Wow, you obviously put some time into writing that, so thank you.

Believe in the oneness of God, believe Jesus was the son of God, and follow his teachings and you're a Christian. Irregardless of what anyone says.

But this - "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? … I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord."

Isn't that evidence enough of Jesus' views on 'the death of the wicked'? It should be.

Also no matter what you say, the Bible teaches life is sacred and only God may take it.
This includes, Suicide and murder, murder under all guises including "the state".

As for Matthew 26:51-52 Jesus wasn't talking of the Death Penalty, when he said "those that take by the swrod, shall perish by the sword" he merely was saying that violence tends to lead to violence.



That's fine. I wish I could say I don't care what you think, but that'd be a lie.

In the end, I am against the death penalty, because of my faith, and my morals.
If for no other reason, because innocent people die, and if you don't care, or still support the death penalty you're evil incarnate.
END.

It is evidence that Jesus does not take any pleasure in it and nothing more. I take no pleasure in the death of another human being, whether criminal or saint, but that doesn't mean I don't recognize the validity or even sanctity of certain deaths.


It isn't what I say, it is what the Bible says. Yes, we are taught as individuals not to take a life, but we are also instructed, as a culture/society/religious group/whatever you call it, to punish criminals, and to punish certain criminals with death. I didn't say that. The Bible does. You can't rip one verse out of context and presume that that one verse out of thousands of verses sums up everything God had to teach us. Why not just boil the whole book down to the "the strong protect the weak, the golden rule, and believe in God above all" and quit reading it altogether.





If I am evil incarnate, then so is Saint Thomas Aquinas, Lord Justice Denning, J.J. Rousseau, Pope Pious XII, Sister Helen Prejean, all of the Southern Baptists, and other fundamental evangelicals around the world, and the apostle Paul, who stated, in his hearing before Festus, "if then I am a wrong doer, and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die." Acts 25:11. This statement by Paul constitutes an acknowledgment that the state continues, just as it had in the days of Noah (Gen. 6:9), to have the power of life and death in the administration of justice.

You don't have to believe in the death penalty. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need it, and the Bible certainly teaches that we all should avoid any action which might earn us a death penalty, but no where does it specifically forbid a government to employ a death penalty for capital crimes. If you want to abolish it around the world, provide an alternative method that supplants humanity's natural inclination to understand and accept it with something more. If you want to abolish it around the world, in other words, come up with a reason that carries more weight than "I'm pretty sure the Bible tells me so."

Even when I was active in a church, proselytizing daily, I would never have presumed to condemn millions of people as "evil incarnate." How happy (Ecce - if you're in here btw- this is the happiness I mentioned elsewhere which you rightly called me out on as not a true use of the word) you must be to be certain of your beliefs to know everything there is to know of God.

If someone condoned the death penalty then they'd take pleasure in knowing an evil individual was dead.

I think the death penalty is cold-blooded murder by another name, I do so because I believe, and millions do also, that the teachings of Christianity are against the death penalty. I also believe morally the death penalty is unjust.

Inoccent people are hanged, and murdered for crimes they didn't commit, if that doesn't put you off the death penalty, they yes, you are evil incarnate.

Innocent people dying for no good reason, people being executed to "save money"?
Any good human being with a sound mind would agree with me, or anyone who's not a psychopath.

If you believe in the death penalty yourself then why don't you watch a lovely video of beheading gone wrong? People hanging on by the tubes they were using to breath not 10 minutes ago.
If you can't do that, you're a hypocrite, if you can, you're sick.

I can condone the death penalty without taking pleasure in the death of any one criminal.

You argue without reason and employ no logic.

I stated earlier, I neither condone nor condemn the death penalty. It is what it is - a tool of human governments in place since the dawn of recorded law and probably earlier.

Innocent people are trampled on every day. Do I wish this were not the case? Yes. Emphatically so. Do I think there is any way to avoid it ever happening on a wholesale scale? No. It is the nature of life.

Had you wanted to rebut my arguments, you should rather have argued with me than petulantly insisting that I must be wrong because I don't think like you. Show me I'm wrong with reason.

For example, all you needed to argue the point was to say, as the Catholics do, that even though the Bible gave us capital punishment, we now exist in a time and place where alternatives to the death penalty are available (life in prison, for example) and so must not necessarily employ the heinous act of state death but rather are liberated by the ability to incarcerate. You might have said that the overwhelming evidence that racism, classism, and economics evident in the death penalty system have voided any government's right to use it because it cannot be charitably and equally applied to all citizens. You might even have said that since the Bible remains effectively silent on the subject in the New Testament, neither specifically condoning nor condemning the right of the state to use capital punishment, that we as Christians are free to make up our own minds on the subject - considering what we know of free will, morality, and God's love in our decisions - and that either decision is correct and so should be decided democratically within a society.

But you didn't. You couldn't, could you? That would require thinking. It's so much easier just to condemn me and stand firm in your childish beliefs. Childish not because of what they are, but childish because of your level of understanding about them. But that is faith for you - a childish belief in the absurd.

*Yawn*



I can think of a very good way to prevent innocent people dying. Aboloshing the death penalty.



I have quoted this without reading it because the first 6 words made me yawn.

Thou shalt not kill. You shall not murder.
However you wish to phrase it, whatever words or spelling you use, however you take its meaning is irrelevant.
The rule for all of humanity - Thou shalt not kill.
That includes "The State".

I think I prefer Whitewolf to you. He's better at it.

"Guard what God has entrusted to you. Avoid godless, foolish discussions with those who oppose you with their so-called knowledge.


Reply as you may, I will just choose to ignore you, don't waste your words.
"When an argument flares up, the wise man quenches it with silence."

I'lll chip in with some wisdom for you! "there is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt".

EDIT:Hahahahah, you have no clue whatsoever what unknown said so you reply with *yawn*.

:D
Ok, if anyone is re reading through what I wrote, replace innocent with "not that guilty - much".
:)

I rather think he missed the point where I proved the death penalty was wrong, even.

A man got a new hunting dog, and went out to shoot ducks. He shoots a duck, and it falls in a lake. His dog walks across the water, retrieves the duck, and brings it back to him. Shocked that his dog can walk on water, he shoots another duck, and again, the dog walks across the lake to retrieve it.

The next day, he asks a buddy to go hunting with him, wanting him to see what his dog can do. Shortly after arriving near the lake, he shoots a duck. The dog walks across the waters of the lake, and retrieves the duck. He shoots several more ducks, and several more times the dog walks across water to retrieve them. The buddy never says a thing about this dog.

Finally able to stand it no longer, the man asks his friend, "Don't you think there is something unusual about my dog?"

The friend replies, "Sure do. He can't swim."

Ok.... :S

It's also the perfect defense for one who is not a coward. That is why the system works as it has and has worked that way since we had legal systems. When King Hammurabi proscribed the death penalty, it was not his hand who wielded the sword. It's basic human psychology. I understand Hexi not understanding that, but you certainly should. One cannot be judge, jury, and executioner without ill effect to one's psyche. Why? Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's a mental construct, yes, for the state to employ an executioner, but one whose purpose is to leave the non-criminals involved in the punishment of actual criminals psychologically unscathed by the process.

No, the fact that one needs to use "The State" as a defence, means that they're a coward.
They're the worst type of human being, one consumed by evil.

Answer the ******* question.

I ******* have! :D

Unknown -

"Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? … I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord."

I win! (that was a joke...)