[tlj009]

Of course they did not.

The penalty for not being a virgin on your wedding night was death.
The "proof" was an accusation by a groom, and your inability to prove he was lying.

Unless you are prepared to support the execution of women who are not virgins on their wedding night based on a single accusation: you are cherry picking.

You do not follow the old law. The old law was not given to you. You do not even support the universal application of the old law. Don't appeal to the old law to assert we should do something.

This post has almost nothing to do with what I posted. My point was that the one government that God established had the death penalty and the innocents received that penalty at that time. That seems to imply that God is not opposed to governments having the death penalty even if it an innocent person dies as a result. So any claim that God is opposed to the death penalty has to explain that away somehow.

[tlj009]

God also punished Israel for spilling innocent blood.

Yes.

God also says that he is the avenger of those who are treated unjustly. Do you really want to be on the side that God says he is going to take vengeance on?

No. But tell me, is the false witness in the wrong or the judge that sentences according to the false testimony? And why pick on the death penalty? A life imprisonment for an innocent person is also unjust. Really, any punishment for the innocent, no matter what the crime, is unjust.

By that I mean to say this, if we (as a nation) knowingly prop up a system that it is clear is executing innocent people along with the guilty, do you want to be on the side that says "yes, lets keep it up for the sake of getting the guilty ones" even though God calls that an abomination and a perversion of justice?

All systems punish the innocent to an extent because people are corrupt, incompetent, or just plain ignorant. I don't think that God calls mistakes an abomination and a perversion of justice. I believe that is reserved for the ones that are corrupt and actually make a perversion of justice.

Also, God states that our judgements should be righteous. Is it righteous to say that we should continue with the death penalty in order to kill the guilty and we will accept the loss of a few innocent people in order to make us feel safer?

The same case could be made for any punishment at all. But the answer is yes. As long as every possible thing has been done to ensure to separate the innocent from the guilty then yes. The trouble is that I don't think that is happening. But it isn't really the systems fault as much as it is the people who are running the system. It is corruption that I am opposed to. And that seems to be what the Bible opposes. So slap_j's position of opposing the death penalty because he thinks the punishment is too harsh within a system as corrupt as ours makes sense to me. Opposing it because God requires zero mistakes within the system makes no sense at all.

All of my examples here are straight up OT. I havnt even begun to touch NT material. And I have to be up in a few hours for work, so it doesnt look like Ill be able to. But I think just hitting a little OT material was enough to make my point(s).


1. Killing people unjustly is an abomination to God. As Christians we cant support it.
2. God has said he is the avenger of those that society unjustly mistreats. Im not certain how this would work out for a christian who opresses the weak, but Id rather not be on the side that God is raining down vengeance on.
3. Our judgements should be righteous. Its not righteous to kill the innocent along with the guilty, or to say that the risk of such is acceptable. Though at this point I think its safe to say that we know that innocent people are being executed along with the guilty. You really cant deny that at this point.

1. You must define "unjustly". And I contend that it isn't the system as much as it is some of the people. If someone dies because of a witness's lies, then it isn't the system, it is the liar who is at fault and who will be punished for it.

2. It isn't oppressing the weak to try and bring justice to a society. It is the actual oppression of the weak that God will avenge. Examples include false witnesses and double standards (rich powerful or whatever). Gross incompetence may even fall into that category. But all of those are already against the law. So the real task would be to work to bring those people's crimes to light rather than seeking to end one specific punishment.

3. Our judgments are to be righteous. This is true. But we aren't exactly rounding people up and executing them either. There is a trial. The trial is before a jury. There are multiple appeals. I understand that the system isn't perfect. I understand that people are corrupt. But I don't think that God requires a system to be perfect in order to have the death penalty. I don't think that Israel was perfect. Do we have a worse system than they had? If not, then claiming that God opposes they death penalty in our system doesn't seem to be a good argument. If we are worse, then is it the system or merely the level of corruption within the system?

Obviously there is some circumstance in which God views the death penalty as acceptable. So I have two questions:

1. What makes ours fail to qualify (but not ancient Israel)?
2. Why do your arguments only apply to the death penalty?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

This post has almost nothing to do with what I posted. My point was that the one government that God established had the death penalty and the innocents received that penalty at that time. That seems to imply that God is not opposed to governments having the death penalty even if it an innocent person dies as a result.

Nor opposed to killing women who cannot disprove a single man's claim that they are not a virgin... yet you woud (I hope) oppose such legislation.

Hence, the standard you appeal to is not actually one you support.

No. But tell me, is the false witness in the wrong or the judge that sentences according to the false testimony? And why pick on the death penalty? A life imprisonment for an innocent person is also unjust. Really, any punishment for the innocent, no matter what the crime, is unjust.

Of course, and I believe far too many people get convicted in general.

The reasons for picking on the death penalty have been clearly and repetedly enumerated:
1) It cannot be reversed later.
2) There is a perfectly viable alternative which does not suffer from problem "1" above.

Removing incarceration in general is problematic due to the lack of an equally viable alternative.

All systems punish the innocent to an extent because people are corrupt, incompetent, or just plain ignorant. I don't think that God calls mistakes an abomination and a perversion of justice. I believe that is reserved for the ones that are corrupt and actually make a perversion of justice.

Which doesn't help the innocent person in question. Protecting the innocent, and not supporting unneccessairy hardship on them, is my goal in this position.

The same case could be made for any punishment at all.

You are absolutely right. Which is why I universally oppose punishment (it's a type of vengance).

The case cannot, however, be made for incarceration: the reason being a lack of a viable alternative.

But the answer is yes. As long as every possible thing has been done to ensure to separate the innocent from the guilty then yes. The trouble is that I don't think that is happening. But it isn't really the systems fault as much as it is the people who are running the system. It is corruption that I am opposed to.

The system is flawed and those flaws should be worked on.

But now that you've aknowledged that the system *is* flawed: why would you continue with an action (execution) which can only be fairly done in a perfect system which you've already said isn't the case?

1. You must define "unjustly". And I contend that it isn't the system as much as it is some of the people. If someone dies because of a witness's lies, then it isn't the system, it is the liar who is at fault and who will be punished for it.

Witnesses *do* lie. More signifigantly witnesses *are* often wrong. Courts *do* convict for the wrong reasons. It *does* happen.

Knowing that for a fact: why would you support execution?

2. It isn't oppressing the weak to try and bring justice to a society. It is the actual oppression of the weak that God will avenge.

I don't want my unjust death avenged by god... I want my unjust death avoided by a well considered legal system out to protect me.

Obviously there is some circumstance in which God views the death penalty as acceptable. So I have two questions:

1. What makes ours fail to qualify (but not ancient Israel)?
2. Why do your arguments only apply to the death penalty?

1) You don't support the death penalty as required by the old testement. Please stop appealing to something you don't actually support.
2) They may not *only* apply to the death penalty, but they apply specifically to it as opposed to general incarceration because a) It's not reversable and b) it's not neccessairy.

[tlj009]

Nor opposed to killing women who cannot disprove a single man's claim that they are not a virgin... yet you woud (I hope) oppose such legislation.

Hence, the standard you appeal to is not actually one you support.

How exactly is pointing out the fact that God established a government that employed the death penalty not support my claim that God is not anti-death penalty? And how does an example of an innocent woman receiving the death penalty in ancient Israel not support my claim that their percentage of innocent/guilty who received the death penalty probably wasn't any better than ours? I think that you missed my entire argument.

Of course, and I believe far too many people get convicted in general.

The reasons for picking on the death penalty have been clearly and repetedly enumerated:
1) It cannot be reversed later.
2) There is a perfectly viable alternative which does not suffer from problem "1" above.

Removing incarceration in general is problematic due to the lack of an equally viable alternative.

Imprisonment can't be reversed.

1. If found out sooner rather than later it may be mitigated but not reversed.
2. I am not sure that life imprisonment for an innocent person is that great of an alternative.

But what I get out of your answer is that the death penalty seems a lot worse to most people so there should be no mistakes in regards to it. Mistakes in regards to the other penalties isn't near as bad.

Which doesn't help the innocent person in question. Protecting the innocent, and not supporting unneccessairy hardship on them, is my goal in this position.

Yeah......I wasn't addressing your position. And I never claimed that it helped the innocent person in question.

You are absolutely right. Which is why I universally oppose punishment (it's a type of vengance).

The case cannot, however, be made for incarceration: the reason being a lack of a viable alternative.

Again I was referring to Demon_Hunter's arguments, not yours. His argument revolved around why God doesn't approve of the death penalty. And his arguments about God not liking injustice tends to apply to every punishment including incarceration.

The system is flawed and those flaws should be worked on.

But now that you've aknowledged that the system *is* flawed: why would you continue with an action (execution) which can only be fairly done in a perfect system which you've already said isn't the case?

Because there would be no speeding tickets, imprisonment, or anything if we insisted on a perfect system. What makes you think that the death penalty is more unfair than anything else? I accepted the fact that we are living in a sinful world a long time ago. Because of that no system will be perfect. I just don't place the death penalty in a special category above all other injustices.

Witnesses *do* lie. More signifigantly witnesses *are* often wrong. Courts *do* convict for the wrong reasons. It *does* happen.

Knowing that for a fact: why would you support execution?

Same reasons that I support imprisonment.

I don't want my unjust death avenged by god... I want my unjust death avoided by a well considered legal system out to protect me.

OK. But I wasn't addressing you.

1) You don't support the death penalty as required by the old testement. Please stop appealing to something you don't actually support.
2) They may not *only* apply to the death penalty, but they apply specifically to it as opposed to general incarceration because a) It's not reversable and b) it's not neccessairy.

1) Back off until you actually figure out what my argument is.
2) I wasn't addressing your arguments.
a) Incarceration is not "reversible".
b) Nothing is absolutely "necessary".

[Demon_Hunter]

I dont have time right at the moment to respond to your post(s) in full. That said, until I can (later, or tommorow probably) suffice it to say that Jerry and I are basically on the same page. Even if your questions were directed at me, I think Jerry did a good job adressing most of what I find to be my concerns/objections to the death penalty.


1. You can release a person from prison.
1b. You cant undo an execution.

2. If the system is admittedly flawed, then we should remove the most agregious points of error. Right now, that is the death penalty. We know at this point that we are killing innocent people. God calls this perversion and abominable.

On a tangent, I am reading through the OT right now, and Ive just gotten to the halfway point in the book of Jeremiah, and in this one book alone God mentions several times the sheding of innocent blood being one of the PRIMARY reasons for his punishment of Israel. The only other thing that I see more commonly than that as the reason God gives for the repeated punishment of Israel is their worship of false gods.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

How exactly is pointing out the fact that God established a government that employed the death penalty not support my claim that God is not anti-death penalty? And how does an example of an innocent woman receiving the death penalty in ancient Israel not support my claim that their percentage of innocent/guilty who received the death penalty probably wasn't any better than ours? I think that you missed my entire argument.

You are using God's support of the death penalty in Isreal to support the death penalty now. This is hypocritical because you simultaniously would not support other portions of those same laws.

Imprisonment can't be reversed.

A sentance can be prematurely ended. While past time cannot be given back, the future can. This is not possible with someone executed.

1. If found out sooner rather than later it may be mitigated but not reversed.
2. I am not sure that life imprisonment for an innocent person is that great of an alternative.

Such a question would be best resolved with a survey of people on death row... or at least a look at how many tried to get life rather than executions.

But what I get out of your answer is that the death penalty seems a lot worse to most people so there should be no mistakes in regards to it. Mistakes in regards to the other penalties isn't near as bad.

It an odd thing to get as it's not something I said.

In fact, it's quite the opposite of my particular rant, as the fact that the burden of proof seems to move down for lesser offenses (try saying "the cop was wrong" in a traffic citation and see if it's a reasonable doubt) is something that I think is really wrong.

What I did say was that incarceration offers more opportunities to correct a mistake that might happen.

Yeah......I wasn't addressing your position. And I never claimed that it helped the innocent person in question.

You are supporting the death penalty: that addresses my position against it.

Again I was referring to Demon_Hunter's arguments, not yours. His argument revolved around why God doesn't approve of the death penalty. And his arguments about God not liking injustice tends to apply to every punishment including incarceration.

Of course they would... what's your point?

Because there would be no speeding tickets, imprisonment, or anything if we insisted on a perfect system. What makes you think that the death penalty is more unfair than anything else?

I have no addressed it as fair or unfair. I have stated that it is unneccessairy and worse than the alternative. The reason I have used to support it being worse is that, in the case of a mistake, we cannot unkill someone.

I accepted the fact that we are living in a sinful world a long time ago. Because of that no system will be perfect. I just don't place the death penalty in a special category above all other injustices.

No. One thing that places the death penalty in a category different from imprisonment is that, while we can release someone, we cannot unkill them.

Same reasons that I support imprisonment.

So you support the death penalty because it's less permentant that killing someone and because there is no lesser functional alternative?

Or are your reasons about taking vengance?

OK. But I wasn't addressing you.

If you wish a private conversation, I'd suggest using the Private messaage system.

1) Back off until you actually figure out what my argument is.
2) I wasn't addressing your arguments.
a) Incarceration is not "reversible".
b) Nothing is absolutely "necessary".

1) No
2) Irellevent.
3) A sentance is terminateable, death is not.
4) Irrellevent.

[tlj009]

I dont have time right at the moment to respond to your post(s) in full. That said, until I can (later, or tommorow probably) suffice it to say that Jerry and I are basically on the same page. Even if your questions were directed at me, I think Jerry did a good job adressing most of what I find to be my concerns/objections to the death penalty.


1. You can release a person from prison.
1b. You cant undo an execution.

2. If the system is admittedly flawed, then we should remove the most agregious points of error. Right now, that is the death penalty. We know at this point that we are killing innocent people. God calls this perversion and abominable.

On a tangent, I am reading through the OT right now, and Ive just gotten to the halfway point in the book of Jeremiah, and in this one book alone God mentions several times the sheding of innocent blood being one of the PRIMARY reasons for his punishment of Israel. The only other thing that I see more commonly than that as the reason God gives for the repeated punishment of Israel is their worship of false gods.

You and Jerry are not making the same arguments. You are claiming that God disapproves of the death penalty. Jerry is not. You may agree with other aspects of what he says but you addressed this comment of mine:

"I don't know why the Bible is being used to oppose the death penalty here. God established one government on earth and it had the death penalty. They had the same uncertainties as we do about guilt or innocence but they still had the death penalty. That seems pretty straight forward that the death penalty is allowed."

That is the comment that you addressed. Jerry has not hit on that at all. That was the starting point of my involvement. I have already addressed that comment in this thread with slap_j and he didn't have near the problem understanding what I was saying. We may not have agreed in the end but at least we understood what the arguments were. For the life of me, I can't figure out where the problem is with this discussion because we really do seem to be reading different things.

[tlj009]

I had a response typed to you Jerry, which I lost. I won't retype it because the only thing of real consequence is this. I am ending this conversation with you. I was addressing the idea that God is opposed to the death penalty. You seem to be just trying to argue. I am sure that you like arguing. I do not. So rather being pulled into argument with you over positions that I don't even hold, I am going to end it now.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by tlj009

"I don't know why the Bible is being used to oppose the death penalty here. God established one government on earth and it had the death penalty. They had the same uncertainties as we do about guilt or innocence but they still had the death penalty. That seems pretty straight forward that the death penalty is allowed."

This statement is exactly as true if you replace "death penalty" with "death penalty because you cannot prove you were a virgin".

Since I don't think you support killing women who cannot prove virginity, then you do not support this standard for law. Since you do not actually support this standard for law: it is disengnuious to assert it.

[tlj009]

This statement is exactly as true if you replace "death penalty" with "death penalty because you cannot prove you were a virgin".

Since I don't think you support killing women who cannot prove virginity, then you do not support this standard for law. Since you do not actually support this standard for law: it is disengnuious to assert it.

The thing is that I am not using God to support the death penalty. I am saying that no one has the right to say that God opposes the death penalty seeing as the one government that God established also has the death penalty. There are many, many reasons to oppose the death penalty that doesn't make that claim. I am not addressing them. I am addressing this one claim that God opposes the death penalty. I am not arguing for the death penalty. I am just saying that this one particular argument is invalid. I don't know how to make it any clearer. But I do give you points for dropping the other post and restarting with that quote.