shall not boil a young goat in its mother's milk," [Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, Deuteronomy 14:21] and disregard the context, and maintain that this is something we need to be careful to obey today.

Among those who follow Jesus of Nazareth, there are widely accepted methods of hermeneutics (methods of interpreting scripture) which have developed over time. To discard that effort is not just anti-intellectual, it is also a poor witness, and is disobedient to the Word of God.

When we read the writings of Paul, who is a great example of "rightly handling the word of truth," it is plain that he knew the scripture, and, having studied it carefully, knew what it meant and how it applied. Paul's writings are filled with citations of OT passages.

Dennis Prager could not have been clearer in the video linked upthread, which you apparently did not watch; if the commandment was correctly rendered in English as "do not kill," as you claim, then does that not make God an author of confusion (contrary to scripture), since he clearly commanded Israel to kill the inhabitants of various cities in Canaan as they advanced into the promised land?

Regarding your second paragraph, what does the unforgivable sin have to do with capital punishment?

It's so hard for me to know what's right or how to best answer this question....i was a biochemist at one point in my life and when faced with an academic challenge or biochemical query one of our early considerations in addressing the problem would be to try and establish the "rate limiting step" and "pertinent variables".

tragically there have been more than a few instances of people found to be innocent after the fact

similarly one would be remiss to neglect cultural, emotional and principled biases which come into play particularly as sensibilities, dogma and people evolve.

there was a time when educated leaders, authorities, courts and religions considered failure to convert to the religion du jour merited death. witches were identified and murdered. epileptics tortured and murdered. today hopefully we would agree these death sentences were more than unjust, inappropriate and horrible.

i imagine that generations from now we will appear and prove to be as primitive and biased as prior generations were judged or noted to be.

I'm sorry but I am not tracking you here, either. Are you suggesting that because human attempts at justice can't achieve perfection, we should give up on human attempts at justice? Or, are you suggesting that morality is relative? Or, we should decide on what is moral based on how we suppose future generations will regard us?