(snip)

> The apostles--after Jesus came, remember--explicitly stated that the death penalty is acceptable for some crimes: Acts 13:28, 25:11, 28:18, perhaps Romans 1:32 and 1 John 5:16, others. I don't see a contradiction.

Acts 13:28 - This just says the Pharisees didn't have any grounds for charging Jesus with the death penalty under Roman law, underscoring their injustice. (Just because I don't believe in the death penalty doesn't mean I think there's no difference between charging a person with it truthfully or falsely.) It certainly doesn't say that a government should enforce the death penalty, and this especially isn't an instance of advocating the death penalty.

Acts 25:11 - Paul's point in handing himself over was that he *didn't* believe he deserved death; he spent a long time laying out why he was innocent of any crime. But, of course, if he had committed any crime he would give himself over to the civil government's law, including death if necessary. I don't think it would be right for anyone to do any different. Parallel case: certainly the law that sentenced Shadrach, Meschach, and Abednego to death in the furnace was not a just or a good law, but they complied with the penalty for breaking it rather than, say, leading an armed rebellion or fleeing the country. True, God saved them, but that was God's choice, not theirs, and they said they would give themselves up even knowing God *wouldn't* save them. We are called to submit to all civil authority, just or unjust; that doesn't mean we do what it says, but it means that we submit to its penalties, because on Earth we are to be seekers of peace and not to cause chaos and bloodshed even for the cause of righteousness. (Which brings up an interesting question when we look at Jesus' statement that he came to bring not peace, but a sword, Matthew 10:34, and has to do with the interpretation of the meaning of a "sword" I talked about before.) This is what Dr. King and Gandhi meant by civil disobedience; both of them at least partially based their concepts on the Bible.

Acts 28:18 - Same deal as above. Notice that my argument never was that there are no crimes that deserve death, simply that the desert of death has been placed on another and our duty is to forgive those who deserve death. (Since, after all, we all do.)

Romans 1:32 - Paul is talking about all the Gentiles, here; he mentions not only murder but idolatry, sexual perversions, and basically all moral vices. I don't think he was advocating putting all such people to death, particularly in light of what he says in the very next verse, Romans 2:1. Remember that Paul, being a Pharisee trained in the arts of argument, writing here to the jaded Jewish scholars (and possibly Gentile Greek-trained scholars) of the city of Rome, is writing here in the now-dying art of a measured discourse, as Wolfspirit mentioned somewhere else. :) This is a step-by-step progressing argument (a debate, in fact, with his imagined audience, as he brings up and refutes objections to form his case), and to really understand part of Romans I think you really do have to read all of it.

I John 5:16 - This is a troubling problem passage, I agree, but not because of what it says about the DP, but because of its implications for all the rest of Christian doctrine. It says there is *one* sin that does lead to death, and we *shouldn't* pray about it. (It's not talking about exercising civil penalties, since, at this point, the early Christians to whom Paul was writing had no such powers. It's talking about what we should bother praying to God about, potentially a much more serious matter.) Is murder really the only sin that leads to death, meaning, supposedly here, that it won't be forgiven? I find this a difficult position to defend, considering all the murderers who were forgiven in the Bible. True, murder is a very serious sin, but even hard-line pro-DP'ers wouldn't call it the unforgivable sin. Jesus himself prayed for forgiveness for those who murdered him (and, yes, even without Biblical references I think all of us would say deliberately framing an innocent to be executed would be murder). Jesus said the only unforgivable sin was blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Mark 3:29; the connection with murder is unclear. I think (since Jesus is referring to the Pharisees and their disbelief in this passage) that Jesus meant those who disbelieve physical signs (witnessing by Christians, miracles, the written Word) still have a chance to be forgiven, but those who come close enough to feel the conviction of the Holy Spirit and still choose to reject atonement have lost their chance; presumably the Pharisees fit this category. (This would also go to explain such passages as the Parable of the Sower or Paul's analogy with the vine.) One could argue that execution of those who have blasphemed against the Spirit would be permissible, but that seems hard to determine. (After all, the Pharisees were the only ones Jesus specifically accused of this, and they had committed no crimes against the state at all.) I do think it would be possible for us ourselves to have discretion and decide when one has blasphemed against the Spirit and rejected salvation in one's heart, then knowing not to waste our resources trying to forcibly convert a lost cause, but I don't think such discernment should spread to the civil and criminal courts.

I think you raised some valid points, here, and taken individually these verses might form an argument for the DP, but taken in the context of the whole NT I don't see that these really are a conclusive argument.

Anyway, it's been great discussing these issues with you; thanks for your patience in bearing with me, and thanks for helping me think about my beliefs. Hope to hear from you again!

Ar"hopes it's not too obvious he's tired of this thread, and it's certainly not gabby's fault he is" thur