Death penalty and Christians

Lots of things can go wrong, but that is the exception rather than the rule
It's the best system going..

 

Sure. But, I don't think that's the issue.

The issue is whether it is so good that we can kill people with it.

We've found too much injustice, too many wrong verdicts.

I'll have to say that it goes deeper for me, anyway. I just don't accept the idea of the state walking up to a man in chains and killing him.

 

Personally I am in favor of putting them in a steel room,
welding it shut.
feed them through a hole.

When they stop moving for a few days, cut the welds, shovel them out,
put in the next one.

 

OIC - you favor death by torture.

Sorry - that itself is a crime equal to first degree murder.

Besides, remember that our system doesn't necessarily get it right. Our system has put to death many innocent people.

I can't justify that. For instance, some argue that it's a low cost for the civilization as a whole. I just don't buy that, as killing people isn't some sort of necessity.

 

Some people need to be locked up their entire life.

 

This could be true.

For one thing, we put little to no effort into those we hold captive.

The state pen where I taught math once used to release people by giving them the clothes on their backs, a cheap coat (regardless of weather), $50 bucks and pushed them out the door - a long way from the city. So, it wasn't infrequent that they paid to get to town, bought a hooker and ended up with zero for food, clothing, or bed and with no idea how to find help.

Then, we get shocked that they repeat a crime!

 

Here's one you will appreciate.
I was in Tulsa OK in the late 70's, some guy in prison found an old law on the books.
When you are released you are given a horse, saddle, rifle, and 3 days food.
He demanded it after released, and sued when he didn't get it.
They settled out of court.

 

There's only "not much of a difference" if you'd rather be dead than released from prison. I have different priorities myself.

 

hahahahaha. BULLSHIT. WITNESS IDS ARE ALL THATS NEEDED.

Please do research. You don't think cops plant evidence? You don't there may be a reason someone's DNA is somewhere besides they killed someone?????

So you would shoot someone in the head if you were "pretty sure" they did it?

Amaaaaaaaaaaaaaazing.

 

The question is what did this command mean to those that created it. It did not mean that one should not ever kill. Obviously. The punishment for adultery was to take that person outside the city gates and stone them to death. YHWH commands the Israelite's to slaughter entire towns - including women, children and babies.

This is then best read as "Thou shall not kill" unless one has good reason for doing so.

 

Christians amongst others have NEVER adhered to this commandment and most ignore the ret as well. The Catholic Church and by extension the Pope are amongst the worst culprits.

 

It is neither for you or for the pope to decide who is a Christian, or who is not a Christian.

 

The commandment is Thou shall not Murder.

 

The commandment is "thou shalt not Kill" .. the proper interpretation may be as you state .. but the actual command as written is - what is written.

 

The question here is whether it is legitimate to execute someone who is locked up in jail.

I just don't see a justification for dragging a guy out of a prison cell and killing him.

To me, that IS murder.

 

Thou shall not murder or thou shall not kill is not one of the Ten Commandments. It is simply a common law, like not eating shrimp.

The real 6th Commandment is Exodus 34:22 = to observe the Feast of Weeks, of the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the Feast of Ingathering at the year's end.

 

Not really. "The Hebrew verb רצח (r-ṣ-ḥ, also transliterated retzach, ratzákh, ratsakh etc.) is the word in the original text that is translated as "murder". Wikipedia

The KJV was written thousands of years after the original.

 

I will take your word for it. This would not be the first time that the original text was mistranslated. That something closer to murder was the intended meaning of the author was what I was arguing in any case.

 

We agree. The KJV isn't that great of a translation, its reputation is mainly being one of the first translations in English.

 

The KJV is really bad - that is for sure. All other English translations that I know of suffer from this as well though - especially when an accurate translation would go against the dogma of the day. Kind of a modern day example of "Pious Fraud".

This is particularly true in the NT translations with respect to the "taboo" subject of sex = use of the word "fornication".

The first paragraph of the Gospel of John is another example. The term "Logos" is intentionally mistranslated as "Word".

Other examples where intentional mistranslation "Pious Fraud" is very common is OT translations having to do with the Israelite Monolatry/Henotheism. This is where one worship only one God but believes in and/or does not deny the existence of other Gods.

The ancient Israelite's believed in the existence of many Gods - a "Divine Pantheon" - but were to worship only one of those Gods - YHWH.

 

Considering the NT was written in Greek, it would probably be easier to translate.

 

So give the cops that plant evidence falsely leading to the death penalty the same penalty. Next problem.

 

That isn't a mistranslation, Logos is the Greek term translated as “word,” “speech,” “principle,” or “thought.” In Greek philosophy, it also referred to a universal, divine reason or the mind of God. Whatever the shortcomings of individual translations, they are good enough to accomplish their mission, i.e. reconciling mankind to God through faith in the atoning death on the cross of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Maybe in their frequent apostate periods they believed in many gods.

 

1) The definition of the word "Word" - has nothing to do with divine reason or the mind of God.

To the Greeks to which the Gospel of John was talking to - the term "Logos" meant emissary between man and God. The author was trying to spread the gospel by using language that the audience was familiar with. The Greeks at that time were very familiar with the term "Logos".

Jesus then was "the Logos" - Jesus spoke Gods word through the Holy spirit. In this respect Jesus was "the word of God". The teachings of Jesus are "The Word of God".

2) The Israelite religion - believed in the existence of many Gods - They were only to worship one. The "Apostate" part was not the belief in the existence of other Gods - it was the worshiping of other Gods. The Israelite religion was not strict monotheism.

The Jews transitioned into Strict Monotheism when they were under Persian Rule - sometime around 500 BC.

Over the millennia - translators would often leave parts of the OT relating to belief in a Divine Pantheon out of the Bible. Some however still remains.

This is not something that is debated among serious religious scholars.

 

I can't disagree with that, but it is a distinction without a difference. The readers then and now understood Jesus was from God. To say a question on a translation is 'fraud' is a stretch, unless you have hard evidence of a conspiracy.

Which was one of the reasons they were punished with the Babylonian Exile. God said the punishments given to wicked pagan nations would happen to Israel also if they abandoned Him, and that happened.

Oh brother, let me guess, only liberal revisionists theologians are 'serious scholars'? I can assure you very many serious scholars reject that theory. This is from N.T Wright, former Bishop of Durham, whom nobody would call not a serious scholar:

"The Jews believed in a quite different “god.” This god, YHWH, “the One Who Is,” the Sovereign One, was not simply the objectification of forces and drives within the world, but was the maker of all that exists. Several biblical books, or parts thereof, are devoted to exploring the difference between YHWH and the pagan idols: Daniel, Isaiah 40-55, and a good many Psalms spring obviously to mind. The theme is summed up in the Jewish daily prayer: “YHWH our God, YHWH is one!”[10]

Classic Jewish monotheism, then, believed that (a) there was one God, who created heaven and earth and who remained in close and dynamic relation with his creation; and that (b) this God had called Israel to be his special people. This twin belief, tested to the limit and beyond through Israel’s checkered career, was characteristically expressed through a particular narrative: the chosen people were also the rescued people, liberated from slavery in Egypt, marked out by the gift of Torah, established in their land, exiled because of disobedience, but promised a glorious return and final settlement. Jewish-style monotheism meant living in this story and trusting in this one true God, the God of creation and covenant, of Exodus and Return."

He mentions the Psalms, some of which were written long before the Babylonian Captivity. A better description of Jewish belief in their apostate periods would be Monolatry, from the Greek mono = one and latreia = service, the belief that many gods exist but only one should be served. God described this as spiritual adultery.