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.
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.
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*.
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."
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.
I ******* have! :D
"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...)