|
radical_logic
|
|
Posted 05/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#16
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Archsage
The Hebrews were burdened with the Law because they were entrusted with the oracles of God. For them, many sinful actions were punishable by death. Take adultery, for example. Adultery is sinful. For the Jewish people, entrusted as God's people, they were to punish that sin with death. When Jesus came, who came for the purpose of salvation, He upended this tradition for two main reasons:
(1) The sinner has no right to punish another sinner for sin
(2) The Christ is not here to judge the world but to save it
So, while I'd normally leave it to your own intellectuality to figure out the answer to your question from here, I'll just be explicit. No, Christians would not, then, support capital punishment for such a sin. But it isn't because the action isn't sinful, and it's not because death for sin isn't an actuality.
Okay, now I know that some Christians wouldn't support capital punishment for engaging in gay sex, but I'm still confused as to why. Many "sins" are clearly punishable by other sinners (e.g., murder, theft, assault, etc), so rationale (1) clearly doesn't apply to all sinful behavior. What distinguishes the sins that sinners have no right to punish (e.g., adultery, gay sex) from the sins that sinners do have the right to punish (e.g., murder, theft)? In other words, how do Christians draw the distinction between the sins that are punishable by other people and the sins that aren't? And what's the biblical support for putting gay sex on the latter side of the line?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lightfoot
|
|
Posted 05/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#17
|
|
CrashTestAuto,
The law was absolutely literal. What people tend to forget, is that these are punishments that are meant to demonstrate the gravity of sin. The law also has requirements for repentance and atonement through the shedding of blood.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
vmancha
|
|
Posted 05/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#18
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by radical_logic
In other words, how do Christians draw the distinction between the sins that are punishable by other people and the sins that aren't? And what's the biblical support for putting gay sex on the latter side of the line?
Romans 13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For 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 you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience. 6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing.7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
This at a time when Nero was the ruler. So as Christians we are to follow a bad ruler which is better than no ruler at all. Ultimately God will deal with such a ruler as he did with Nero.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Damoksta
|
|
Posted 05/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#19
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by MaeQuote: Originally Posted by ArchsageQuote: Originally Posted by Mae
I see it as poor ethics. I think most Christians today will just say it doesnt apply anymore because of Jesus. But it would be hard for me to try to tell myself my God is all about love, but supported capital punishment over something like this. Mae, it's a bit hard isn't it? But, to make it easier, ask yourself: What is sin? And what is death? When you have the definitions for those terms, it'd be much easier for you to reason within yourself, as to if sin is worthy of death or not. Regardless of if homosexuality is a sin or not (i personally dont think it is), its the idea that God wants or wanted his people to carry out murder that i have a problem with. I dont think God would want his people to act violently against even sinners.
Two questions:
1) Why does God not have the right to execute errants of His laws? He is, after all, the leader of the nationa of Israel with the OT before the Babylonian anhilation; and creator of the universe. Furthermore, punishment entails justice. Jesus' crucifixion on the cross is where His love and justice met. You cannot appeal to God's love while ignoring his justice,
2) Murder has a moral dimension. Why is executing errants of the Laws is of negative moral connotation?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
depthcharge623
|
|
Posted 05/19/12
|
Reply with quote
#20
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by radical_logicQuote: Originally Posted by Archsage
The Hebrews were burdened with the Law because they were entrusted with the oracles of God. For them, many sinful actions were punishable by death. Take adultery, for example. Adultery is sinful. For the Jewish people, entrusted as God's people, they were to punish that sin with death. When Jesus came, who came for the purpose of salvation, He upended this tradition for two main reasons:
(1) The sinner has no right to punish another sinner for sin
(2) The Christ is not here to judge the world but to save it
So, while I'd normally leave it to your own intellectuality to figure out the answer to your question from here, I'll just be explicit. No, Christians would not, then, support capital punishment for such a sin. But it isn't because the action isn't sinful, and it's not because death for sin isn't an actuality.
Okay, now I know that some Christians wouldn't support capital punishment for engaging in gay sex, but I'm still confused as to why. Many "sins" are clearly punishable by other sinners (e.g., murder, theft, assault, etc), so rationale (1) clearly doesn't apply to all sinful behavior. What distinguishes the sins that sinners have no right to punish (e.g., adultery, gay sex) from the sins that sinners do have the right to punish (e.g., murder, theft)? In other words, how do Christians draw the distinction between the sins that are punishable by other people and the sins that aren't? And what's the biblical support for putting gay sex on the latter side of the line?
We (in America) do not punish people who murder or steal because they are sinning against God. We punish them because they are infringing upon the freedom of other Americans.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
radical_logic
|
|
Posted 05/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#21
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by depthcharge623
We (in America) do not punish people who murder or steal because they are sinning against God. We punish them because they are infringing upon the freedom of other Americans.
This seems like a meaningful distinction, but does it have biblical support? Is there biblical support for the proposition that humans are permitted to punish certain sinful actions (e.g., murder, theft) but not others (e.g., immoral sex)?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lightfoot
|
|
Posted 05/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#22
|
|
radical_logic,
Quote: This seems like a meaningful distinction, but does it have biblical support? Is there biblical support for the proposition that humans are permitted to punish certain sinful actions (e.g., murder, theft) but not others (e.g., immoral sex)?
This is a good question. I would say that all of the commandments regarding punishment for certain moral sins, were given to the nation of Israel alone. They were set apart as was clearly set out in the early chapters of Genesis.
The other question here is--- could those punishments be averted by actions of atonement that are clearly spoken of in the other parts of the Law?
It could very well be-- that the punishment set forth was like our "maximum penalty" punishments, according to the precise letter of the law, yet could be averted. i.e~ maximum penalty for smoking, could be a very large fine, that is often never really given.
So back to the issue at hand. I would say, that we have to take into consideration the commands that are in Genesis regarding the shedding of innocent blood, in murder, where it tells us plainly that someone's life will be required for such.
So with Noah and before Moses, there really is no command dealing with the other issues in terms of punishment. The punishment commands given to Israel, were specifically given to show the gravity of sin, and this would eventually awaken a barbaric people to the concept of right and wrong and the fallen state of man toward God.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
radical_logic
|
|
Posted 05/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#23
|
|
Lightfoot,
Compare punishing an individual for stealing and punishing an individual for immoral sexual behavior. Why is the former biblically permitted but not the latter? In fact, where in the Bible does it say or imply that punishing an individual for immoral sexual behavior is impermissible?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
radical_logic
|
|
Posted 05/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#24
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lightfoot
The punishment commands given to Israel, were specifically given to show the gravity of sin, and this would eventually awaken a barbaric people to the concept of right and wrong and the fallen state of man toward God.
Suppose Congress tomorrow wanted to pass legislation criminalizing (with the death penalty) gay sex. Their rationale? To "show the gravity of sin." What biblical support do you have for the claim that Congress could not criminalize (with the death penalty) gay sex, such that doing so would be against biblical morality?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lion_IRC
|
|
Posted 05/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#25
|
|
@radical logic
How many gay people were actually stoned to death in the bible?
The legal principle of deterrence is not immoral or unethical.
It's actually pretty logical dont you think?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
radical_logic
|
|
Posted 05/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#26
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lion_IRC
@radical logic
How many gay people were actually stoned to death in the bible?
I don't know. What is your answer to my op?
Quote: Originally Posted by Lion_IRC
The legal principle of deterrence is not immoral or unethical.
It's actually pretty logical dont you think?
The justification depends on its application. Punishing drug offenses with the death penalty may very well deter those crimes, but I don't suspect that you would find that a moral application of the legal principle.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lightfoot
|
|
Posted 05/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#27
|
|
radical_logic,
The congress, would not be a competent authority, to issue commands that show the gravity of sin. Only a perfect being could issue such commands. However, in our society, we do have laws and punishments that try to demonstrate justice and the depth of wrongdoing.
Quote: What biblical support do you have for the claim that Congress could not criminalize (with the death penalty) gay sex, such that doing so would be against biblical morality?
Well, first of all it would be in the New Testament. The punishment for sin, was dealt with by Christ on the Cross. Sin as defined by the law of Moses. Recall, that there were commands that predated the law of Moses.
Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.
The Law of Moses, was for the Nation of Israel. How it affects us today, is brought to light in the New Testament.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
radical_logic
|
|
Posted 05/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#28
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lightfoot
However, in our society, we do have laws and punishments that try to demonstrate justice and the depth of wrongdoing.
Okay, why can't Congress punish gay sex as a capital crime on that basis?
Quote: Originally Posted by Lightfoot
Well, first of all it would be in the New Testament.
Where exactly in the NT does it say or imply that Congress can't punish gay sex as a capital crime?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Blake1960
|
|
Posted 05/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#29
|
|
|
Where does it say you may?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
radical_logic
|
|
Posted 05/20/12
|
Reply with quote
#30
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Blake1960
Where does it say you may?
Where does it say or imply that you may not?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
