Tuesday, 04 October 2011
-
Why Do So Many Christians Support the Death Penalty?
This is actually something that has been bothering me for years. I've gotten into arguments with other Christians over it -- one of those being my dad -- and no one has been able to answer me in a way I can understand.I can't fathom how a group of people who claim to follow Jesus Christ and His teachings can support anything so unforgiving and merciless as capital punishment. I've heard a lot of arguments in favor of the death penalty. Like how Jesus didn't actually say not to do it specifically, and the whole "eye for an eye" argument, and one that never makes any sense; how Jesus tells us to obey the laws of the land, so since capital punishment is legal, we're obeying God by carrying it out.
Okay, but abortion is also legal. Does that make it okay to abort a child in the eyes of God? And now someone might say, "of course not. Children are innocent, everyone knows that. It's the guilty who need to be punished." Yes, I agree. The guilty deserve punishment. I read that in the Bible, too. But does the Bible not also say that all of us are sinners, having fallen short of the Glory of God, and that, technically, we all deserve death? Isn't that why Jesus Christ came here...to die in our place? What gives you the right to say which sins are punishable by death? Why does a man who shoots another man in the middle of an argument have to die, when a child molester who has robbed a dozen children of their innocence and peace get to live, and maybe be free as well? Doesn't he deserve to die for what he did?
It just doesn't make sense. Jesus preached forgiveness, mercy, love, and faith. Not one of those things is to be found in an execution chamber. Is that really where Christians belong? I truly believe that everyone who strongly supports capital punishment should witness an execution firsthand. Then come back and tell me you still feel the same way, because if that person's face and last words don't haunt you for the rest of your life, you better check to see if you still have a heart.
So what do you think? Are you a Christian who supports the death penalty? Why or why not?
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: Fatal_Lightning@xanga
- Name: Angie
- Location: California, United States
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 1 Views: 0 2491 Comments: 0 49 View all posts by Fatal_Lightning@xanga
Comments (49)
A large segment of the Christian population understands the Old Testament as providing a basic framework for how God would order a just society. Since the Old Testament enthusiastically supports the death penalty, these Christians reason that in some cases it is just for nations to execute criminals.
Looking forward to the responses to this.
It is because God commanded the death penalty: "Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind" Genesis 9:6
And before someone who has never read the Bible says, "that is the Old Testament," that command was given before the law was given. So when we are told we are not under law but under grace, that did not discount the Old Testament. It simply meant we are not under the law.
So the Biblical position is the death penalty. Don't argue with me. Take it up with God.
I'm personally against the death penalty not just for religious religions (I'm Christian), but also for ethical ones as well. I don't think ANYONE has the right to take another person's life, criminal or not.
@TheTheologiansCafe@xanga is right on this. Though, I don't know that governments are required to use the sword (Romans 13) that Genesis 9:6 gives them to decapitate criminals, but they are able to. As far as a Christians go, I think we can see the government is permitted to do one thing, but still encourage it to not use that right.
Also, what @SirNickDon@xanga said is also true. Many believe that governments should at least to some extent go by the OT civil laws.
Examples of that would be a lot of Presbyterians, and the New Apostolic Reformation group. Rick Perry and IHOP associates with the latter group.
well, keep in mind that for most of its history, Christianity was all about slaughtering and executing the heathens. i guess we (as in, non-Christians) should consider ourselves lucky that they've narrowed their focus to people who break the law. it's not that i don't see it as hypocritical to the central message of the Gospel (life and forgiveness, supposedly)... just that it doesn't surprise me to hear about Christianity being hypocritical.
having said that, i do find it strange that a religion which embraced martyrdom now sees death as a useful punishment.
I guess because there are examples of God condoning it at certain times in the Bible.
So, how do you feel about hell?
The state has delegated authority from God to bring about a semblance of justice. It does not bear the sword in vain. Without coercion, it would be powerless.
When Paul is facing possible execution, he says he is willing to die if he has done something meriting it. I believe that implies that Paul felt there were acts deserving of death.
I agree there are some bad defenses (as there are of pretty much any position). Jesus' silence on the subject is not evidence for or against it really [although I don't favor giving Jesus' teaching more authority than that of the apostles, as if there is disagreement btwn the two or Jesus didn't keep his promise about the HS informing them]. And the laws of the land are only binding insofar as they are not in contradiction with God's law.
"Eye for an eye" is a legit argument. The concept (proportionate punishment) is integral to our justice system. It is a means of de-escalating violence. Jesus condemns individuals who are seeking retaliation and vengeance and using "eye for an eye" as justification; that in no way calls into question the legitimacy of the state carrying that out.
As far as what is considered a capital offense, that is a separate discussion. But it's sloppy thinking to blur the distinction btwn all sins and pretend like they are all the same. James is often misquoted as saying that all sins are equal when in reality, he merely says that someone who has broken the law at one point has broken the law just as everyone else has broken it. The OT laws have proportionate punishments. Jesus speaks of proportionate punishments for disobedient servants. Saying that, because the wages of sin is death, the death penalty must be prescribed for every sinner is an absurdity I see few people concluding.
You should probably look in the eyes of the victim who gets strangled. And then release the murderer. And then tell me that doesn't haunt you for the rest of your life. [It's a bad argument to begin with imo. I was just flipping it on its head.]
Jesus also teaches judgment, punishment, hell, etc.
@stuartandabby@xanga -
""Eye for an eye" is a legit argument. The concept (proportionate punishment) is integral to our justice system."
Eye for an eye (lex talionis) is just a type of proportionate punishment. (One that matches the crime with the punishment.) Life in prison for the crime of murder could very well be considered a proportionate punishment as well.
And a lex talionis approach to punishment is actually not integral to our justice system at all. It's a very difficult approach to embrace wholeheartedly. (Do we rape rapist? Steal from thieves?)
I really have no strong views one way or another on the topic. I just wanted to clarify somethings being said.
I'm a non-believer, and I support the death penalty.
I wouldn't go around petitioning or picketing or protesting and all that jazz to have it happen, but if a murderer/rapist with 100% solid evidence is put to death for their crimes, good. I have no problem with that.
We don't need to pay to keep the scum alive, and as far as I'm concerned, when you take a persons life, yours is forfeit.
@TheTheologiansCafe@xanga @MagisterTom@xanga - I've always read that as more prophecy/wisdom than command. Jesus says a similar thing to Peter when he states that those who draw the sword die by it. I've understood it as a commentary on the cycle of violence and less as an instruction to make sure that those who draw the sword/kill are killed.
@whataboutbahb@xanga - Lex talionis doesn't require rape for rape. It's a principle. In some cases, fines were just as acceptable.
Also, some scholars contend that many of these laws served as rhetorical denunciations (here's one article that discusses it: http://www.mandm.org.nz/2011/05/contra-mundum-stoning-adulterers.html). I'm not committed to that position, but I thought you might find it interesting if you feel like reading it.
I believe that God's true desire is that there be no death penalty but, for the hardness of our hearts, He permitted it among His people (like He permitted divorce, for example). I say this because I believe God revealed His heart on the matter when He had to deal with Cain, the first murderer. Cain was afraid that because he had killed Abel, other people would be out to kill him in kind. But God said, "No; if anyone kills you they will have to deal with me." If God wouldn't kill Cain, ought we not try and follow His example?
@stuartandabby@xanga -
Sorry, guess my correction was unneeded. Usually (in the current literature) the term eye for an eye or lex talionis is used for the principle of matching the same/similar punishment with the crime committed.
But if you're just speaking in more general retributivist terms, you still should probably distinguish why the punishment of death is more proportional / more deserving than life in prison for certain crimes. I'm not saying that argument can't be made, but an argument that consists of "eye for an eye" is integral for our justice system and helps de-escalate violence is full of assumptions (and has consequentialist reasoning for the punishment tacked on the end).
Culturally many things are different than in biblical times, and we don't apply all cultural norms from those days to now. The only reason I am against the death penalty is because it is not meted out fairly, and many have been put to death when questionable circumstances are present. Look at how many have been released from prison since the advent of good DNA testing. We certainly did not see that in biblical times. Also, look for your greek and hebrew texts when applying every word of the bible, and you'll find some interesting things. Such as "Thou Shalt Not Kill", also has meanings of killing one's spirit by being cruel to him/her.
@TheTheologiansCafe@xanga - @MagisterTom@xanga - I don't think Genesis 9 necessarily commands the death penalty. It says that whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." That could very well be read the way many proverbs are read - that generally, people who commit violence will be the subject of violence.
Secondly, let's remember (as ancient scribe pointed out- that Cain killed Able only chapters before, and was not given the death penalty. King David was a murderer, and was not given the death penalty. To say that God commands death for those who murder is to ignore his own actions. At times he does give people death, but at other times he does not. It definitely isn't universal.
Secondly, it's been proven in many studies that the death penalty is racist, at least in our country. Minorities, especially blacks, are much more likely to get the death penalty than a white person who commits the same crime.
@stuartandabby@xanga - I don't think anyone is arguing that murderers should be released. They're just arguing that they shouldn't be killed. If someone believes that death is the only acceptable punishment for someone who has wronged them, I wonder if they have even begun to grasp the nature of their sins, and the mercy God has on them.
In addition, your comparison to hell is a bit off. Hell is a final judgment by a perfect judge who has the authority to do so. He will not make mistakes. Humans, however, do make mistakes. People have gotten off death row when they've proven their innocence. Others have been proven innocent after being executed. Those mistakes are not reversible.
Just as the scriptures say God is slow to return because he is patient and wants people to turn to him, I believe we're more like God when we sentence to someone to live in prison in hopes that they will turn to Him there before they die.
@Theophilus166@xanga - I don't see why people assume that life imprisonment is "merciful." You're still taking the person's life away. And people on death row are there for years anyway. At any rate, people talk about how merciful God is, but God doesn't just change the sentence, he lets us walk. If you're going to point to God's mercy as a model for the state to follow, why make it such a pitiful parallel?
Wrongful convictions are an indictment against improper trials, not against the death penalty. And if someone sits in prison for 20 years before their innocence is discovered, I'm not really sure how you make it up to them. That is not really reversible either, even if they get some of their life back. And not all death penalty advocates clamor for every other prisoner to head to the gallows.
The same argument could be made against any retribution by the state. Imperfect judges meting out imperfect punishments. However, whether we like it or not, God has ordained the state as a stopgap for the time being. And it does bear the sword.
The state is not the church. It is not there to be merciful.
Just so you have a clearer picture of my stance, I am a subscriber to capital punishment in theory, but I am not a full-fledged advocate in practice. I think there are more pressing issues for our courts to concern themselves with that take priority over the death penalty.
@whataboutbahb@xanga - I meant that is integral in that it is proportionate. We don't get $100,000 fines for pirating music...ohwait. :D Anyway, generally speaking, the punishment fits the crime.
The de-escalation of violence is a result of injustices being addressed. When people in general are wronged, they feel a need for vindication. The natural inclination is to retaliate. However, anyone who has grown up with a brother or sister understands that rarely do two parties manage to "get even" without the other party feeling slighted. The state stepping in, ideally with her blindfold and scale, is in a position to arbitrate and address a wrong committed in a satisfactory fashion that is more likely to end a dispute than to perpetuate it.
I am no law student, and I'm sure I have an overly simplistic understanding of the issue that serves my ends.
@stuartandabby@xanga - "I don't see why people assume that life imprisonment is 'merciful.' " compared with sending someone to hell, jail for life is extremely merciful.
Not saying that I have the answer, but here's what I think. I'm a Christian as well, and I think in an ideal world, we wouldn't have a death penalty. There should be love, mercy, and forgiveness. And if the people repent and turn from their sin, then there is no reason for a death penalty. I mean, why would you if you know the person will turn from their crime. Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect, even the harshest punishment isn't enough to turn some people from their wrong ways. So personally, I see the death penalty as a last resort, not something to be thrown around haphazardly.
In Acts, there is the part about Ananias and Saphira (pardon my spelling), they were killed instantly for what? For not giving the portion of money they claimed to give. They died. And it was God who struck them down, not man. So is that fair? Why would God be so harsh when He's a God of love, forgiveness, and mercy? And the main reason that I can see is because it is to set an example, to show other people the severity of sin and their need to stay away from it. And in a way, that is actually God's love and grace who gave us that example so that we would not fall into the same path.
We can't forget that God is a God of justice. And God gives us second chances all the time, but it has a limit as well. When anyone dies, they are judged for their sins, so there is a limit to grace as well. God will forgive you until the moment you die, then that's it! It was up to you to have received Him as Lord and Saviour, then you are judged for your actions. On earth, places have set the limit as murder, or whatever it might be. To me, the death penalty is more a deterrent to crime than anything. If there were no consequences for your wrong actions, I would hate to see how much more crime and sin there would be in the world.
If I were you, I'd put down the bible and pick up a copy of Origin of the Species. If you think Christians are acting crazy over the death penalty, this book will bring you a whole new world of questions to ponder.
Thank you!
We need work camps, not death sentences. :D@CecilliaMarie@xanga - you make an interesting point. i've also heard people say that "jail is worse for the criminal" (when trying to convince death penalty proponents that it is indeed punishment enough) so, by that logic it stands to reason if incarceration is worse than execution(hypothetically lets make this a given), your ethical problem would apply to it as well and we should just let murderers and rapists roam the streets doing as they please. now, bear with me because i'm not trying to be confrontational (i really wish i could convey tone of voice at this point). my point is, when the law is broken something must be done, and while ultimately before God there is only one punishment for transgression(which is death), here in our earthly realm we have varying degrees of punishment, up to and including the death penalty for the worst offenders (ie murderers, rapists, etc.).
i would also point out to those who mentioned it that the death penalty is not about forgiveness or lack thereof, in fact historically there have been judges (in the days before the ACLU) that have admonished the condemned to seek peace with God, and spiritual council and comfort is made available to them. so that's a bit of a naive argument at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. @MagicalMayhem@xanga - i haven't read the book but i know what it is and i'm curious what direction you're headed with it. please elaborate.@whataboutbahb@xanga - just an interesting side note, i have heard it claimed that the (biblical) mandate of "an eye for an eye" was in fact not an escalative(is that a word?) command but was in fact meant to de-escalate. the reasoning behind this theory being that it was more along the lines of limiting the punishment and preventing a "life for an eye" scenario. i'm not sure that this is actually the case, but it makes for an interesting thought.
@stuartandabby@xanga - I get what you're saying. We're just using different terminology.