SoulRebel
Blue
Newbie
 Offline
Posts: 26
La La
|
 |
« on: October 22, 2008, 04:20:25 PM » |
|
Is the death penalty in line with Christian teaching?
som experts say it is not a deterrent to crime, therefore the point of death penalty is vengeance and the shedding blood to pay for sins
should we be killing people who killed others?
in high school, a priest told our class that the death penalty was wrong and the support for that was Jesus' cruxifiction
He said it was proof of a falliable justice system and we have no right to take the life of another....
revenge is mine! I will repay said the Lord!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #1 on: July 08, 2009, 10:18:55 PM » |
|
Deuteronomy 22:13-21 (King James Version)
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
The penalty for not being a virgin upon marriage is death apparently. I hope this helps clear some things up.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2009, 07:51:13 AM » |
|
Critics of the Bible must be careful not to impose their present day moral system upon that of an ancient culture found in Scripture and then judge Scripture as though it is inferior to their own subjective morality. You have to remember that this was written about 3000 years ago in a very different culture and location. Sexual purity was very highly valued,unlike today,when a man would marry a woman her virginity was critical.
In the culture of the time it was the father who was charged with the covering, care, and well-being of his daughter. Her sexual purity was was representative of the father's ability to raise her according to the laws God. Therefore, in that culture, a man's reputation, as well as the family's reputation in the community, could be adversely affected by the fornication of his daughter. If his daughter had been promised to a man to be married, and a dowry had been paid, there was every expectation from the bridegroom that she would be a virgin. If the contrary was discovered after the marriage, then the implication is that there had been a deception in which the father could be implicated, or it would mean that he was unaware of her sin and this would bring great shame to the family and the community, not to mention it being a display of outright rebellion against God's law. In this case, to insure the integrity of the family, and to remove the evil of adulterous/fornication from the community, stoning was advocated.
Finally, she was not stoned for not being a virgin, but for carrying out a deception in trying to appear as one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2009, 10:32:03 AM » |
|
I agree with you on your analysis of the verse on this one Lee, but then on the other side of the coin, while you note that the verse must be read and understood in the culture that it was originally written, how do we justify the claim from Christians that the bible is always current and meaningful. Anxiety is correct in trying to relate it to the current societal conditions with the problems of being stoned for not being a virgin, yet responding to his response by placing it in the generic category of being a critic of the bible, dampers the current position from the church that the bible is just as viable in today's society.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2009, 02:11:58 PM » |
|
So if the Bible is open to re/(mis?)interpretation based on our "present day moral system" then why do we need the Bible in the first place? I thought we were supposed to be getting our morals from the Bible, not injecting in our own "subjective" morality and condemning it thousands of years later.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2009, 02:46:03 PM » |
|
I agree with you on your analysis of the verse on this one Lee, but then on the other side of the coin, while you note that the verse must be read and understood in the culture that it was originally written, how do we justify the claim from Christians that the bible is always current and meaningful. Anxiety is correct in trying to relate it to the current societal conditions with the problems of being stoned for not being a virgin, yet responding to his response by placing it in the generic category of being a critic of the bible, dampers the current position from the church that the bible is just as viable in today's society. The Bible is as viable today as it was when it was revealed to man. As we say there is nothing new under the sun. First of all, the Bible does not say that it is forbidden to kill. The Bible says that it is forbidden to murder. For example, God gives us the right of self-defense and sometimes in that self-defense, it is necessary to kill someone. Furthermore, the Bible supports the death penalty as many Old Testament Scriptures clearly state. So, God is not making a mistake by saying do not kill and yet putting people to death via the death penalty. Murder is the unlawful taking of life. Killing is the lawful taking of life. Therefore, in the issue of taking life we must determine whether or not is lawful or not. If a murderer is sentenced to death in a lawful manner via the law of the land, then it is not murder. However, if a person were to rob someone else and kill him in the process, that is not a lawful taking of life and his murder. God never murders because before God, all people are guilty before the holy law that he is given. The penalty for not being a virgin upon marriage is death apparently. Of course I agree that we wouldn't kill a woman for not being a virgin according to our modern laws. That's not logical is it. Finally, she was not stoned for not being a virgin, but for carrying out a deception in trying to appear as one. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 02:55:33 PM by Lee2216 »
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #7 on: July 09, 2009, 06:22:22 PM » |
|
I believe Bruce has said it best - that the Bible is a story, which holds timeless truths. He's said that on a number of different threads, about different things, actually. For some reason, no one likes his view!  Of course we like his views  as long as he agrees with us!  Lee, I am confused, if it is as viable as you say, then who is to say which is the right interpretation. You originally posted that the verse dealt with the law back 3000 years ago. But to say that that interpretation is true, then virgins would have to be put under the same scrutiny today, or admit that the bible is just a guideline and stories about the Jewish race. I don't understand where you are going with the death/murder. I understand the analogy of the law of the land, but then are you stating that the viability of the bible is the overall view? Not the church's stance that it is the infallible word? For if the bible means exactly as you read it, which a lot of Christians agree with - then our daughters should be held to the same standards and laws 3000 years ago, or whenever the story was written. Are you saying that we need to revamp our entire democracy and laws of the land to be more in line with biblical law as known 3000 years ago, and Christians should look at becoming Messianic Jews? They practice the ancient laws along with accepting Jesus as the Messiah. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #8 on: July 09, 2009, 09:48:20 PM » |
|
Lee, I am confused, if it is as viable as you say, then who is to say which is the right interpretation. You originally posted that the verse dealt with the law back 3000 years ago. The book of Deuteronomy is about Moses' discourses on God's Acts for Israel the Decalogue, the ceremonial, civil, and social Laws, and covenant ratification. The verses that anxiety was pointing out are about marriage violations. That's all I was trying to point out. I don't understand how one could come up with different interpretations concerning those passages. The law changed when Jesus was crucified so our daughter's wouldn't have to be stoned for being untruthful about being a virgin. I don't understand where you are going with the death/murder. To summarize I believe in capital punishment. Genesis 9:6 says Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2009, 03:18:43 PM » |
|
The book of Deuteronomy is about Moses' discourses on God's Acts for Israel the Decalogue, the ceremonial, civil, and social Laws, and covenant ratification. The verses that anxiety was pointing out are about marriage violations. That's all I was trying to point out. I don't understand how one could come up with different interpretations concerning those passages. The law changed when Jesus was crucified so our daughter's wouldn't have to be stoned for being untruthful about being a virgin.
Yet, Jesus stated while he was still alive in Luke 16:17 "But that doesn?t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God?s law to be overturned. " As I understand the crucifixion, it was about the forgiveness of sins, and overturning the sins of Adam and Eve, which would then allow everyone's sin to be forgiven. It is a church doctrine that changed the meaning into what you have stated. Which then rules out the old testament entirely, yet Christianity still goes back to the old testament and the law as you have done in the death verse, for it's confirmation that it is God's law. Unless I am wrong and you can note the appropriate verses. Again I am confused, how can Jesus state that the law will never disappear or be overturned, and yet the doctrine that all the old laws were abolished when Jesus died by the church? Who would be the ultimate authority? Jesus or the church hierarchy? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2009, 03:55:11 PM » |
|
The law changed when Jesus was crucified so our daughter's wouldn't have to be stoned for being untruthful about being a virgin. I too would like to know where in the Bible it takes that the old laws are obsolete and changed. Is there a series of amendments in the New Testament? I may have skipped that part. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2009, 10:51:04 PM » |
|
Yet, Jesus stated while he was still alive in Luke 16:17 "But that doesn?t mean that the law has lost its force. It is easier for heaven and earth to disappear than for the smallest point of God?s law to be overturned. "
As I understand the crucifixion, it was about the forgiveness of sins, and overturning the sins of Adam and Eve, which would then allow everyone's sin to be forgiven. It is a church doctrine that changed the meaning into what you have stated. Which then rules out the old testament entirely, yet Christianity still goes back to the old testament and the law as you have done in the death verse, for it's confirmation that it is God's law. Unless I am wrong and you can note the appropriate verses.
Again I am confused, how can Jesus state that the law will never disappear or be overturned, and yet the doctrine that all the old laws were abolished when Jesus died by the church?
Who would be the ultimate authority? Jesus or the church hierarchy?
Paul you are exactly correct! Sorry that's my fault I didn't use the correct wording. I'm only human! What I meant to say was we are not required to keep Old Testament Law in order to get or maintain our salvation. We have died to the law through the body of Christ. Now, I'm not saying it's okay to lie,to cheat or steal either. Jesus is the ultimate authority absolutely! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Paul
|
|
« Reply #12 on: July 11, 2009, 09:19:44 PM » |
|
Thanks for the clarification Lee. Now the other part of the answer is where I believe that the church and Christians tend to haze the lines as they feel fit. What I meant to say was we are not required to keep Old Testament Law in order to get or maintain our salvation. We have died to the law through the body of Christ. Now, I'm not saying it's okay to lie,to cheat or steal either. Jesus is the ultimate authority absolutely!
I agree with your analysis that the New Testament through Apostle Paul would advocate that to keep the Old Testament law is not necessary for salvation for Christians. The sticking point is that a lot of Christians seem to disregard that same thought and then state that the Old laws no longer apply. Am I correct in that where you state we have died to the law through the body of Christ, you are talking about salvation only, not the laws that govern human activity? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Lee Encinosa
|
|
« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2009, 11:14:05 PM » |
|
The sticking point is that a lot of Christians seem to disregard that same thought and then state that the Old laws no longer apply. Am I correct in that where you state we have died to the law through the body of Christ, you are talking about salvation only, not the laws that govern human activity?
Yes I was talking about salvation only. First, we must retain the truth that we are not to violate any moral law of God. It is always wrong to lie, cheat, and to steal. Such commands are clearly reiterated in the New Testament and are based on the character of God. So, the Old Testament law dealing with morality, is definitely to be upheld. Nine of the Ten Commandments are referenced in the New Testament as still being valid. There is ample evidence in the New Testament though that the seventh day Sabbath is no longer a requirement. Romans 14:5-6 |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I will rise,when He calls my name,no more sorrow,no more pain
|
|
|
|
Anxiety
|
|
« Reply #14 on: July 12, 2009, 03:23:35 AM » |
|
What I meant to say was we are not required to keep Old Testament Law in order to get or maintain our salvation. So, salvation or not are we still to follow the laws of the Old Testament? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
