From: poram%mlsma@att.att.com
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Death Penalty
Date: 11 Jan 93 08:35:47 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <Jan.8.00.51.39.1993.2565@farside.rutgers.edu> baseball@catch-the-fever.scd.ucar.edu (Gregg Walters) writes:
>In Article: 17663 of soc.religion.christian,
>jwmorris@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Jeff Morris) wrote >>
>
>> Second, while the Law says we shall not murder, it does not prohibit
>> all killing (i.e. self-defense, executions).  God says that anyone who
>> murders shall lose his own life.  We are expected to exact such punishments
>> on those who are guilty.  To attempt to dodge this distasteful task
>> with claims that it's wrong to take a life, to judge, is actually an
>> avoidance of our own responsibility to follow God's commands.

I agree. As long as we live in fallen society it will be
necessary for just laws to atone for wrong-doing in society. The
death penalty takes its rightful place in this in showing just
how seriously murder is - both in the eyes of God and man. Since
we are made in the image of God, the dignity of man demands that
such an action be dealt with justly.

>Can you cite a New Testament (Christian) passage that supports this?

The original command comes from Genesis 9, which is God's
ordinance to Noah and thus binding on us all as his descendants.
In Numbers God warns of the bloodguiltness of not exacting a
life for a life.
After the flood God instituted government, and part of the
responsibility of government is to exact the penalties that are
associated with law-breaking - this includes the death penalty
as Romans (12.4 I think) makes clear: "the state does not
execute the sword in vain".

>>>                           However, death is the required consequence
>>> for murder.
>
>Can you cite a New Testament (Christian) passage that supports this?

Paul when standing before Festus (Acts) appealed to Caesar and
stated that he would accept the punishment of death if he
deserved it.
The thief on the cross also acknowledged the justice of his
sentance.

>Although Jesus knew of his own crucifixion and death, He did not instruct
>His disciples to retaliate against His tormentors.  Nor did the disciples,
>when facing their deaths, instruct their followers to retaliate.  Death
>for death (as in eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth) is Old Testament
>(Jewish) Law.

The 'eye for an eye' was put into the law as a restrictive
principle against arbitary and unjust sentancing (being flayed
alive for stealing a loaf of bread for example). However as
Christians we are not called to exercise in full our 'rights'
to get our own back since we live under the law of Christ.
This is a question of individual Christian action, not
government policy.

>              Christ's words and example is the prevailing Christian
>law as far as I'm concerned.  Otherwise, to invert a cliche, it is
>"don't do what I do and don't do what I say", which demeans His
>message altogether.  I believe that the foundation of Christ's message
>is mercy and forgiveness.  

We are not dealing with individual emotions but with GOVERNMENT
- whereby there is no individual vengance sought but the policy
of a society in atoning for the wrong which has been committed
and the seriousness of the crime of murder.

And Christ's mercy and forgiveness is only present in the execution
of his just standards - if there were no law there would be no
need for forgiveness. God calls for atonement of blood split -
why do the martyrs slain under the altar in Revelation cry out?

Note the mercy and justice of the conversion of the Nazi Von
Ribbentroff in the days before his execution at Nurenburg.

>			  Those who can't practice that, will be judged
>in kind.  When Jesus encountered the mob about to stone a woman for
>prostitution, did He join them in the punishment?

Jesus pointed to their own lack of righteousness in the
incident: it was the job of the witnesses to cast the first
stone. But Jesus' actual words "he who is without sin cast the
first stone" is an actual affirmation of the death sentance not
an appeal to abolish it.


>				      Killing and destruction win wars -
>to Satan's great delight, no doubt.  

I think Satan was equally delighted with Neville Chamberlain's
selling out of Czechoslavakia to Hitler in Munich 1938.
Delivering 35 divisions of highly mobilised troops into the
hands of a mad-man and calling 'peace in our time' does not
strike me as the actions of a sensible man. 

Tolstoy who tried to live entirely according to Matthew 5 in the
sense that he would let any crime go unpunished, not lock his
doors etc - died a broken man.
>					Every war and every killing leaves
>dangerous seeds waiting for the fertile soil of retaliation.  

Is it not more dangerous to let madmen go unchecked?

>In my personal life, I try to keep the beast tamed.  When another person
>injures me, I feel the ugly urge to retaliate, but by remembering Christ's
>teachings and example, and through prayer, I usually overcome the temptation.
>I feel guilt when I don't.

Gregg - this is not an attack on your person ethics, which I
share. But a call for good government exacting righteous
punishments and defending ourselves and our children against
evil but holding up godly standards.

Grace be with you.
Barney Resson
"Many shall run to and fro, & knowledge shall increase" (Daniel)