Warning: Contentious subject matter.
I may be missing something, but I still fail to understand how the two are compatible. Anyone out there care to share an opinion on this?
There's an element of "an eye for an eye" in the death penalty, of course. The belief that people have committed a crime so serious that it needs to be paid for with a life. There's also a belief that some people are simply evil and/or crazy, beyond redemption - they'll never be safe to release.
...but from a Christian perspective, isn't that just a lack of faith and an admission of (human) failure? If you follow a religion that believes in reincarnation, it might seem more reasonable to execute some criminals. They've screwed up this life - better luck next time. From some atheist perspectives, it might also be justified.
But for Christianity, there's only one life, isn't there? And during that life there should always be scope for salvation if someone truly repents and turns to God. It would seem that deliberately ending an 'evil' person's life removes any possibility of future redemption - which would seem to be wrong, wouldn't it? If the Bible says that faith can redeem a sinner, how can people say that a particular sinner either isn't worthy - or isn't capable - of that redemption?
I'm not trying to make a straw man argument here - I'm well aware that most (all?) of the major Christian churches are against the death penalty (Catholicism's position is that it's only justified when it "is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives", for example).
However, a lot of individuals do support it, it seems - and don't see it as incompatible with their faith. That's the bit I'm struggling with. Opinions?
I may be missing something, but I still fail to understand how the two are compatible. Anyone out there care to share an opinion on this?
There's an element of "an eye for an eye" in the death penalty, of course. The belief that people have committed a crime so serious that it needs to be paid for with a life. There's also a belief that some people are simply evil and/or crazy, beyond redemption - they'll never be safe to release.
...but from a Christian perspective, isn't that just a lack of faith and an admission of (human) failure? If you follow a religion that believes in reincarnation, it might seem more reasonable to execute some criminals. They've screwed up this life - better luck next time. From some atheist perspectives, it might also be justified.
But for Christianity, there's only one life, isn't there? And during that life there should always be scope for salvation if someone truly repents and turns to God. It would seem that deliberately ending an 'evil' person's life removes any possibility of future redemption - which would seem to be wrong, wouldn't it? If the Bible says that faith can redeem a sinner, how can people say that a particular sinner either isn't worthy - or isn't capable - of that redemption?
I'm not trying to make a straw man argument here - I'm well aware that most (all?) of the major Christian churches are against the death penalty (Catholicism's position is that it's only justified when it "is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives", for example).
However, a lot of individuals do support it, it seems - and don't see it as incompatible with their faith. That's the bit I'm struggling with. Opinions?
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 07:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 07:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 08:03 pm (UTC)That predates the message of salvation through Jesus, though, doesn't it?
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 08:12 pm (UTC)Incidentally people leap on "an eye for an eye" as justification very readily, yet mysteriously hardly ever propose legalising selling your daughters into slavery and marrying multiple wives, which are endorsed in the adjacent verses.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 08:19 pm (UTC)a) they like the freedom that the OT gives them (or they think gives them) to be repugnant and judgemental pricks; or
b) they simply pick and choose which parts of their scripture (both OT and NT) to adhere to, and which to ignore,
or a combination of the two. Big J supposedly, and conveniently for those that like to think either of the two ways, said that he came to both revoke mosaic law, and to uphold it. How handy.
It should be noted that for most "crimes", the appropriate punishment is the death penalty, especially but not exclusively in the OT.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 08:21 pm (UTC)And then there's that famous Jefferson Davis quote, confirming his belief that slavery "was established by decree of Almighty God", sanctioned by the bible and generally good for society...
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 08:31 pm (UTC)Matthew 5: 17-18
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 09:25 pm (UTC)Another thing that fails to make sense to me (as a pro-life person) is how people can use the 'pro-life' label and support capital punishment.
It just doesn't make sense.
Of course, we're all human and all make mistakes - maybe this is one of theirs.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 09:41 pm (UTC)Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)"
Eastern religions have it easy. Say twenty contradictory and/or nonsensical things before breakfast, then call 'em koans and explain that they provoke enlightened thinking. Nobody challenges that. :)
More serious reply later.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 09:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 09:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 10:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 11:07 pm (UTC)sorry
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 11:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 11:18 pm (UTC)LOL.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 11:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-30 11:48 pm (UTC)I was under the impression that just before execution a person of appropriate religious stature is on hand to receive a final confession and provide redemption.
Beyond that, render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's and unto God what is God's... is kind of open to interpreting as send back the wicked.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-31 12:56 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-31 12:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-31 08:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-31 08:42 am (UTC)From an orthodox christian point of view, and from the theology I studied the two really can't be reconciled. However these days "christian" is an incredibly broad label, almost rivaling pagan for it's level of meaninglessness.
I suspect generally though the contradiction is handled by not thinking about it too much.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-31 08:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-31 08:59 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-08-31 09:02 am (UTC)As for accepting the government's decisions and rendering unto Caesar, we should remember that this is written in an environment where the governmentis not only non-Christian but often actively hostile. It says nothing of what a government partly made up of Christians, or a democracy where some voters are Christian, should be doing.
no subject
Date: 2007-08-31 04:33 pm (UTC)There is??? o0
no subject
Date: 2007-08-31 07:03 pm (UTC)...that's my main point, I think, although I was struggling to express it quite that clearly.
The other aspects are also important, but it seems this is the one that's most directly (if not uniquely) linked to Christian faith.
no subject
Date: 2007-09-01 03:24 pm (UTC)All murders are killings, but not all killings are murder. Murder's a legal term describing a specific crime. The death penalty isn't murder in those terms, because it's sanctioned by the proper authorities.
Some bible translations use "kill" in the commandments, others use "murder". It's an important distinction...