> > Most of your refutations of arguments in favor of capital punishment laws are refutations of arguments I don't believe in either. Capital punishment does not deter future crime. Capital punishment does not provide closure to the families of the victims, or, if it did, does not provide what I believe is a particularly healthy kind of closure. Most importantly, let me dissuade you from the ridiculous notion that capital punishment is (or should be) motivated out of hatred or vengeance. Both are wrong. I admit that I do not feel much heartbreak over Timothy McVeigh (I think I wish I felt more), but I absolutely do not glory in his death, nor feel that any wrong he did has somehow been righted.
> >
> > I've given my secular reasons for capital punishment in another post. I wanted to reply to you firstly to agree with your refutations of many of the other secular reasons for capital punishment, and then to refute your spiritual reason against it.
> >
> > You can't use Christianity as a basis for condemning capital punishment as immoral if you only pick and choose unrelated principles of Christianity and ignore those elements of it that address the subject directly. Yes, "murder" is a sin; yes, all sins are equal in the eyes of God, and but a single lie is as loathsome in His sight as mass genocide, just as ten is no further from infinity than ten thousand. But God, in the Bible, endorses capital punishment and approves of human government wielding that power. What other Christianity-based argument can you have to refute this? If you're coming from a Christian perspective, from the premise that the Christian God exists and the Bible is true, you have to take all of it. And if capital punishment does not reconcile with the other spiritual knowledge you have, your responsibility is to learn how it fits together consistently, not deny the parts you don't understand. (And there will ALWAYS be spiritual things that we don't understand for the simple reason that God is smarter and more complex than we are.)
>
>
> Wow, I get to respond to the site owner! :)
>
> I talked about my perspective on the Bible and capital punishment in another post, but I'll just write briefly (well, relatively briefly) here.
>
> I freely admit that I am not a Bible scholar and I could definitely stand to know more about the Bible and study the Bible more than I do now. (There *are* some people whom I do consider Bible scholars who hold the same position as I do, but I don't consider that evidence for my point of view. Not direct evidence, anyway, though I admit it is heartening to hear my beliefs defended by people much smarter than I am.)
> The reason we have a New Testament, the reason the Christian Church, if it is honest, stands in opposition to Judaism, the reason Jesus came to the Earth and died here, is because God brought forth a change 2000 years ago. I don't believe that from life experience or from my heart's feelings; I believe that because the Bible itself says so.

A change of atonement? Yes. A *return* to the intent of the Law? Yes. An abolishing or destroying of the Law? NO. Jesus himself says otherwise.

> God endorsed capital punishment in the OT for murder, true. He also endorsed capital punishment for adultery, for disrespecting one's parents and for worshiping other gods.
>
> But Jesus stopped the Pharisees from stoning the adulterous woman,

Who was being unlawfully punished without the man involved.

> and he never turned in any of the many people who came to him after living lives of sin. He went to pagan cities (the Decapolis) and taught the Baal-worshipers when the Pharisees, strictly following the law, wouldn't have touched them;

Strictly following their traditions.

> he let himself be taken by the pagan Romans and chastised Peter for trying to fight them in the style of the Macabees or of David.

Incidentally, Peter was only trying to disqualify the servant for, well, service, not kill him.

> Jesus *did* have a different style; he spoke out against those who put the written Law (which came right out of the Biblical text) above the spiritual law of love.

The Law is love; you say so yourself later, and one specific encounter with Jesus teaches the same thing.

> The OT *specifically* said not to take consecrated bread for any use but the priests', yet David did it and he was not condemned.

Aren't we talking about NT times? This is no argument for Jesus endorsing law-breaking; it merely shows us a merciful God.

> Jesus' disciples broke the Law by picking and eating grain on the Sabbath without washing their hands; he defended them against the Pharisees.

Two separate incidents:

1) Jesus's discples pick grain on the Sabbath and eat it; the Pharisees misinterpret this as harvesting, a type of work. This is not an argument for Sabbath-breaking by Jesus, but a record of misinterpretations by the Pharisees.

2) Jesus's disciples eat without washing their hands. This is against the tradition of the fathers, not against God's Law. The Pharisee even says that this is a tradition. A good one, but nothing to worry your soul over if you mess up.

> Jesus spoke out *against* the "eye for an eye" principle (that comes directly out of Exodus) and replaced it with the "turn the other cheek" principle.

Which was the *maximum* Lawfully exactable punishment, not the required punishment, and the judge was to carry it out.

> So, yeah, he *did* change things.

Not as much as people are content to think.

> Paul changed things even more (or, if you prefer, elucidated changes that Jesus made).

I prefer that.

> He told us that we were dead to the written Law...

Meaning?

> that the Law had no power to save,

This isn't a change; the doctrine of salvation by the Law was a misinterpretation from the start.

> and explained that the Law's purpose was to act as a stumbling block and point out sin.
>
> If you go back and look, that probably explains all the times in the OT when God made exceptions for the Law: letting David off with less than the full punishment when he committed murder and adultery; letting Israel off with less than the worst when he'd promised utter and eternal destruction for them; giving Samson a second chance when he broke his vow and lost his strength, supposedly forever; letting Esther off for wedding herself to a pagan king, and actually blessing her and the Jews from that position; Isaiah talking about "mercy, not sacrifice"; David's Psalms about God as a God of forgiveness; even the very first murderer, Cain, having his life spared and being given a mark to protect him. In all these instances, God's perfect will was done, though the written Law he gave was broken.

A merciful God in the OT? *gasp*

> The OT hints over and over again and the NT confirms straight out what we said all along; the written Law of Moses was not the real Law, not the perfect Law, only a reflection of the Law; and the Law is not God or God's will but only a facet of his will. Hence Paul tells us that though everything is not beneficial, everything *is* permissible; the Law is only a way of expressing God's love and caring for us, which is the higher truth; justice is real, very real, but justice would mean nothing without love and forgiveness.
> I believe that the death penalty is one reflection, perhaps the ultimate reflection, contained in the Law of Moses (reflected in all human laws) of God's anger and vengeance against sin, and that it is this Law that has passed away with the atoning death of Christ as Paul tells us in his letters. Human law will reflect the Law, as is its nature, but as a Christian and one redeemed it is my duty to stand not with the Law and the Old Covenant but with grace and the New Covenant, as far as the laws of the land God has placed me in allow me to. That is my understanding of the OT and NT taken as a whole.

How, praytell, does a covenant said over and over by God, directly and through His prophets, to be perpetual, everlasting, for ever(KJV spelling), eternal, &c, which Jesus said He had not come to destroy, come to be considered as having passed away?

> I know that we are not meant to understand everything, but I don't believe God would directly contradict himself in Scripture or that he would expect us, Zen-like, to "transcend" that contradiction, accept that he doesn't make sense and get on with our lives.

True. Man contradicts Him. :)

> I believe God is a rational God and that he loves us enough to make his Word comprehensible to us to the extent necessary for us to live godly lives, and so I refused to give up trying to reconcile "turn the other cheek" with "eye for an eye".

Well, now you know.

> Nor do I think, once one's read through much of the Bible and learned to see the context of each passage, that it's a particularly difficult thing to reconcile. Paul spent much of his writing career reconciling this problem, since it was one of his most frequent problems in witnessing to the Jews.
>
> I'd like to hear what your opinion is on how Scriptural concepts of forgiveness apply to the death penalty and civil law. I'm sure it would be interesting, since our opinions seem to come from similar backgrounds yet reach opposite conclusions. :) I was glad to hear that you agree with me; as I said earlier, it gives me confidence to hear my opinions echoed by people smarter than I am whom I respect. Hope to hear from you!
>
> Ar"Bible"thu"mpe"r

Nyperold