-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
K
I would agree with you except for the obey part, because the Word of God says to obey Him over man.
So if man's laws contradict His then we are to not obey man's law over His, and Revelation shows a clear showing about the believers who follow the AC. It says those believers will not receive eternal life !!!
Responding to the original 4 questions;
I support the theory of capital punishment even if the practice of it needs improvement.
It does not reflect either old or new covenant because our government is not part of those covenants, it is not a christian theocracy, it is secular and governs a group of mixed religious views. IMO the only way a government can be based on the new covenant, is if Jesus has set it up and runs it personally as king.
If a human gov't doesn't know the person is innocent and kills them with good intentions and good protocol, it's a tragic accident with similarities to manslaughter. But if the gov't knows they are innocent or has not used good intentions and protocol, then it has similarities to murder. But condemning a government isn't something for people to do casually if they have never had to serve in authority over many people or make life/death decisions with dangerous individuals.
It seems your position is that the life of a few innocents is more important than the death of however many murderers. Given that there are prison escapes and other non-murderous inmates that are vulnerable to violence from these people, you seem to be taking the route that is easiest for your conscience, which is nonintervention. The wrongly-convicted are important, but so are the others who are at risk because of the rightly-convicted, so are the ones who were already murdered by those convicts, and justice itself matters for the sanity of society.
Also, posing this as a pro-life question is disingenuous since you can't be ignorant of how most people use that term. Comparing babies to murder convicts is apples to oranges x1000. The spiritual value of life is inherent, but the right to life is an expression of our agreement on eachothers' value, and when someone takes a life wrongfully they have 'canceled' their agreement.
I support the theory of capital punishment even if the practice of it needs improvement.
It does not reflect either old or new covenant because our government is not part of those covenants, it is not a christian theocracy, it is secular and governs a group of mixed religious views. IMO the only way a government can be based on the new covenant, is if Jesus has set it up and runs it personally as king.
If a human gov't doesn't know the person is innocent and kills them with good intentions and good protocol, it's a tragic accident with similarities to manslaughter. But if the gov't knows they are innocent or has not used good intentions and protocol, then it has similarities to murder. But condemning a government isn't something for people to do casually if they have never had to serve in authority over many people or make life/death decisions with dangerous individuals.
It seems your position is that the life of a few innocents is more important than the death of however many murderers. Given that there are prison escapes and other non-murderous inmates that are vulnerable to violence from these people, you seem to be taking the route that is easiest for your conscience, which is nonintervention. The wrongly-convicted are important, but so are the others who are at risk because of the rightly-convicted, so are the ones who were already murdered by those convicts, and justice itself matters for the sanity of society.
Also, posing this as a pro-life question is disingenuous since you can't be ignorant of how most people use that term. Comparing babies to murder convicts is apples to oranges x1000. The spiritual value of life is inherent, but the right to life is an expression of our agreement on eachothers' value, and when someone takes a life wrongfully they have 'canceled' their agreement.
It's also worth noting that this and other posts by the OP seem to be based on 'the exception as the norm', which is to say, take the worst thing that rarely happens and use it to invalidate or ignore the many times things worked as intended. In this case, making society safer by irreversibly removing killers. Say it works 99 times and fails 1 time, such a person will say, the 99 mean nothing because of the 1. Or as Spock wouldn't say, 'the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many'.
This does not mean changing times don't require a review of how we determine guilt and prevent corruption or ineptitude from taking innocent lives. But in principle, it isn't wrong to kill in self-defense of in defense of those you are responsible for protecting, and capital punishment is an extension of this on a larger scale.
This does not mean changing times don't require a review of how we determine guilt and prevent corruption or ineptitude from taking innocent lives. But in principle, it isn't wrong to kill in self-defense of in defense of those you are responsible for protecting, and capital punishment is an extension of this on a larger scale.
K
I never made a greater than, less than, or equal to when concerning the worth of a life. I've only ever said innocent lives matter and we should err with caution.
Locking someone in prison, segregated from the general population isn't "nonintervention".
You're implying justice can only be served by executing these potentially innocent inmates. Locking them up and separating them from general population sounds like punishment to me. Would you like to "not be punished" and be locked up in prison forever?
When you say innocent lives matter followed by a "but", it really just means "forget what I just said, and listen to what I'm about to say now..."
Also, posing this as a pro-life question is disingenuous since you can't be ignorant of how most people use that term. Comparing babies to murder convicts is apples to oranges x1000. The spiritual value of life is inherent, but the right to life is an expression of our agreement on eachothers' value, and when someone takes a life wrongfully they have 'canceled' their agreement.
What is disingenuous about wanting to use the term "pro-life" in reference to people who oppose killing life? Someone who supports the death penalty is pro-death, just as someone who supports abortion. I think the real reason you object to using this term is because it reminds you of abortions. Perhaps you see the hypocrisy in man ending one life in the case of the unborn but feel it's justifiable for man to take vengeance into his own hands by supporting capital punishment (without knowing with 100% certainty the person is truly guilty).
Locking someone in prison, segregated from the general population isn't "nonintervention".
You're implying justice can only be served by executing these potentially innocent inmates. Locking them up and separating them from general population sounds like punishment to me. Would you like to "not be punished" and be locked up in prison forever?
When you say innocent lives matter followed by a "but", it really just means "forget what I just said, and listen to what I'm about to say now..."
Also, posing this as a pro-life question is disingenuous since you can't be ignorant of how most people use that term. Comparing babies to murder convicts is apples to oranges x1000. The spiritual value of life is inherent, but the right to life is an expression of our agreement on eachothers' value, and when someone takes a life wrongfully they have 'canceled' their agreement.
What is disingenuous about wanting to use the term "pro-life" in reference to people who oppose killing life? Someone who supports the death penalty is pro-death, just as someone who supports abortion. I think the real reason you object to using this term is because it reminds you of abortions. Perhaps you see the hypocrisy in man ending one life in the case of the unborn but feel it's justifiable for man to take vengeance into his own hands by supporting capital punishment (without knowing with 100% certainty the person is truly guilty).
L
I'm pro-life but have had to behave in a non pro-life manner. I saw overseas action while in the military and I took lives as a part of my duties. Each one of them bothered me and still do to this day. While incarcerated, I was attacked by a fellow inmate and had to defend myself and ended up killing him - this one never bothered me a bit.
I think every life has value, and because I do, it's hard to rationalize that I have ended other mens' lives prematurely.
As for the abortion issue - I'm not going near that topic with a 10 foot pole.
I think every life has value, and because I do, it's hard to rationalize that I have ended other mens' lives prematurely.
As for the abortion issue - I'm not going near that topic with a 10 foot pole.
You didn't make the statement, but it's implied when you focus so much on the wrongly convicted and not on the rightly convicted and all the lives they effect.
In terms of killing it's nonintervention. Or less intervention. There is a certain action, a certain form of intervention, that you have qualms about, and therefore you want it thrown out completely it seems, rather than struggle with the nuance to see the benefits of it or find a better way to do it.
The more separated they are, the more difficult their existence is, generally speaking. Total isolation is mental torture. There is no way to completely remove the risk a killer poses to others besides killing them, and I don't see society is obligated to bear that risk. Reciprocal justice is good in many cases.
That's a poor attempt at twisting my words. 'Innocent lives' includes every group I mentioned, which seem to be groups you don't consider.
It's disingenuous because of a false equivalence which I already explained.
To many people capital punishment is not about vengeance so much as safety, protection, fairness and resolution. Sometimes lives in this imperfect world compete and will not coexist, and you have to choose one life over another. If the death of someone who can't stop killing, means the life of others, then being pro-life to the others is being pro-death to the killer.
In terms of killing it's nonintervention. Or less intervention. There is a certain action, a certain form of intervention, that you have qualms about, and therefore you want it thrown out completely it seems, rather than struggle with the nuance to see the benefits of it or find a better way to do it.
The more separated they are, the more difficult their existence is, generally speaking. Total isolation is mental torture. There is no way to completely remove the risk a killer poses to others besides killing them, and I don't see society is obligated to bear that risk. Reciprocal justice is good in many cases.
That's a poor attempt at twisting my words. 'Innocent lives' includes every group I mentioned, which seem to be groups you don't consider.
It's disingenuous because of a false equivalence which I already explained.
To many people capital punishment is not about vengeance so much as safety, protection, fairness and resolution. Sometimes lives in this imperfect world compete and will not coexist, and you have to choose one life over another. If the death of someone who can't stop killing, means the life of others, then being pro-life to the others is being pro-death to the killer.
Last edited:
U
Wow this is a great question....I'm for capital punishment, and I know it's an OT thing. Some innocent people do die for others crimes but I think the vast majority of people who are on death row probably deserve it. Most are unrepentant, sadomasochist, hard-hearted type who don't feel remorse for killing others and are best done away with so as not to threaten greater society. I think the good outweighs the bad, get rid of one life to save 1000 lives right?
S
I am totally for capital punishment, but come on! I don't believe even you buy that load of crap! lol
It is totally about vengeance and retribution. There might be a handful of people that say it's to "protect other criminals within prison" but do you really think a significant portion of people care about criminals in prison? I'm unapologetic about ending the life of the wicked the way the bible says to do.
Execute the murderers, rapist, homosexuals, etc... and let God sort them out. No apologies.
It is totally about vengeance and retribution. There might be a handful of people that say it's to "protect other criminals within prison" but do you really think a significant portion of people care about criminals in prison? I'm unapologetic about ending the life of the wicked the way the bible says to do.
Execute the murderers, rapist, homosexuals, etc... and let God sort them out. No apologies.
Yeah, like others have pointed out. Your misrepresenting people's beliefs. For that reason, I won't vote in your poll.
Pro-Life means your against abortion which means your against the murdering of an innocent baby.
Being for capital punishment means that your for punishing criminals that deserve death for their crimes.
There's a difference in context here.
Pro-Life means your against abortion which means your against the murdering of an innocent baby.
Being for capital punishment means that your for punishing criminals that deserve death for their crimes.
There's a difference in context here.
K
Can you tell me one person's beliefs that I've "misrepresented? That is quite a claim.
Pro-life means you value the sanctity of life. It means that only God is authorized to give and take life in regard to the born and the unborn, especially when there is less than 100% certainty of guilt.
It is so humorous how people think the term "pro-life" is exclusive to mean you only value the unborn and not the born. It means you value both!
Pro = for, life = anyone living, death = to kill
Pro-life means you value the sanctity of life. It means that only God is authorized to give and take life in regard to the born and the unborn, especially when there is less than 100% certainty of guilt.
It is so humorous how people think the term "pro-life" is exclusive to mean you only value the unborn and not the born. It means you value both!
Pro = for, life = anyone living, death = to kill
K
I'm sorry, you should go back and reread the thread. I've focused on both the wrongly convicted and the reasonably convicted. I've said that unless and until you have 100% knowledge and proof that someone did the crime, we should err with caution and choose life. It's better to let a guilty man stay in prison for life than it is to shed the blood of an innocent person.
This doesn't even make sense. "In terms of killing" it's nonintervention? What does that even mean? We are talking about the punishment and how that is a form of intervention. Your view point appears to stand that it's not intervention (or less intervention??) if someone found guilty is sent to prison for life. What is it then if it's not the government intervening and casting down a harsh, but reasonable, sentence?
This doesn't even make sense. "In terms of killing" it's nonintervention? What does that even mean? We are talking about the punishment and how that is a form of intervention. Your view point appears to stand that it's not intervention (or less intervention??) if someone found guilty is sent to prison for life. What is it then if it's not the government intervening and casting down a harsh, but reasonable, sentence?
K
As one of your fellow pro-death penalty posters already mentioned, this sounds like a desperate attempt at justifying man taking vengeance in his own hands.
No, it's actually a very common rebuttal to people who say "but" after half hardheartedly validating the opposing concern (which is for the wrongly convicted and the potentially innocent people lives matter). You commit the same crime you accuse me of by ignoring the innocent lives taken and focus on the times you most likely got it right. We call that "cherry picking".
No, it's actually a very common rebuttal to people who say "but" after half hardheartedly validating the opposing concern (which is for the wrongly convicted and the potentially innocent people lives matter). You commit the same crime you accuse me of by ignoring the innocent lives taken and focus on the times you most likely got it right. We call that "cherry picking".
K
I made no such equivalence other than repeating what the bible says about life, that it is sacred and important. I never compared a "guilty person's" life to that of the "unborn". If I have, copy/paste it please.
See above. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt your concern is primarily for the inmates in prison as much as it is you wanting "intervention". Which, we have already established that the only form of legitimate intervention is to put them to death; locking them up is not intervention (or less intervention???).
See above. I could be wrong, but I highly doubt your concern is primarily for the inmates in prison as much as it is you wanting "intervention". Which, we have already established that the only form of legitimate intervention is to put them to death; locking them up is not intervention (or less intervention???).
It's not really possible to have 100% knowledge and proof. The justice system will make mistakes because it is a human system. And it's not possible to err on the side of caution if there's things to be cautious about on both sides. Some arguing for death penalty are also being cautious about the risks involved in keeping a murderer alive.
it means what I explained it to mean. instead of making a difficult decision about who is dangerous enough to be better off dead, you want to avoid that decision altogether.
ah, another instance of you handwaving away my point so you don't have to think about it. why not just write a blog where no one can comment, if you think only you can have a sincere opinion? Do you prefer to think everyone who disagrees with you only has simple, evil motivations?
All this pedantics falls flat, because I'm focusing on the norm, you're focusing on the exception. And I am focusing on the whole of innocent lives instead of narrowly focusing on one group of innocent lives. If there are more innocent lives in those other groups I mentioned, then your argument is sunk. However if you had statistics saying 50% of death row inmates are innocent, then you'd be making more sense, saying it does more harm than good.
"Someone who supports the death penalty is pro-death, just as someone who supports abortion." Inversely you seem to hold that being pro-life means being against abortion and against death penalty. If that is your belief, it creates a sort of equivalence. You're associating the ethical situation of the unborn, with the ethical situation of those on deathrow. It takes a very simplistic black-and-white perspective to do that.
As for the bible, there is lots and lots of condoned killing in it. Clearly the sacredness of life is not a universal constant in the bible.
And this thread seems to be more about what you think about all those cold-hearted bloodthirsty capital punishers, than about actually reducing loss of innocent life when it comes to accused murderers.
You can make all the assumptions about me (an internet stranger) you want, it's not going to further a reasonable argument or change anyone's mind.
You say "It's better to let a guilty man stay in prison for life than it is to shed the blood of an innocent person." This heavily depends on how often an innocent person dies on death row and how often convicted murderers take lives after conviction. So do you have statistics relating to this?
it means what I explained it to mean. instead of making a difficult decision about who is dangerous enough to be better off dead, you want to avoid that decision altogether.
ah, another instance of you handwaving away my point so you don't have to think about it. why not just write a blog where no one can comment, if you think only you can have a sincere opinion? Do you prefer to think everyone who disagrees with you only has simple, evil motivations?
All this pedantics falls flat, because I'm focusing on the norm, you're focusing on the exception. And I am focusing on the whole of innocent lives instead of narrowly focusing on one group of innocent lives. If there are more innocent lives in those other groups I mentioned, then your argument is sunk. However if you had statistics saying 50% of death row inmates are innocent, then you'd be making more sense, saying it does more harm than good.
"Someone who supports the death penalty is pro-death, just as someone who supports abortion." Inversely you seem to hold that being pro-life means being against abortion and against death penalty. If that is your belief, it creates a sort of equivalence. You're associating the ethical situation of the unborn, with the ethical situation of those on deathrow. It takes a very simplistic black-and-white perspective to do that.
As for the bible, there is lots and lots of condoned killing in it. Clearly the sacredness of life is not a universal constant in the bible.
And this thread seems to be more about what you think about all those cold-hearted bloodthirsty capital punishers, than about actually reducing loss of innocent life when it comes to accused murderers.
You can make all the assumptions about me (an internet stranger) you want, it's not going to further a reasonable argument or change anyone's mind.
You say "It's better to let a guilty man stay in prison for life than it is to shed the blood of an innocent person." This heavily depends on how often an innocent person dies on death row and how often convicted murderers take lives after conviction. So do you have statistics relating to this?
Last edited:
Ever fought in a war and killed some on the other side? If so, was it always about how angry you were at them? Or was it about protecting your buddies and getting out alive? Killing isn't just about vengeance, especially for people who have to do it often and stay sane afterwards.
In any case your post is a waste of words because you don't know me, and regardless of anyone's motivations, the point I made stands on its own if it is accurate, as I consider it to be.
As for people caring about criminals in prison, everyone who opposes the death penalty ostensibly cares about people in prison, even if it's in a misguided way. And as much as they might think so, they aren't the only ones.
In any case your post is a waste of words because you don't know me, and regardless of anyone's motivations, the point I made stands on its own if it is accurate, as I consider it to be.
As for people caring about criminals in prison, everyone who opposes the death penalty ostensibly cares about people in prison, even if it's in a misguided way. And as much as they might think so, they aren't the only ones.