I never have understood this... (1 Viewer)

[selenau837]

Sorry for the delay's. I have DSL and keep loosing my internet connection.

As for the gifts. Have you been told by other christians, that these sort of gifts would not go hand in hand with the Bible or basic christian beliefs?

Yes I have. Many times.

 

[ShaneMan]

I'm unfamiliar with those people. Who are they want what did they do?

They were/are TV preachers. Both went away, for awhile, after being exposed but are now back on TV. They both claimed to have the gift of prophecy, knowledge, amoung others.

 

[ShaneMan]

Yes I have. Many times.

Do you get them to harmonize with the Bible? Are there scriptures that you have come up with that will back up your belief in these gifts?

 

[selenau837]

Do you get them to harmonize with the Bible? Are there scriptures that you have come up with that will back up your belief in these gifts?

Not really, that is why I'm torn. I can't remember where it is, but there are scriptures in the bible that say prophacy and the likes are evil.

I'm still in the process of soul searching, and will try and find stuff to back my views.

 

[ShaneMan]

Not really, that is why I'm torn. I can't remember where it is, but there are scriptures in the bible that say prophacy and the likes are evil.

I'm still in the process of soul searching, and will try and find stuff to back my views.

Hope you don't mind me throwing in a thought. I too, am a Christian and as far as I'm concerned, the Bible is the rule book of life, so for me I go to the Bible and read it to change my life. I try real hard not to go to the Bible and change it to fit my life. I am not making a comment as to whether your thoughts on these gifts are good or bad but I am encouraging you, that while your soul searching, the Bible will be a good resource to help you with your answers and whatever it has to say about the subject, believe it and walk by faith on what it says.

 

[selenau837]

Hope you don't mind me throwing in a thought. I too, am a Christian and as far as I'm concerned, the Bible is the rule book of life, so for me I go to the Bible and read it to change my life. I try real hard not to go to the Bible and change it to fit my life. I am not making a comment as to whether your thoughts on these gifts are good or bad but I am encouraging you, that while your soul searching, the Bible will be a good resource to help you with your answers and whatever it has to say about the subject, believe it and walk by faith on what it says.

Thank you very much, I will take your advice to heart.

 

[ShaneMan]

Not really, that is why I'm torn. I can't remember where it is, but there are scriptures in the bible that say prophacy and the likes are evil.

BTW, prophecy is not taught, in the Bible, as being evil. Fortune telling is something different. There were/are 600 prophecies of Jesus's first coming over an 800 year time span. They all came true. Got did communicate to his people through prophecies. They did not have the Bible. The Bible is completed now and we would have to consider whether there is still a need for prophecies anymore.

 

[jsanders]

Nope, however I can believe in the death penality and not be judged for it. For I am not inacting the actually killing.

Back to Capital Punishment

This is in no way an attempt to convince others to see this as I do; I’m simply outline why I changed from supporting Capital Punishment to apposing it.

Before the execution of Timothy McVee I believed that capital punishment was a valid and useful mechanism for controlling certain violent crimes. But the events of the Oklahoma bombing and its subsequent execution made me examine it for validity not morality.

First as Kraj said earlier it cost more to execute criminals than it does to imprison them for life.

If you maintain that executing an innocent would be a catastrophic judicial miscarriage, then you must agree with the appeals process for convicts on death row. Without that appeals process too many that didn’t warrant capital punishment would receive it. There is no appeal after the fact.

Second; at least in the Oklahoma City bombing; no amount of punishment would equal the death of one of those victims let alone the entire 169.


Third; I think that none of the survivors or the families of the victims got any closure or felt any better after the execution. In fact in an interview conducted later, that was the consensus; none were relieved.

Forth; In the event of a wrongful execution, the entire process must be scrutinized as unconstitutional, the state cannot wrongfully take away the rights of the citizenry.

Fifth: As a Christian, (this one does have moral underpinning) we aspire to see people get saved, regardless of what we may think of their sins.

All sins are forgivable through Christ, how can we decide who gets saved and who doesn’t.

Six; In reference to selenau837’s quote above, how could we condone an action we ourselves would not commit? How can I pay someone to do this job?

Someone who receives his paycheck at the bequest of the people.

And last, Seven; In the case of McVee, he certainly had an accomplice, we will never, though his testimony, discover this accomplice. So now the very penal system that is supposed to protect us, has left a potential perpetrator loose.

Possibly to strike again.

 

[Kraj]

Selena, I am left in a quandary. I put some thought into your position and have some responses, however I found research into the topic to be quite difficult. As with any controversial issue, finding realiable but unbiased sources is quite challenging. Furthermore, I found myself asking many questions that I thought would be useful but was unable to find answers. I'm afraid in order to truly form a solid, well-supported argument I'd have to conduct a great deal of studies and research from 1st-hand sources myself. And that's just a wee bit more effort than I'm willing to put into this.

Therefore, my intention is to open up an honest dialogue with you on the topic. Let me start by saying while I do have a strong opinion on the matter, I don't think the issue is cut and dried. To put it another way, I'm not approaching this from a "you're wrong and here's why" perspective, but more of a "I see your point, but have you thought about it this way?" perspective.

As I understand it so far, your support of the death penalty is based on three main factors: cost, social justice, and a loss of human rights by the perpetrator of a crime. Please let me know if I'm inaccurate here.

First let me tackle cost. I am personally skeptical of sources reporting costs of the death penalty since 99% of the time they have a great deal of bias. Nevertheless, I have to work with what's available. I believe that Amnesty International is a respected-enough organization that they should be trusted to a reasonable degree. With that in mind I encourage you to view what they have to say on the matter. To summarize the information on costs they provide: in states that opt to seek the death penalty (not all states do, even ones in which the death penalty is not banned) it generally costs two to three times more to investigate, prosecute, sentence, and carry out a capital crime than it does to incarcerate a person for life. Unless we decide to also elminate the extra safeguards that were put in place to prevent innocent people from being executed, in no way does a death penalty ever save money.

Next up is loss of human rights. The argument goes something like "When a person commits a crime they take someone else's rights away so they lose their rights". It's a commonly held opinion and it sounds reasonable enough, especially in the case of murder. The thing is that there is no legal basis for this whatsoever. In fact, the Constitution guarantees just the opposite by guaranteeing the right to due process. If a murderer has legally forfeit his right to life, then it would be legal for any private citizen to kill that person. Obviously it is not, nor should it be unless you believe lynch mobs and vigilanteism are healthy for society.

However, the biggest problem I see with this perspective is it is inconsistant. Our justice system is set up so that specific punishments, which are jail time and monetary fines, are applied no matter what the crime. It's done this way in accordance with the Constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. If someone commits robbery, society has no quarrel with that person going to jail; we do not demand the victim be allowed to rob the criminal and we do not declare the robber has forfeited his right to own property. If someone is convicted of ra**, we send that person to jail, we do not ra** them. Why, then, should murder be a special exception? Why should a murderer be murdered when such equitable punishment is not visited upon any other criminal?

Now I'll move on to the issue of justice in the death penalty. I don't believe the death penalty does anything to improve justice within the judicial system. Going back to my previous comment about equitable punishment, if incarceration is considered just punishment for any other crime how can it not be for murder? One could argue the families of victims get greater satisfaction from the death penalty. I would be immensely interested in a study on the grieving process among the families of murder victims where the criminal was executed compared with those where the criminal was only imprisoned. Unfortunately I could find no such study. Most people seem to believe the execution of the criminal is theraputic for the victim's loved ones; I'm skeptical of that belief. I could see a short-term sense of satisfaction or closure, but I doubt there are any of those benefits have a long-term impact.
*Thanks to jsanders for adding some info on this topic, and while I'm at it for making several other interesting points I hadn't thought of.*

Also, if we accept that death is a greater punishment for the criminal, then we must also accept that it is also a greater burden to bear for the criminal's loved ones. Even if you do believe the criminal's rights are irrelevant, how is it just to place the needs of the victim's family over the needs of the criminal's innocent family? Doesn't seem just to me.

Furthermore, we must recognize our justice system is not perfect. It will make mistakes and it will produce wrongful convictions. This is inevitable and occurs whether or not there is a death penalty. However, in cases where an innocent person is incarcerated, they can be freed. If an innocent person is executed, nothing whatsoever can be done. While both errors are devastating, execution is significantly worse.

Social justice and human rights are closely related. Therefore, I think it is worth taking a look at the death penalty policy of other countries and comparing them with other social issues. There are 122 countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice (ie., it's on the books, but they never do it) and 74 that have not. This group counts among its members (other than the United States) Bangladesh, China, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, North Korea, Kuwait, Lybia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, and Vietnam. China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States account for 94% of death penalty executions in the world. We consider ourselves among the more socially just countries in the world, yet our peers on this issue are not other socially just countries, they are countries with abysmal human rights records.

I'd like to finish with a couple tibids I found in my searching. The first discusses the relation of crime to repeat offenders.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/cpquery/T?&report=hr157&dbname=105&

Much of the problem of violent crime is a result of a relatively small group of chronic violent offenders who repeatedly cycle through our criminal justice system: they get arrested, sometimes convicted, occasionally sent to prison and then they are almost always released early after serving only a fraction of their sentences. Victims are frequently under the impression that a convicted offender will serve his or her sentence in full when in fact, violent criminals--those who murder, ra**, rob and assault--serve an average of 48 percent of their sentences.

I found it interesting because it suggests that violent crime would be severely reduced if criminals actually served their full sentence. Therefore, even though putting criminals to death would obviously be effective in reducing repeat crime, it is not at all necessary to do so.

I also found this interesting bit in a Hawaiian Op-Ed piece:
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/a...ID=/20060416/OPINION03/604160301/1110/OPINION

This bill rests upon the false assumption that those convicted of violent crimes are incapable of rehabilitation, and that imposing mandatory 30-year sentences is our only option. In reality, social reintegration programs such as the nationally recognized Delancey Street program in San Francisco and Maui Economic Opportunity's BEST (Being Empowered and Safe Together) program prove that even repeat violent felons can turn their lives around and become law-abiding citizens with education, training and support.

Programs like BEST that work in collaboration with the Department of Public Safety and other community agencies provide comprehensive support services in the areas of case management, employment, housing, family reunification, cognitive skills, mentoring, cultural renewal and referrals for substance abuse, mental health and other counseling services to individuals convicted of class-A and -B felonies.

Recent data on the BEST program from September 2005 show a substantially lower recidivism rate of 19 percent for its clients, compared to Hawai'i's overall recidivism rate of 51 percent to 80 percent.

I found this one interesting because it suggests that even chronic violent offenders can be rehabilitated.

Take from all this what you will.

 

[ShaneMan]

Thou shalt not kill, God to Moses. Am, I missing somehing here

Rich,

I guess whether I want to stir up some dust or not by replying to this I guess I will but you and I talked about this a few months back. Very few biblical scholars would agree that the proper translation is "Thou shalt not kill." The more accurate translation is "Thou shalt not murder." That is not an American translation. This is taking the Hebrew, what the Old Testament was written it, and looking up the definition of the Hebrew word.

Strong's Concordance: 1) to murder, slay
a) to murder, slay
1) premeditated
2) accidental
3) as avenger
4) slayer
2) to murder, assassinate

A number of well respected Bible Translations use the word murder, in this verse, instead of kill. New Living Testament, New King James Version, New American Standard, Young's, and the Hebrew Names Version are a few. I only bring this up because there is a distinct difference between "kill" and murder."

Shane

 

[Rich]

Rich,

I guess whether I want to stir up some dust or not by replying to this I guess I will but you and I talked about this a few months back. Very few biblical scholars would agree that the proper translation is "Thou shalt not kill." The more accurate translation is "Thou shalt not murder." That is not an American translation. This is taking the Hebrew, what the Old Testament was written it, and looking up the definition of the Hebrew word.

Strong's Concordance: 1) to murder, slay
a) to murder, slay
1) premeditated
2) accidental
3) as avenger
4) slayer
2) to murder, assassinate

A number of well respected Bible Translations use the word murder, in this verse, instead of kill. New Living Testament, New King James Version, New American Standard, Young's, and the Hebrew Names Version are a few. I only bring this up because there is a distinct difference between "kill" and murder."

Shane

I searched the Internet thoroughly on this, I could not find one reference to "though shalt not murder" they were all unequivocal, "though shalt not kill"

 

[lmnop7854]

Not really, that is why I'm torn. I can't remember where it is, but there are scriptures in the bible that say prophacy and the likes are evil.

I'm still in the process of soul searching, and will try and find stuff to back my views.

Selena:

Let me give you my 2 cents about this particular issue (this thread is going to be very hard for you to read, with everyone junping in on different things). I no longer call myself a Christian, because I have found many hypocrisies in the Christian faiths. I used to be a Catholic, but so many tenets of the Catholic church go against my true beliefs, that I opted out of that religion. I have faith, and truthfully, I don't need a book to tell me what is right or wrong, especially one written by men and not a Higher Power about 2000 years ago. My Higher Power tells me what is right or wrong, and I feel it in my heart.

I have a very hard time with organized religion, because it is based on the interpretation of what God or Whatever supposed wants for us. I'd really rather have it straight from the source, if you don't mind. I don't go to church anymore, but I do have conversations with God. And I truly believe that He/She is a benevolent being, and loves all of his children. Period. No conditions. I don't see that kind of love in many organized religions. And that is what I think is right.

Faith is a difficult issue to tackle, and for me, it took me a long time to come to grips with it as well. I was in the same torn state as you about 6 or 7 years ago, but I found the sense of spirituality that works for me. I would be happy to talk to you in private about it if you are interested - it is not a subject I prefer to have emblazoned on the Internet.

Continue on your search, you will find what works for you when it is time. It is the questioning that opens our minds.

Lisa

 

[ddmcn]

Ancient Law

But what right does the state have to kill someone?

The state, as was aptly put, is you and I. The authority of the state to punish offenders is not a new idea. The idea that the state has no right to punish criminals is pretty scary...I think it is called anarchy.

 

[ShaneMan]

I searched the Internet thoroughly on this, I could not find one reference to "though shalt not murder" they were all unequivocal, "though shalt not kill"

Little help with your searching. Here's a link to Strong's Concordance.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/7/1146830408-8272.html

and here's a link to different translations. Side by side.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/versions/1146830513-6424.html#13

blueletterbible is a website that allows you to pull several things together at once. Various translations side by side. Several concordances to look up the defineation. If you want you can read Vine's concordance on it as well. It also has several commentaries that you can read on the verse. A famous Brit is even listed there. Matthew Henry. The particular verse we are talking about is Exodus 20:13.

HTH,
Shane

 

[ddmcn]

No we have to try and change the society that created them in the first place.

As for not changing your mind, don't worry, you're a female, we're used to it

Why is it that when someone does something wrong we try and figure out what society did to cause it? Whatever happened to personal responsibility? We, as humans, know the difference between right and wrong. We make choices every day between doing the right thing and the wrong thing. We are also selfish and greedy and are proned to do things that satisfy our own desires. When someone does something that hurts another, it is not society that is doing the harm it is the perpetrator...making a choice to put his/her own desires in front of the welfare of someone else. The "perp" then must take the responsibilty for his/her own actions and if the consequences turn out to be punishment, so be it.

Happy Friday, all

 

[Matty]

The state, as was aptly put, is you and I. The authority of the state to punish offenders is not a new idea. The idea that the state has no right to punish criminals is pretty scary...I think it is called anarchy.

I'm not saying we shouldn't punish criminals. I'm saying that the punishment does not have to be the death penalty.

 

[selenau837]

Thank you Greg, I will take the time this weekend to fully read what you have written. I can't do it fully here because of all the interuptions. You may yet make me think differently. No promises, but I will keep and open mind. Especially since you took the time to do this for me.

Lisa,

I would love to discuss it with you in private. PM me and we can go from there.

 

[Matty]

Okay, lets say for the sake of argument that the correct translation is "Thou shalt not murder." The argument is that murder is pre-meditated. Based on the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary, premeditated is defined as:

"characterized by fully conscious willful intent and a measure of forethought and planning."

That sounds similar to what the justice system is doing. The only difference is that the gov't is doing the planning, not the individual.

 

[jsanders]

I think the more applicable Christian point of view would be depriving an inmate of salvation.

Christ himself said that he was not here to gather the righteous, but to save the lost.
“Would not a sheppard leave the 99 in search of the one that was lost, and would he not rejoice upon finding the lost sheep.”

How can humans perceive Chirst’s will to save this person’s sole? If we seek to deprive a man his chance to be saved; we are playing God, I cannot imagine that he would be pleased.

We may think that these killers are deprived of this; God given right, but there is no passage that I am aware, that tells us to go out and decide who can be saved.

 

[ColinEssex]

I think the more applicable Christian point of view would be depriving an inmate of salvation.

what has christianity got to do with it?

If people break the law of the land - and the penalty for their crime is death - so be it. Thats tough sh*t - don't break the law - quite simple

Col