Supreme Court rejects death penalty for raping children

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

....and own slaves too

times change

Sigh.

Romans 13(NT)....talks about the government having the right to use the sword. You can interpret that any way you like, but most people would agree that its revolves around the government having the right to lawfully execute people. An extension of that(not the execution part, but the sword part)....would be the government having the right to declare war, or use its citizens to defend its freedom. I.E the military.

Again, you may disagree with this, but in regards to what a 'Christian' should believe, well Paul was pretty explicit about that.

Most of the NT is about personal responsibility....heck, the 4 gospels talk solely about individual actions. But Paul was very clear in what he said about a 'Christian'...and the 'government.'

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by driveway

This is getting off-topic and into semantics, but I don't consider world peace and complete absence of conflict to be synonyms. In my view a world where no one ever killed anyone else for any reason ever, would, by default, be a world at peace.

You were pretty clear in your initial post.

Since killing someone does not always equal murder I think you're conclusion is valid, though unattainable...which you said yourself anyway.

I think you have folks inserting the word murder into your statement and changing its meaning.

[McMack]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sigh.

Romans 13(NT)....talks about the government having the right to use the sword. You can interpret that any way you like, but most people would agree that its revolves around the government having the right to lawfully execute people. An extension of that(not the execution part, but the sword part)....would be the government having the right to declare war, or use its citizens to defend its freedom. I.E the military.

Again, you may disagree with this, but in regards to what a 'Christian' should believe, well Paul was pretty explicit about that.

Most of the NT is about personal responsibility....heck, the 4 gospels talk solely about individual actions. But Paul was very clear in what he said about a 'Christian'...and the 'government.'

yet much of the Christian community is opposed to capital punnishment, e.g.

http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac0195.asp

[McMack]

Originally Posted by McMack

yet much of the Christian community is opposed to capital punnishment, e.g.

http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac0195.asp

"We have a very consistent cornmitment as Church to defending the sanctity of human life. We struggle mightily against abortion; we have a commitment and concern for the poor; we deplore racial and sexual discrimination and the self -destructive use of drugs. Our position against the use of the death penalty falls into that continuum. We believe that an issue such as capital punishment is not just a question of public policy, but is at its very core a moral issue, and therefore a religious issue, and we must speak to it."

[Azure]

Originally Posted by McMack

yet much of the Christian community is opposed to capital punnishment, e.g.

http://www.americancatholic.org/News.../CU/ac0195.asp

I never said they should 'support' it....I don't support it either from a moral viewpoint. But does the government have the right to execute criminals who commit the most heinous crimes? Yes, I believe they do.

Its just another part of my screwed up logic.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Azure

Sigh.

Romans 13(NT)....talks about the government having the right to use the sword. You can interpret that any way you like, but most people would agree that its revolves around the government having the right to lawfully execute people. An extension of that(not the execution part, but the sword part)....would be the government having the right to declare war, or use its citizens to defend its freedom. I.E the military.

Again, you may disagree with this, but in regards to what a 'Christian' should believe, well Paul was pretty explicit about that.

Most of the NT is about personal responsibility....heck, the 4 gospels talk solely about individual actions. But Paul was very clear in what he said about a 'Christian'...and the 'government.'

Yeah well I definitely do disagree with this, and not to go too far OT, but couldn't the actions of Mugabe, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. be defended with this logic...

...and honestly do you think if you were able to sit down for beer with Jesus, he would be in favor of capital punishment? I personally doubt it, but that is just my opinion...

[jammies]

Originally Posted by evman150

As usual with your posts in threads like this, a candle in the darkness that is this hatred-filled message board.

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't agree that this is a "hatred-filled message board". I find that there are few truly hateful people, and that there is no point in engaging those kinds of people in debate as there is no chance of changing their minds anyway.

This is just the kind of issue that pushes plenty of buttons for people - especially those who have been a victim of such abuse or are close to someone who has experienced it. It just means you have to be especially sensitive to the emotional content in order to get across your point. Confrontation has its place, but you aren't going to convince anyone if you start off your argument by insulting them.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by FireFly

The point is that a child's mind is still forming. A 6 year old doesn't know what is acceptable in a lot of cases. A 20 year old does. The 6 year old who experiences rape may grow up thinking it's acceptable, the 20 year old already knows it isn't. To believe that the rape of a child wouldn not have a greater impact on the mental development of a child than it would on an adult is quite a fallacy.

Very well said, and the root of why I think that crimes against children ARE more heinous than those against adults - the same action taken against a child can have far more serious consequences than one taken against an adult. While I do not advocate capital punishment at any time, I have no problem with the idea of harsher penalties for those convicted of sexual crimes against children.

I also think that the excuse that some people are just wired that way should have no effect on how they are treated - while you may have no control over your desires, you DO have control on whether or not you act on those desires. If it comes down to a choice as to whether YOU are miserable because you cannot achieve the sexual release you crave, or whether someone else will be miserable as an unwilling participant in that release, I cannot feel any sympathy for those who would rather inflict pain on someone else.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Yeah well I definitely do disagree with this, and not to go too far OT, but couldn't the actions of Mugabe, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. be defended with this logic...

...and honestly do you think if you were able to sit down for beer with Jesus, he would be in favor of capital punishment? I personally doubt it, but that is just my opinion...

I guess it all depends on what you call the 'sword.'

[Thor]

Originally Posted by jammies

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't agree that this is a "hatred-filled message board". I find that there are few truly hateful people, and that there is no point in engaging those kinds of people in debate as there is no chance of changing their minds anyway.

This is just the kind of issue that pushes plenty of buttons for people - especially those who have been a victim of such abuse or are close to someone who has experienced it. It just means you have to be especially sensitive to the emotional content in order to get across your point. Confrontation has its place, but you aren't going to convince anyone if you start off your argument by insulting them.

CP has a lot of great debates, if you spent any time on other forums you'd appreciate how civil and worthwhile the discussions here are.

As for victims, well of course they are angry.. In the heat of anger people want blood, thankfully in MOST of the western world we do not allow capital punishment and we have life imprisonment instead.

Which is WAY worse.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

I guess it all depends on what you call the 'sword.'

In what context--i.e. what part of the bible--do you mean "the sword"? Do you mean "live by the sword die by the sword," or "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Either way, I think you'll have a hard time arguing that Christ was in favour of capital punishment. That was more the Romans' thing.

[Antithesis]

Yeah, Azure, I also think my point is not getting across there ... I'm saying he seems pretty enthused with the idea of the death penalty, that his philosophy does not seem to fit my understanding of Christianity which is (to me) at the core all about trying to follow Christ's path. I don't see Jesus Christ as presented in the bible being all like "Yeah man, they have no right to live! Light 'em up man! Who cares if it's the wrong guy!" I'm not 100% up on my bible reading, but wasn't the criminal beside Jesus at Golgotha who asked for (and received) his forgiveness a murderer?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

I'm not 100% up on my bible reading, but wasn't the criminal beside Jesus at Golgotha who asked for (and received) his forgiveness a murderer?

I think they were thieves--but in fact, my understanding is that those crucified as thieves might just as easily be political dissidents like Christ himself. I'm no expert--perhaps Textcritic can shed some light.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

In what context--i.e. what part of the bible--do you mean "the sword"? Do you mean "live by the sword die by the sword," or "I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

Either way, I think you'll have a hard time arguing that Christ was in favour of capital punishment. That was more the Romans' thing.

Neither. Jesus focused on the individual person....which both of those above statements are supposed to be applied towards.

Romans 13: 4

4For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Antithesis

Yeah, Azure, I also think my point is not getting across there ... I'm saying he seems pretty enthused with the idea of the death penalty, that his philosophy does not seem to fit my understanding of Christianity which is (to me) at the core all about trying to follow Christ's path. I don't see Jesus Christ as presented in the bible being all like "Yeah man, they have no right to live! Light 'em up man! Who cares if it's the wrong guy!" I'm not 100% up on my bible reading, but wasn't the criminal beside Jesus at Golgotha who asked for (and received) his forgiveness a murderer?

Thats because Jesus Christ never talked about capital punishment OR the role of the government in his teachings. Although I'm not exactly sure about that.

Everything he said had to do with the individual. Paul focused more on the role of the government, and the role of the Christian, or citizen...in regards to obeying the government.

Now, I know there are people who see a conflict between what Paul said, and what Jesus said. Personally, I don't understand it, which is why I wish Textcritic would come explain it.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Neither. Jesus focused on the individual person....which both of those above statements are supposed to be applied towards.

Romans 13: 4

See, I guess I would interpret that as "God will take care of vengeance. Worry about your own conscience and let God worry about the evildoers." Which would seem entirely more consistent with Christ's general philosophy.

In fact, you'll note that it doesn't refer to "government" or invest the power of vengeance in the ruling class in any way. And why would it? That would be totally inconsistent with the whole fomenting resistance to the Jewish ruling class and to the Romans that Christ was kind of big on.

I for one HIGHLY doubt Christ would be down with capital punishment. In fact, there's this story about casting stones and being without sin.... it's pretty famous. What that points to, for me, is the hypocrisy behind capital punishment--punishing others while ignoring the sinful nature of the self, which as you point out was his chief concern.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

In fact, you'll note that it doesn't refer to "government" or invest the power of vengeance in the ruling class in any way. And why would it? That would be totally inconsistent with the whole fomenting resistance to the Jewish ruling class and to the Romans that Christ was kind of big on.

Uh, yeah it does. Unless you interpreted it different than I did.

1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

NIV.

It helps to read it in context.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Uh, yeah it does. Unless you interpreted it different than I did.



NIV.

It helps to read it in context.

You mean in the context of Romans 12 too I hope.... where Paul explicitly states that vengeance is God's prerogative alone?

I'm no biblical scholar, I'm the first to admit that. But after your post I did a little digging, and found that your interpretation of Romans 13:4 is pretty old-fashioned, associated mainly with those people we loosely term "Christian conservatives"--who believe in what Textcritic calls "biblical inerrency" along with a need for the state to submit and conform to the greater authority of God ad the Bible.

If you think about it, this passage makes no sense in the context of that worldview. If the state always enacts the will of God, then it is also the will of God that abortion be legal, that the government levy an Alternative Minimum Tax, or that offshore drilling be banned. Clearly some things belong only in the realm of the secular, and others can be understood through revelation. Governance isn't one--and I don't think your passage really contradicts that view, though it certainly introduces a little ambiguity.

Moreover, the interpretation you cite essentially requires that Christianity merely reinscribe the system of authority that it replaced, but now with a Christian at the head rather than a Roman. In other words, you replace one tyrant with another, and grant both dominance over not only the body but also over religion. It's far likelier that Paul was advocating something along the lines of "submission without compliance"--a kind of fatalistic knowledge that the hand of God is in all things, even a state run by people not chosen by him.

Here's a pretty interesting article about the very passage you cited. You may be surprised by its interpretation--it's in fact exactly opposite to yours. It's not the only possible one--but I've found only one source that claims this passage justifies capital punishment, and it was a website for a Southern Babtist church.
http://www.directionjournal.org/article/?1287

[Scrambler]

Originally Posted by Thor

CP has a lot of great debates, if you spent any time on other forums you'd appreciate how civil and worthwhile the discussions here are.

As for victims, well of course they are angry.. In the heat of anger people want blood, thankfully in MOST of the western world we do not allow capital punishment and we have life imprisonment instead.

Which is WAY worse.

I guess it depends on how bad death is.... who knows maybe death is worse than being kept in a cage for the rest of your life.

Speaking of death though can open up a whole new can of worms...

[Scrambler]

A few years ago, I did a little study on the 'Psychology of Pedophiles'. Keeping mind that not all pedophiles are child rapists. It's kind of like thinking about doing a crime, but never actually doing it. The interesting thing that I found was that many pedophiles do seek therapy to help get the sexual craving out of them.

There are several theories that say that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and it is something you are born into. Just like being gay, straight, transexual, etc. No one with those orientations 'chose' to be that way.

The challenge for pedophiles is abstaining from their urges. Many use child pornography as their release... better to watch it and get off than do it and get off... the theory goes.

The problem for pedophiles using this form of 'therapy' is that it is illegal, and someone who has never touched a child can be thrown in jail where they will likely be beaten, castrated, murdered if they are caught possesing child pornography.

Let me put it this way, if every pedophile acted on their urges... there would be a disgustingly vast amount of child rape going on in the World.... MUCH more than right now, which is a very scary thought.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not defending pedophiles by any means, but do have to admit that the whole issue of pedophilia was far more complex than I thought it was.