Conquer Club

You can argue about the punishment fitting the crime and the cost of housing an inmate for life v. executing an inmate, but the argument boils down to a single fact.

To support the death penalty, you are saying that it is morally ok to kill a human being.

that would raise the question do some ppl deserve to die?

i know its not politically correct but i say yes.

Though i would hope we would atleast make sure we have the right person
(unlikely) else assasinations and duels would be in.

Anarchist wrote:that would raise the question do some ppl deserve to die?

i know its not politically correct but i say yes.

Though i would hope we would atleast make sure we have the right person
(unlikely) else assasinations and duels would be in.

Someone kills somebody. Then we lower ourselves to that murderer's level and kill him.

How is that civilized? More to the point, how is there a difference then between murderers and us?

Anarchist wrote:that would raise the question do some ppl deserve to die?

Interesting question.
As much as I'd like it to be otherwise I think there are situations where it is necessary to kill. I would like to be a pacifist but unfortunately I do feel that there are "just wars", (though on very rare occasions) and sometimes the end does justify the means (such as in some liberation movements). I do struggle ethically with this though.

I don't believe killing is ever the answer in criminal cases though.

I'd like to here other CC'rs answer to this question. In particular those of the Christians here and also fellow "lefties" like myself. Is anyone a confirmed pacifist?

Anarchist wrote:even in a utopian society, if you rape my girl im cutting your balls off

THAT is sure to stop repeat offenders cold !

luns101 wrote: Most people here dismiss the Biblical position on any subject here outright because they think the Bible is not true.

That is the apparent trend....

flashleg8 wrote:I'd like to here other CC'rs answer to this question. In particular those of the Christians here and also fellow "lefties" like myself. Is anyone a confirmed pacifist?

If you're a pacifist who understands the potential need for a military, does that make you unconfirmed?

vtmarik wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:I'd like to here other CC'rs answer to this question. In particular those of the Christians here and also fellow "lefties" like myself. Is anyone a confirmed pacifist?

If you're a pacifist who understands the potential need for a military, does that make you unconfirmed?

I'm not a pacifist. I said in my previous post I would like to be a pacifist. I just can't be one in all circumstances. As I said I wish there wasn't such a dilemma.

vtmarik wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:I'd like to here other CC'rs answer to this question. In particular those of the Christians here and also fellow "lefties" like myself. Is anyone a confirmed pacifist?

If you're a pacifist who understands the potential need for a military, does that make you unconfirmed?

Even tibet had some prehistoric form of a military, Ofcourse china "liberated" them. i would say tibet would be a genuine pacifist, would you agree? Shame what happened.. Wonder if a pacifist movement would get Tibet back,(im pessemistic) Even Ghandi's devotion couldnt open the eyes. Look at Pakistan,India,and Bangladesh. I dont think many confirmed Pacifists are alive to tell. Good question, complicated thoughts

flashleg8 wrote:

vtmarik wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:I'd like to here other CC'rs answer to this question. In particular those of the Christians here and also fellow "lefties" like myself. Is anyone a confirmed pacifist?

If you're a pacifist who understands the potential need for a military, does that make you unconfirmed?

I'm not a pacifist. I said in my previous post I would like to be a pacifist. I just can't be one in all circumstances. As I said I wish there wasn't such a dilemma.

I was asking if I was an unconfirmed pacifist. Didn't mean to imply that I was coming after you there Flash.

vtmarik wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:I'd like to here other CC'rs answer to this question. In particular those of the Christians here and also fellow "lefties" like myself. Is anyone a confirmed pacifist?

If you're a pacifist who understands the potential need for a military, does that make you unconfirmed?

Hardly. It means he isn't a total dumbass. Not every country is Switzerland, so that means there will be some defense spending somewhere in the any national budget.

My take on the Capital Punishment

Murder (either single, multiple or serial), Rape (same as murder) and Treason all get death. Rapists, if single rape, may get castrated if it is a single offence. After that, gas him!

Any other crime: fine and jail time, the fine amount and time in the clink increasing exponentially with each and every offence until it hits life sentence.

Hmm, still waiting for an explanation from beezer. But luns, this is an open forum - please take up the slack here if you can. Please offer something clearly stated, and not a vague inference like "he beareth not the sword in vain". That one simply stated the way things were under Roman law, and not necessarily the way they were supposed to be. Show us something in the New Testament that sets aside all Jesus' teaching about forgiveness, and tells christians that it is ok to exact a punishment of death.

b.k. barunt wrote:Hmm, still waiting for an explanation from beezer. But luns, this is an open forum - please take up the slack here if you can. Please offer something clearly stated, and not a vague inference like "he beareth not the sword in vain". That one simply stated the way things were under Roman law, and not necessarily the way they were supposed to be. Show us something in the New Testament that sets aside all Jesus' teaching about forgiveness, and tells christians that it is ok to exact a punishment of death.

It should be noted before I begin that beezer is a pilot and is doing a 3 day route across the United States. That's the nature of his job.

BK, I don't agree with the premise of your challenge. To somehow deny me (or someone else) the ability to use certain texts with a preemptive rebuttal does not negate its use. I will use whatever scriptures I find relevant to put across my points, including Romans 13.

As you know, God made many covenants in history with individuals and nations. Some of these covenants had conditions, and when the conditions were not met then the covenant ended. God specifically made a covenant with Israel which included capital punishment. Since Israel disobeyed God, those laws (including capital punishment) should be finished with, right? However, there was a previous covenant that God made that pre-dated the Mosaic covenant: the Noahic covenant.

Genesis 9:5 - 6, "...and from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man". This covenant was established between God and Noah on behalf of all mankind. Gen 9:12, "This is the sign of the covenant that I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come". This covenant has never been revoked.

The New Testament reinforces that belief in capital punishment. Romans 13 specifically declares that human governments are instituted by God. They have the responsibility to apply judgement against evil-doers. This includes the application of the death penalty.

On the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, "You have heard that is was said to the people of long ago, 'Do not murder' and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement." The Lord is clearly not trying to overturn the authority of human government to administer capital punishment, he is rather referring to people seeking to take vigilante-style justice into their own hands. Christians should not try to take the role of government onto themselves in order to administer capital punishment, that is the role of the government itself.

There are 2 times I believe the concept of capital punishment is reinforced in the New Testament: Luke 23:40-41 & Acts 25:11

In Luke 23:40-41, one of the 2 thieves that was crucified along with Jesus rebuked the other one, saying "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong" Even the thief knew that his deeds deserved to be punished in order for justice to be accomplished.

In Acts 25:11, Paul was making his defense in front of Festus. In his appeal, he claimed, "If however, I am guilty of anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die". Paul acknowledges the right of the government to administer the death penalty as long as it is deserved.

So in summary, the principle of capital punishment was started in the Old Testament, never rebuked by the Lord or others in the New Testament but rather reinforced. Thanks for taking the time to read the ramble.

flashleg8 wrote:I'd like to here other CC'rs answer to this question. In particular those of the Christians here and also fellow "lefties" like myself. Is anyone a confirmed pacifist?

It's late...another LOST episode is over, and tomorrow is my day off, so why not post another response.

As a Christian, I myself am not a pacifist. I have only met one person from Pennsylvania in my lifetime who is a genuine pacifist and also a Christian. However, I think you will find that many Christians are divided amongst themselves on this and there should be many of my fellow brethren of the faith who are truly pacifist.

luns101 wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:Hmm, still waiting for an explanation from beezer. But luns, this is an open forum - please take up the slack here if you can. Please offer something clearly stated, and not a vague inference like "he beareth not the sword in vain". That one simply stated the way things were under Roman law, and not necessarily the way they were supposed to be. Show us something in the New Testament that sets aside all Jesus' teaching about forgiveness, and tells christians that it is ok to exact a punishment of death.

It should be noted before I begin that beezer is a pilot and is doing a 3 day route across the United States. That's the nature of his job.

BK, I don't agree with the premise of your challenge. To somehow deny me (or someone else) the ability to use certain texts with a preemptive rebuttal does not negate its use. I will use whatever scriptures I find relevant to put across my points, including Romans 13.

As you know, God made many covenants in history with individuals and nations. Some of these covenants had conditions, and when the conditions were not met then the covenant ended. God specifically made a covenant with Israel which included capital punishment. Since Israel disobeyed God, those laws (including capital punishment) should be finished with, right? However, there was a previous covenant that God made that pre-dated the Mosaic covenant: the Noahic covenant.

Genesis 9:5 - 6, "...and from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man". This covenant was established between God and Noah on behalf of all mankind. Gen 9:12, "This is the sign of the covenant that I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come". This covenant has never been revoked.

The New Testament reinforces that belief in capital punishment. Romans 13 specifically declares that human governments are instituted by God. They have the responsibility to apply judgement against evil-doers. This includes the application of the death penalty.

On the Sermon on the Mount Jesus said, "You have heard that is was said to the people of long ago, 'Do not murder' and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement. But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgement." The Lord is clearly not trying to overturn the authority of human government to administer capital punishment, he is rather referring to people seeking to take vigilante-style justice into their own hands. Christians should not try to take the role of government onto themselves in order to administer capital punishment, that is the role of the government itself.

There are 2 times I believe the concept of capital punishment is reinforced in the New Testament: Luke 23:40-41 & Acts 25:11

In Luke 23:40-41, one of the 2 thieves that was crucified along with Jesus rebuked the other one, saying "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong" Even the thief knew that his deeds deserved to be punished in order for justice to be accomplished.

In Acts 25:11, Paul was making his defense in front of Festus. In his appeal, he claimed, "If however, I am guilty of anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die". Paul acknowledges the right of the government to administer the death penalty as long as it is deserved.

So in summary, the principle of capital punishment was started in the Old Testament, never rebuked by the Lord or others in the New Testament but rather reinforced. Thanks for taking the time to read the ramble.

First of all, the covenant with Noah was part of the Old Covenant, i.e. before forgiveness for sins was given by Jesus. Never revoked? Neither was the Mosaic Law. It was fulfilled. You have taken it upon yourself to retranslate the Bible for us - this is never good - "murder" is not the word the translators used, because it is a more specific translation of the basic hebrew (or greek) word in the text. Are you even qualified to be a translator? I checked the word in both the greek and hebrew again to make sure - the word in hebrew means literally to dash in pieces, or destroy. Romans 13 states clearly that we are to be in subjection to the secular law - it does not say that we are to advocate policy for it. The thief on the cross? You can't be serious!!? I ask you for a word from Jesus advocating the death penalty, and you give me a word from a thief? Finally Paul - he said he would submit to the death penalty if he (by law) deserved it. How could you possibly construe this to mean that Paul advocated the same? He was merely submitting to the law.

b.k. barunt wrote:First of all, the covenant with Noah was part of the Old Covenant, i.e. before forgiveness for sins was given by Jesus. Never revoked? Neither was the Mosaic Law. It was fulfilled.

I quoted from the Genesis passage directly, it said it was for all generations. I don't believe the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled as Israel disobeyed the conditions of it repeatedly.

b.k. barunt wrote: You have taken it upon yourself to retranslate the Bible for us - this is never good - "murder" is not the word the translators used, because it is a more specific translation of the basic hebrew (or greek) word in the text.

I've done no such thing. I've laid it out there for all to read. I used the NIV version for my quotes. I trust the more than 100 scholars who took more than 10 years and examined 5,000 either complete or partial hebrew, greek, and aramaic texts and translated them into English.

b.k. barunt wrote:Are you even qualified to be a translator? I checked the word in both the greek and hebrew again to make sure - the word in hebrew means literally to dash in pieces, or destroy.

Nope, I put my faith in those translators that I mentioned above. Are you qualified to be a translator?

b.k. barunt wrote:The thief on the cross? You can't be serious!!? I ask you for a word from Jesus advocating the death penalty, and you give me a word from a thief?

Yes, I am serious...and that's not what you said. What you said was:

b.k. barunt wrote:Show me a New Testament validation of your argument.

The story of the thief being put to death is in the New Testament. It's in the book of Luke.

b.k. barunt wrote:Finally Paul - he said he would submit to the death penalty if he (by law) deserved it. How could you possibly construe this to mean that Paul advocated the same? He was merely submitting to the law.

And the Roman law included the death penalty. If convicted of it, Paul would submit to the authority of the Roman government. Although he believed himself to be innocent of anything that deserved death.

Those are my points. That's what I believe the scripture teaches. That's why I believe in the death penalty. Other people believe in it for different reasons than myself. You obviously have a different take on it.

luns101 wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:First of all, the covenant with Noah was part of the Old Covenant, i.e. before forgiveness for sins was given by Jesus. Never revoked? Neither was the Mosaic Law. It was fulfilled.

I quoted from the Genesis passage directly, it said it was for all generations. I don't believe the Mosaic covenant was fulfilled as Israel disobeyed the conditions of it repeatedly.

b.k. barunt wrote: You have taken it upon yourself to retranslate the Bible for us - this is never good - "murder" is not the word the translators used, because it is a more specific translation of the basic hebrew (or greek) word in the text.

I've done no such thing. I've laid it out there for all to read. I used the NIV version for my quotes. I trust the more than 100 scholars who took more than 10 years and examined 5,000 either complete or partial hebrew, greek, and aramaic texts and translated them into English.

b.k. barunt wrote:Are you even qualified to be a translator? I checked the word in both the greek and hebrew again to make sure - the word in hebrew means literally to dash in pieces, or destroy.

Nope, I put my faith in those translators that I mentioned above. Are you qualified to be a translator?

b.k. barunt wrote:The thief on the cross? You can't be serious!!? I ask you for a word from Jesus advocating the death penalty, and you give me a word from a thief?

Yes, I am serious...and that's not what you said. What you said was:

b.k. barunt wrote:Show me a New Testament validation of your argument.

The story of the thief being put to death is in the New Testament. It's in the book of Luke.

b.k. barunt wrote:Finally Paul - he said he would submit to the death penalty if he (by law) deserved it. How could you possibly construe this to mean that Paul advocated the same? He was merely submitting to the law.

And the Roman law included the death penalty. If convicted of it, Paul would submit to the authority of the Roman government. Although he believed himself to be innocent of anything that deserved death.

Those are my points. That's what I believe the scripture teaches. That's why I believe in the death penalty. Other people believe in it for different reasons than myself. You obviously have a different take on it.

You know, the more I read scripture, the less I can understand why people come to think there are contradictions.

Jenos Ridan wrote:You know, the more I read scripture, the less I can understand why people come to think there are contradictions.

At least you're reading! There are other sources for believing in the death penalty, not just mine.

The Mosaic Law was not fulfilled, because man couldn't keep it? Jesus fulfilled the law, or that is what your fundamentalist scholars glean from the scriptures. If you don't believe that, then i understand why you still believe in an eye for an eye.

There is one reference that you missed luns, i'll give it to you so you won't have to use the thief on the cross nonsense next time (that was embarrassingly weak). Mark 9:42 - Jesus, in reference to little children, said that if anyone would harm one of them, it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck, and be cast into the depths of the sea. It's repeated in Matthew 18 and Luke 17.

b.k. barunt wrote:There is one reference that you missed luns, i'll give it to you so you won't have to use the thief on the cross nonsense next time (that was embarrassingly weak). Mark 9:42 - Jesus, in reference to little children, said that if anyone would harm one of them, it would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck, and be cast into the depths of the sea. It's repeated in Matthew 18 and Luke 17.

Especially as until, i think, 1996, the US was one of the most prolific state executioners of children in the world...

luns101 wrote:I see beezer's point and understand his frustration.

HeavyCola, while nobody should deny someone else the right to give an opinion, it does seem odd that you would use a book that you personally don't believe in to make an argument against someone who does. The point that beezer (I think he's making) is making is that those who don't believe are the ones "cherry picking" the parts which seem to contradict each other. Of course, I know you believe it's us on the capital punishment side that are "cherry picking".

HC, if I compared you to some tyranical regime, don't you think you would take offense to it? Don't be surprised when we do as well.

Luns - then perhaps you understand mine! And i did apologise for what i admit was a rubbish kneejerk comment.

But beezer was really getting on my nerves. I never used the bible to argue for or against anything, i merely tried to show that in my understanding - which is as valid as anyone else's, i have read the damn thing and i don't believe, is all - killing people is wrong. The sixth commandment, for a start. I was taught that jesus brought the new covenant to replace the old one. Can't see 'murder is OK' in either one.

And further, that using the bible as support for these views is as abhorrent as Fred Phelps claiming that picketing dead soldiers' funerals is OK too according to the good book, or Aryan Nation invoking god to justify their hatred, or imams claiming the koran promises 72 virgins in paradise to suicide bombers. It is, to me, just as wrong.


(And i agree with b.k. - the thief on the cross argument is horribly weak.)

vtmarik wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:

vtmarik wrote:

flashleg8 wrote:I'd like to here other CC'rs answer to this question. In particular those of the Christians here and also fellow "lefties" like myself. Is anyone a confirmed pacifist?

If you're a pacifist who understands the potential need for a military, does that make you unconfirmed?

I'm not a pacifist. I said in my previous post I would like to be a pacifist. I just can't be one in all circumstances. As I said I wish there wasn't such a dilemma.

I was asking if I was an unconfirmed pacifist. Didn't mean to imply that I was coming after you there Flash.

By allowing the existance of a military, you are saying that it is morally ok to kill a human being.

heavycola wrote:Especially as until, i think, 1996, the US was one of the most prolific state executioners of children in the world...

I would like a source on that one please.









I am totally hypocritical on this concept of capital punishment.

I feel killing anyone is morally wrong.

I believe that knowlege is directly due to the influence of Christ Jesus on all people exposed to western civilisation.

In some cases removing someone by death appears to be the only way to stop the possibility of them killing again or worse pulling a Virginia Tech type thing.

I just can't see why it would not be better to kill them to save the larger number of people that in my mind are less deserving to be killed. Therefore to me and society are more valuble even though I know all persons are equal to God due to the new covenent.

What if we take away the guns, what if they make one, what if we lock them up, what if they get parole, what if there is no parole, what if they escape?

etc x infinity.

I can make a case for capital punishment based on what is written in the bible but am not fully convinced, that I am not just another person taking things and manipulating the context.

Canada has released a major accomplice and someone that is painted as being unremorsefull of her involvment in killing/raping many women, including her sister if I recall correctly. Further she is trying to publish a book and the courts are trying to prevent her from profiting from their acts.

There is extensive Video tape of them commiting the acts, in my opinion that removes all doubt about "getting the wrong person".

I know I have the crazies but I can't help but believe there would be more positive effect to euthinizing them both. I'm wrong lots and perhaps this is an example.

2dimes wrote:I am totally hypocritical on this concept of capital punishment.

I feel killing anyone is morally wrong.

I believe that knowlege is directly due to the influence of Christ Jesus on all people exposed to western civilisation.

In some cases removing someone by death appears to be the only way to stop the possibility of them killing again or worse pulling a Virginia Tech type thing.

I just can't see why it would not be better to kill them to save the larger number of people that in my mind are less deserving to be killed. Therefore to me and society are more valuble even though I know all persons are equal to God due to the new covenent.

Ok. I'd been trying not to enter this one but I thought I'd give me piece...

I'm very much anti-capital punishment for the following reasons:

Firstly, I believe that it is entirely hypocritical and morally wrong to take the life of another, no matter what they have done. State-justified murder is, perhaps, one of the most frightening aspects of society.

Secondly, we can NEVER guarantee that a person is guilty. It is always 'beyond reasonable doubt', but you cannot take away someone's life on such an assumption. There are hundreds of cases all over the world of people sentenced to life imprisonment being freed after further evidence comes to light years later, and there are cases of people wrongly executed. We CANNOT take away someone's life if there is any chance they are innocent, and as this happens surprisingly frequently then we shouldn't even contemplate capital punishment.

Thirdly, for many a lifetime in prison is a worse punishment than death. Think how many serial killers have committed suicide whilst inside! Death is an easy way out for many murderers. if you had to sit in a sell day after day contemplating what you'd done, and you new you'd never be free for the rest of your life, I'm sure death would be nothing like a punishment to you! Far worse to have your freedom taken away.

We have to dissociate the issue of capital punishment from that of current penal reform and policy. If we let criminals out on parole too early that's a travesty, and the system needs to be reformed, but killing them isn't the answer. Life should mean life, and we should have more concrete sentences, but examples of the state letting killers go and them re offending doesn't mean they should be killed, it just means the current system isn't working too well and they should be locked up for life.

Have been reading some Orwell recently for his take on colonialism, but this quote stuck: 'I watched a man hang once: it seemed to me worse than a thousand murders.'

Guiscard wrote:[Secondly, we can NEVER guarantee that a person is guilty. It is always 'beyond reasonable doubt', but you cannot take away someone's life on such an assumption.

I don't understand why you think that. As part of a plea bargain for a light sentance she revealed the location of the Video tapes she made with her husband of them raping and killing the victems.

What's your theory, the real killer faked them?

Edit:
Also [sarcasm] Golly, I wonder if they'll crack that mistery of who commited the recent VT thing? Hope they lock up that guy.[/sarcasm]