The Painful and Awful Discussion of the Death Penalty

[Sara Hickman]

One thing I've learned about being on stage, which is very parallel to life on many levels, is that no one likes feeling uncomfortable. An audience wants to be entertained. They want to feel good. They want to know that they matter.
Sometimes I cross the line into bringing a song on stage that, I hope, makes people think about an issue. It isn't easy. In fact, it can be scary.

Well, the same goes at a dinner party, or on a date, or sitting around a picnic table on a camp out with friends. Life is passing by! Let's enjoy it. I think many of us hold this philosophy dear.

However, there are some subjects in this world that need to be discussed, or dark shadows grow across our hearts, even if subtly, as a human collective. When one of us is wronged, we are all, at some level, wronged. When one of us causes
pain or maligns another, it creates discord and seeps into our feeling of well-being, or a communal "I'm ok, You're ok!" because we can see/feel: things are not ok.

The death penalty is one of those issues that just don't make us "feel good". Not to talk about, not to witness. It brings up anger, confusion, pain, tears.
Many people feel it is an issue best left to the justice system, or to the families affected by the murder. Newspapers and tv programs can fill us in on what is happening, if we want to find out. Why should we talk about it?

Here's why we need to start the dialogue on this issue:

We need to understand the process and what is happening in "our" name. How many of us really understand the judicial process that sends someone to death row? How is it different from state to state? Why is a person put to death? When? How come it takes longer for some to be put to death then others?

Innocent people have been on death row for over 20 years, and subsequently found innocent, freed, and released back into society. What have they lost that can not be replaced...And what about those people who are innocent and executed? They can never come back. Are there more innocent people on death row?

Is there, truly, closure when someone is put to death for a violent crime?

What are the spiritual ramifications of this subject?

Do you know anyone who has been murdered, been on death row, or witnessed a crime?

What do you think about this subject?

[Tim Greene]

The best way to heal the pain is to forgive. Forgiveness will bring a person much more peace inside, than seeking, or even achieving revenge.

[Gerry Ashley]

Reply to Tim (first message).

Forgiving may be the best way to heal for some. For others it's not. No one has the right to inflict their personal belief onto another. Where some find comfort in forgiveness (as the bible suggests), others can only find comfort in the legal equivalent of "an eye for an eye" (which is, conveniently, ALSO in the bible).

Saddam Hussein and his two wretched excuses for sons were personally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of their own countrymen. Most of them did nothing wrong.

Did anyone in this discussion actually MOURN Saddam's hanging or the death of his sons? Are we any worse off as humans because Ted Bundy is no longer alive? By the way... I forgive 'em both now that they've paid for their acts .

[Jim Baker]

Thinking about, talking about and especially the idea of witnessing an execution definitely doesn't make me "feel good". I wish and I prefer that there were no need for mankind to impose capital punishment on people. Yet I do believe that there are times when it is justified for a person to take the life of another person.

I am probably going to say/write some things that seem callous, are not compassionate and maybe even sound naive or uneducated. I may not actually believe all of the statements I make, but instead they may be thoughts I have in my head or have heard others mention about the subject that need to be brought out of the darkness so their merit or lack thereof can be determined. My intention is not to offend, but when it comes to subjects as this one that tend to polarize ideas into one camp or another then some may feel offended, no matter what position is presented.

As a parent of two great kids my first thoughts about matters are usually related to how it might effect my family. Is it not a parent's duty to protect their children and are they not justified in taking the life of another person who is actively threatening to violently take the life of their child?

In the same sense, is it not the governing authority's duty to protect their people and are they not also justified in taking the life of a person who is a violent threat to the lives of other people?

Would we not honor the heroic efforts of the police officer who kills a person who is wielding a firearm, that has already murdered 6 people and is obviously about to shoot others? Why then should we fault the governing authorities who execute a convicted serial killer who has already murdered 6 people and has obvious plans for murdering more? Is it merely a matter of timing? The police officer had to act quickly, but the authorities had more time to consider other punishment and possibly rehabilitation?

That's certainly a possibility. However, my belief in and understanding of the Bible is that the infinitely holy and perfectly just God instituted capital punishment and in Genesis 9:6 gave mankind the authority, right and duty to shed the blood of a person who knowingly sheds the blood of another person.

Even after the new commandment from Jesus to "love your neighbor as yourself" and "to turn the other cheek", Romans 13:4 points out that God delegated human governments the authority to execute wrath upon evildoers by means of a sword (a common instrument of capital punishment in new testament times).

Now, all that being said, I do disagree with the current implementation of capital punishment in the U.S. and do agree that, as Sara states, "We need to understand the process and what is happening in "our" name."

Hebrews 2:14-15 points out that fear of death is the greatest fear mankind has so that if consistently practiced, capital punishment could be an efffective deterrent to crime. Ecclesiastes 8:11 tells us that not carrying out the punishment swiftly is a poor and ineffective deterrent of crime. Likewise, inconsistent trial practices and inconsistant sentencing lead to ineffective crime deterrents.

I don't want to come across as just another right-wing, bible thumping, conservative Christian. I agree with many of the positions taken by people that oppose the death penalty and think that the answers to Sara's questions about understanding the processes employed in the U.S. for capital punishment must challenge us to take action and have the governing authorities make some changes in our criminal justice system.

However, I believe that there are times when the lessons spelled out in the Bible should be followed because mankind (especially Americans), when left to our own devices, tend to drift toward "feel good", "politically correct", compromise solutions, rather than face the hard, sometime cold consequences of certain difficult decisions.

Might innocent people still be executed? Our criminal justice system is run by humans who make mistakes so, sadly, yes this would still be true. Haven't innocent people been convicted of non-capital punishment crimes and gone to prison for many years and subsequently been found innocent and released? Have they not suffered irreplaceable loss too? So the justice system issues need to be fixed for them as well.

Regarding if there is truly closure when someone is put to death for a violent crime; for the community of likely victims of a serial murderer there is definitely a conclusion with relief and security (or closure) when the perpetrator is convicted and executed. In fact, I know women who still fear the release or escape of violent men who received long sentences instead of the death penalty option. Where is their closure?

Regardless of a person's position on capital punishment, all would have to agree that if a murderer is put to death, that aspect of the case is closed, they will never murder again. Does their family continue to suffer and do the families of the victims continue to suffer? Of course they do. Grief and bitterness may never end, but that is a sad consequence of a person's violent actions that would exist regardless of the sentencing handed down by the authorities.

Instead, does a life sentence of a violent criminal provide closure? The spouse of the criminal may be able to get a divorce and try to move on, but the children live every day of their lives with their parent being in jail and knowing that they are never coming out. I grimace to ask the question, but might they be better served if the parent was executed?

My sister and her children suffered physical and mental abuse for over 20 years at the hands of an alcoholic, drug addicted, cheating, con-man whom she married when she was in her late teens. He was arrested and convicted every year or two, but was never locked up for more than a few weeks at a time because of overcrowded conditions in the jail and the injustice that the woman of a domestic abuse situation seemed to have to endure at that time.

Thankfully, he never literally murdered anyone that we know of and from a legal perspective never deserved the death penalty. He was ultimately murdered himself in a fight over some drugs.

My nephews, his sons, have told me that they wished that he would have been killed many years before so that they would not have had to suffer his battering and maybe their mother could have then felt free to move on and find another man that might have provided them a better father figure.

In their case, if their father would have done something extreme and received the death penalty then execution may have given them some closure or at least relief from their daily nightmare.

Spiritual ramifications? Luke 16:25 points out that in eternity, all will be corrected. There is in heaven a true and righteous Judge who sees all and who knows all and who someday will make right all that is wrong and will straighten out all that is crooked. All that takes place is within His will and to serve some eternal purpose that, as humans, we may not be able to immediately understand.

Might it drive someone of those involved away from God and send them into a lifelong tailspin? Yes it could. On the other hand it might also take someone to that lowest valley from which they take the hand of God and are lifted to a higher spiritual plateau. Maybe the looming shadow of impending death causes the criminal to repent and seek forgiveness from his family and God, thereby providing a closure that would not have been possible otherwise.

For me, Jesus Christ was the extreme example of an innocent man being convicted and put to death so that we, who have all sinned in some way, don't have to face an eternal death penalty.

I don't know anyone personally who has been murdered or on death row. However, as a teenager, I have been awakened in the night by a woman's screams that shattered the quiet of our relatively peaceful neighborhood, chased the attacker/molester, losing him in the dark woods of our neighborhood city park and then consoling the victim, as best as a scared teenage boy might be expected to, until neighbors and the police arrived. The police rounded up a group of vagrants in the park, but neither the victim nor I could positively identify anyone as the perpetrator so no arrests or convictions were made. The woman, who lived alone and fearful of a repeat attack, soon moved out of the neighborhood and life continued in our neighborhood, almost as if it never happened except it didn't seem quite as peaceful and secure as it used to be.

The question about the inhuman treatment that inmates receive on death row and cruelty of the execution wasn't asked, but it is commonly mentioned as a reason to abolish the death penalty. Death by any means is usually not pleasant to witness, and certainly those responsible for putting a criminal to death do not have an enviable task. Nevertheless we need to be careful that we do not focus on the criminal and forget about the victim of the crime. Cold-blooded murder is very cruel and inhumane. Forcible rape is very cruel and inhumane. Hijacking an airplane and endangering the lives of many innocent people is very cruel and inhumane. Pushing life-destroying drugs is very cruel and inhumane.

There is at least one victim for every death row inmate, not to mention all the victims of criminals who are not on death row. In our zeal to protect the criminal we must not lose sight of the terribleness of the crime or the need for justice and compassion for the victim as well as the criminal.

[Jim Baker]

"Only if we can all do it. Together!" is a mighty big caveat to the statement that "there is never any reason to kill." Certainly Jesus and Ghandi taught that non-violence was ultimately the best practice. However to say that they said that violence was never justified is not true.

We live in a fallen world or in a world where people succumb to temptations and turn to evil ways. Both Jesus (God) and Gandhi talked about that and both describe situations that would justify killing for self-defense or protection of the weak.

In Matthew 18:5-6 Jesus says, "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Roman's 13:4 points out about the Government, "for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

While Gandhi abhorred violence and the tools (weapons) used to perpetrate violence, I think there is evidence that he also respected and understood the right of people to defend themselves from violence and attack by violent persons by using weapons that might prevent the attack. Gandhi stated that he did not oppose allowing the police weapons for self-defense and of a nation's military from having weapons to defend itself and the nation from attack.

Ghandi went so far as to make the statement in 1940, "I do not consider Hitler to be as bad as he is depicted. He is showing an ability that is amazing and seems to be gaining his victories without much bloodshed."

Granted this was before the major Nazi action took place and at that time other world leaders including Churchill had some good things to say about Hitler, but I would have still expected Ghandi to have spoken out against him for even the small amount of bloodshed he caused if Ghandi truly believed that killing was never justified.

[Bob Hickman]

The death penalty. Why does the government have it, is it effective, is it moral or ethical, does it solve the problem? Depending on your personality, yes and no are the answers.

As a States Rights and not a Federal issue, states wanting it will get it, and those that don't, won't. The death penalty can come and go on a statewide basis whether it is passed by its citizens or ruled on by the Courts. Those folks who despise it, don't seem to be willing or capable to organize a way of completely ending it, because those same folks are not up for violence to prevail for them in a real revolution, ie., massive killing and destruction to effect the changes they want. The Vote? Let's face it my fellow Americans, most of the people who run for office, both the winners and the losers are the pigs of our nation. We vote them in. Those living in one state may hate a Kennedy to death, but the folks of Mass. love him and bring him back. The same can be said about a Byrd in West Virgina. Just think, a KKK guy with so much power for such a long time! The Courts? Face this too, the Supreme Court for much of its time has been a sledgehammer for either the right or the left and when we vote for President know that most people will vote for a candidate based upon which way they want the Court to decide on certain issues for the next decade or so.

It is effective as it removes completely that killer's ability to do it again. It is ineffective as it does not bring back the dead to their families and friends. Some people would say it is not a deterrent to other people willing to kill. So? If you take them out one at a time, none of them will have a chance to repeat it. Some say, just lock them up forever. Well, take a look at the prisons now. What a pitiful nation we have become, mixing murderers and thugs in with morons whose crime was to sell a fistful of drugs to another moron. Sheesh, all that does it let them set up shop both within and beyond the cells. And let us not forget that some people on death row are innocent and a decade later that it is proven so. How friggin' awful is that? You wanna be that guy? Thank God the government is so slow to act on anything anymore.Thank God the the lawyers who really do get to through bricks at the Courts and trip them up. Too bad they do it so often when it is patently absurd. Hey folks, coffee is hot, don't spill it on you.

OPTIONS? Forget about the way prisons are run now. They are even worse than the worse of kennels. Get rid of the crappy cells that there now are. Danny O'Keefe said it best; "treat a man like a dog and he learns to lift his leg". Give each prisoner an individual room, toilet, shower (yeah, no more bend over jokes or realities), kitchen appliances and cooking utensils (yep even a knife for cutting a sandwich or an occasional steak, and of course, a normal bed, and a desk and chair. Let them take care of themselves. You know, all of that stuff can be put into a 10 by 10 room easily, look at a camper shell for proof. The walls should be like the ones we have at home, private. Put them up over the jail bars. Put a locked door on it. Let the prisoner paint and clean his room and constantly maintain it and let him decorate it a bit. MAKE THEM CLEAN IT LIKE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD HAVE! Give them an allowance for doing this. Let them learn the value of honest work, no matter how low it may appear. Give them a start at being constructive, not destructive. Let them learn to know that what is theirs is theirs and let them be satisified and as happy as they can. Let their families or friends let them visit on occasion, within that room. Yeah, intense screening is needed but so what. Take the waste from another govt program and put it here. Once in prison, whether justly or unjustly, an education process needs to occur. It needs to be a set time period, it needs to make them read something and write reports on what they have learned. Yes it needs to be like a junior and senior high school, something that many of them shined on in their youth for muliple reasons. Let them have a small TV/video player that only functions a few hours of the day. Some of it can be educational from Discovery, National Geo, so they can see there is much in the world. Some of it can be Family Guy, The Simpsons, and South Park. Everyone needs a Cartman in their life! DON'T LET THEM CONREGATE. I can't believe that do it that way other than it saves a few bucks? It is like letting the armies gather together freely and make plans to cause a ruckus! HOW STUPID IS THAT? I could go on but most of you have already stopped reading.

Moral, Ethical? Those two words reflect a time and a place and a people. They are different everywhere. Eating the Dead, arranged marriages, women in Burkas, Polygamy, Death Penalty or not. They are great philosophers stones but right now I gotta go cut some dead branches off my trees!

Sara, yep this is you "distant cousin from California", and I want to thank you for this site. Hope to see you in Cal sometime.

Bob

[Curt]

I've been thinking all week about some way to breathe new life into this issue. It's a deeply polarizing one: There are no shades of gray when it comes to killing someone. Most of the arguments for and against are getting pretty tired, and no one seems to be changing his/her mind based on any of them.

First off, let me say that I'm not a Pacifist, and least not in the sense of the philosophical position that violence is always wrong. There are, IMHO, very definitely times when violence is the most ethical response to a situation. I do feel, however, that violence (especially deadly violence) should be a last resort, and even then used only when the result of NOT acting violently would be even worse. Sadly, there are many situations that fit this description. Capital punishment is not one of them.

Occasionally, you'll hear someone say that they are 'in favor' of the death penalty. Mostly, however, you hear them say they 'believe in' the death penalty. For many, it's an ideological position. It's a committed belief, in the same vein as religious or patriotic beliefs. For these people, the belief ITSELF has value, and it is extremely difficult to penetrate this mindset. The fact that they see their belief, itself, as the morally righteous position, for them taints every argument against their position as 'weak' or 'immoral'. I've lost track of the number of times I've been told 'You're just a pansy' (paraphrased for the sake of delicacy) when I've attempted to argue against capital punishment with someone. It's like 'real men don't eat quiche,' or something equally silly.

Mind you, I won't argue that there aren't people who deserve to die. So what? You know, I've always found it interesting that people get all concerned about what people deserve if it's bad. It's not hard at all to find people who'll stick their noses in the air and puff out their chests and proclaim the 'D' word when it comes to murderers, rapists and thieves (also liberals ;-) ), but where is this sense of moral outrage when it comes to homeless people or hungry children? What do they 'deserve?'

It's well known that the cost of executing someone far exceeds the cost of keeping him/her in prison for 50 years. If you're a death penalty 'believer,' maybe you'd reply 'It should be easier and cheaper.' Of course! We should skip all the legal protections of the condemned, despite the increasingly obvious fact that many who are convicted are innocent. After all, the death penalty is a 'good' thing, and we should be prepared to make some sacrifices to uphold it. Especially if someone else is doing the sacrificing.

To paraphrase Mr. Rogers, 'Can you say RACIST? Sure you can!' If you can look at the statistics involving race and capital punishment and conclude that it's being fairly administered, you're simply a lost cause!

But that's a side issue, surely, since the death penalty is simply wrong, ethically.

Execution proponents invariably invoke scenarios involving infanticide. Among homicides, infanticide is rare, and usually perpetrated by people so pathetic that jurors take pity on them, even though they recognize that they must be put away forever.

They also speak of 'cold blooded' killers. This refers to those who kill not out of passion, but calculated indifference to life compared to monetary gain, or some other value. But doesn't that describe the justice system? Blind justice?

Unfortunately, the answer is 'no.' Capital punishment is pure hot blooded killing. It's about vengeance, and nothing else. Sure, you can call it 'closure' if you want, but it's still bloodlust. Most homicides are the result of personal grievances, requiring 'closure' on the part of the murderer. What's the difference, except that the state kills in one instance? If you think I'm being hard on the collateral victims of murder, the loved ones, I'm not. If someone killed my sister, or lover, I'd want to torture them to death. But I wouldn't. And I don't think I'd feel any better if someone else did it for me.

I have a very good friend who has the ideological view that capital punishment is a good thing. He expressed to me, once, that he considered the killing of a captive water buffalo that killed one of it's handlers an abomination. His position was that the animal was just being itself and the handler should have known better than to let his guard down. I happen to agree with him on the water buffalo, but I can't understand why he would not extend this understanding to a fellow human being.

Some people can NOT be trusted among us. But once we know that, isn't segregation and control enough? Can we not give the same respect to them that we would a dangerous animal?

Much has been said about the secondary victims of crime, the bereaved loved ones. What about the loved ones of the executed? Are they not innocent also, and do they not grieve terribly? Why is their grief not in the equation? And what about the poor souls who have to kill the condemned? Doctors, these days of lethal injection, who've subscribed to the Hippocratic oath. If you ask me, the price the executioner must pay, ALONE, is enough to stop this insanity.

A killer, poised with a knife above the throat of his victim? Shoot him in the head! The same killer immobilized behind bars, a threat to no one? Keep him there. Why compound the evil? Make no mistake: Capital punishment is simply compounding the evil.

By the way, I noticed that someone responding to this topic put forth the proposition that God had granted governments the right to impose the death penalty. I should say here that I am not a Christian, and do not subscribe to any religion. However, I did grow up in America, and do have some idea of what Christianity is supposed to be about, and this shocked me, to say the least. If this interpretation of scripture is accurate, doesn't that pretty much mean that the Romans had every right to crucify Jesus? Something to think about, anyway.

[Curt]

I want to correct an error in my earlier reply. I was listening to 'Fresh Air' yesterday and now understand that doctors are actually not allowed to perform executions. Not allowed by whom I didn't catch.

Now I'm wondering if executioners have special licensing requirements, since they handle and administer controlled substances to fellow humans. If so, I wonder what sort of qualifications would be required, or if there are tests, etc.

Curiouser and curiouser.

Curt

[Tammy Cox]

I am opposed to the death penalty for many reasons, but first and foremost because it demeans us all as a nation and as a species. It upholds the notion that we are capable of judging the worthiness of another human being to live or die. Isn't that God's job? It also feeds our feelings of resentment, hatred and anger, making us a more resentful angry and hateful people. It is as Curt said an act of revenge not justice. Revenge just creates more revenge. The only way to stop the cycle of revenge is to forgive. For Christians I suggest following the teachings of Christ and nowhere in the Bible did he condone killing another human being.

Most of us would fight for our lives or the lives of those we love and would hope for forgiveness if we took the life of another. I know this weighs heavily on the minds of many of our warriors. As a mother I did not want my son to ever go to war. True I did not want him to be killed, but I also did not want him to ever have to kill and then spend the rest of his life trying to find forgiveness. I have seen first hand what even this noblest of killing can do to a person. They killed someone who was probably trying to kill them and still are haunted by it. What they endured in Viet Nam is one of the reasons so many of the men in my generation are living on the streets, dealing with alcohol or other substance abuse and unable to create normal lives for themselves. Killing always kills a part of each and every one of us no matter what the reason.

Please do not misunderstand - there are some people like Charlie Manson who need to spend the rest of their lives safely locked up where they cannot ever kill again. But I do not think any of us would have been in danger if Karla Faye Tucker had been allowed to go free and live among us - but we killed her and called it justice. We took the life of a woman who had become a valuable asset to the prison population and even the likes of the Pope and Pat Robertson were asking for her to be spared. The only way this makes any sense at all is to call it what it is - revenge. And it makes my heart heavy to see how far we still have to go. How do we explain this to our children? We are trying to raise them to be kind and loving and godly. How to we explain this?

A few years ago my daughter treated me to a play written by John Fleming one of her theater professors at Texas State. I will never know where I got the idea that she was taking me to a comedy, but that is what I was expecting. What we saw was The Two Lives of Napoleon Beazley Here is the link to the Austin Chronicle story on that play. I encourage you all to at least read the article.
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A279549

I hated the play and I loved the play. It should be seen by anyone who is considering the pros and cons of the death penalty. I had been opposed for years but this play opened my eyes to how much the death penalty demeans us all and the huge price we pay as a civilization for continuing the practice.

Afterwards as we were talking with John Fleming he nodded toward a woman leaving the theater and told us she was Napoleon's mother. My heart sank! For the entire play I had been sitting just a few feet from her and as she walked out of the theater I could barely control my feelings of despair and shame for what we as a state had done to her, to her son and to ourselves.

Tammy

[Jim Baker]

I would agree that the way we (through our government) have implemented the death penalty is demeaning in that it is not applied equally and consistently as pointed out in "The Two Lives of Napolean Beazley".

However, I don't agree that government does not have the responsibility and authority to impose capital punishment or as Tammy wrote, "Isn't that God's job?"

If you believe in the Bible then it's clear that God gave humans the authority, right and duty to impose the punishment of death on a person. He delegated human governments the authority to execute wrath upon evildoers by means of a sword (a common instrument of capital punishment in new testament times).

WARNING: the rest of this will seem foolish for anyone that doesn't believe in the Bible.

Where is this in the Bible? Genesis 9:6 (NIV), "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."

Romans 13:1-5 (NIV) "1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For 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 he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Tammy also wrote, "nowhere in the Bible did he condone killing another human being."

Again, if you believe the Bible then you believe that Christ and God are one. Therefore, the previous scripture references show that indeed He did condone killing another human being.

You might say that the New Testament Gospel of Christ changed that with the command to "Love your neighbor as yourself" (among other teachings) and Christ gave new commandments that replaced the Old Testament Law. Jesus himself said otherwise in Matthew 5:17-18.

Matthew 5:17-18 (NIV) "17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. "

In fact, Jesus imposed an even higher spiritual standard. Read a little further in Matthew 5 and you will see that in verse 22 Jesus says that if you say to another person "You fool!" that you will be in danger of the fire of hell. And in verse 28 He says that by just looking at a woman lustfully you have already committed adultry.

Jesus knew that the consequences of sin were death or in spiritual terms, eternal damnation to hell, as he says in Matthew 5:22 (above).

Specific to the question of Jesus condoning killing another person, Jesus did condone killing people who violated the rule of their king (government) as he teaches in The Parable of the 10 Minas (or Talents). Jesus said in Luke 19:17 (NIV) "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me." This refers to God's ultimate judement in Heaven, but also supports other scripture that gives governments the authority to impose capital punishment.

I believe God is perfect love and He is also perfect justice. I think that the Bible supports that belief too.

It can be hard for some Christians to understand and believe that God condones death as a consequence of sin and it is a prime argument non-believers use for saying that Christianity and the Bible are wrong. Unfortunately, that's the way it is as stated in Romans 6:23 "The wages of sin is death". Some will believe and some will not.

[Curt]

As you said, these arguments do seem exceedingly foolish to me, but not simply because I don't believe in the Bible. In fact, to believe that the Bible is inerrant is necessarily to hold contradictory beliefs, because the Bible is fraught with contradictions. Even the accounts of the crucifixion differ greatly enough to wonder if they are accurate, or merely the transcription of word of mouth accounts distorted wildly over the hundred years or so before they were finally written down.

In your original reply to Sara's post, you stated:

"Even after the new commandment from Jesus to "love your neighbor as yourself" and "to turn the other cheek", Romans 13:4 points out that God delegated human governments the authority to execute wrath upon evildoers by means of a sword (a common instrument of capital punishment in new testament times)."

It seems to me that you're actually trying to strengthen your argument that the Bible is inerrant by POINTING OUT that it contradicts itself!

You point out that Romans pretty clearly states that all authority is instituted by God, and that we should therefore unquestioningly obey that authority. How, exactly, do you square that with Exodus? Wasn't Moses pretty much a revolutionary and a criminal? Should he not then have been put to the sword, rather than having the Red Sea parted for him?

And if you want REAL contradiction, then how is it that we're to obey all authority, since it's quite obviously not possible to do that. Governments are always at odds with each other. If all authority is instituted by God, then mustn't we obey the Taliban, Al Quaeda, Kim Jong Il, The Queen of England, The Dalai Lama, The Commisioner of Baseball, and the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan? This is prima facie lunacy.

Not being one of the faithful, I have never had any illusions about the nature of Bible teachings. The God of Abraham is a vengeful, wrathful, capricious and even sadistic character. He sends people to hell, after all, or at least those who believe in hell believe that he does. How can anyone argue that there is any justice in sending someone to the worst possible pain and suffering for ETERNITY? What could anyone possibly do that would deserve that?

If you want some other examples of what the "infinitely holy and perfectly just God" considers capital offenses, look at Exodus 31:15 (working on the Sabbath), Exodus 21:17 (cursing your parents), Leviticus 20:10 (adultery), and Leviticus 24:16 (taking the name of the Lord in vain). Who would be left, if we killed anyone who had ever done any of these things? Especially, as you pointed out, since even thinking of adultery is as bad as doing it?

Deuteronomy enjoins the faithful to kill anyone, even family, who worships other gods. Even more vicious than that, anyone who won't take part in the killing must also be killed. (Deuteronomy 17:12-13)

Believe what you want, if wanting is your rationale for believing. That's what faith really is, isn't it? Believing things simply because you want to? The idea that the Bible is the inerrant word of God flies in the face of all reason. It is not even a universal Christian belief, nor does the Bible itself make this claim: At least I've never found a Christian who believed this who could point out a passage which supported it. Perhaps you can? I do, however, know many Christians who dismiss the Old Testament as irrelevant in the face of the New Testament, which is kind of weird in itself.

Literal readings of Biblical text can be used to support almost anything, it seems. Pick an issue: Homosexuality, death penalty, prayer in school, separation of church and state, taking of life in the context of war; their are Biblical arguments used on both sides of all these issues, and most are about as valid as the others, if you view the Bible as authoritative.

Many will argue that those arguments (usually the ones that go against their own position) are "taken out of context." If you believe that the Bible is inerrant, it's hard to see how anything COULD be taken out of context. As for myself, I don't really think there is much of an overall context. The Bible is simply a collection of separate ancient texts concerning the history of the Jews and their religion, written by hosts of authors either nameless or otherwise unknown, historically. Nothing in the new Testament was written by anyone who could possibly have had first hand knowledge of any of the events chronicled, since Bible scholars generally agree that the earliest of the Gospels were written no sooner than 80 years or so after the crucifixion.

To me, resorting to a religious text for moral authority rather than your own conscience is an aberration, pure and simple. That sort of blind faith has led to innumerable atrocities over the course of history, and still upholds many ongoing atrocities, such as the death penalty, today. Even if you believe in God, and that God created you, why would you disregard the moral intuition of that DIRECT creation (yourself) in favor of passages in a book written by other people?

Supporting capital punishment on purely religious grounds means quite simply that you believe others should die for YOUR beliefs. Even the primal urge for revenge is more moral than that, in my opinion. I would have more sympathy for most murderers than for someone who believed people should die just because it said so in a book.

I'm not saying, Jim, that you don't have a conscience, or that your opinions and feelings about capital punishment don't also have personal origins, based on many other things. I'm not challenging your position in any other way than intellectually. I'm just saying that your Biblical arguments, taken alone, leave me totally unmoved. I see no merit in them whatsoever, and personally feel that the world would be a much better place without these kinds of fundamentalist, rigid belief systems.

I'm guessing you probably disagree. You wouldn't be the first, that's for sure.

Curt

[Jim Baker]

The questions and comments in Curt's response appear to be mainly intellectual smokescreens. If someone could answer all your questions to your satisfaction, would you put your life in Jesus' hands? I expect that your response would be a flat out "NO!" so any further discussion is folly, but in the interest of maintaining some dialog I'll bring up some points for possible consideration.

To your last point first, by saying that you "personally feel that the world would be a much better place without these kinds of fundamentalist, rigid belief systems" is a cop out!

When it comes to taking a pro or con position on a black and white issue that you feel strongly about, anyone's belief system that results in a different opinion from your own must really be considered a fundamentalist, rigid belief system.

You are either saying that you would rather everyone held the same belief as you, which would then be the fundamentalist, rigid belief system, or that you wish everyone was good and didn't harm or offend anyone else, which again requires a single fundamentalist, rigid belief system. Or maybe you mean that you wish that whoever agreed with your position was in control of the laws, but then would that really be any different than if they held some particular fundamentalist, rigid belief system?

Any belief has to be based on faith in something. Basing it on a humanist perspective leaves you with no moral absolutes against which to measure and solve these very important social issues. Humans have and always will change their minds, and thereby change the moral rules, depending on the trend of the day. The opinion whether the death penalty is good or bad is going to change frequently if it is based purely on the current popular thinking.

That's why I prefer to base my faith on God in the Bible who, in my determination, is unchanging. The difficulty arises when humans interpret His words and try to put in their own ideas that are comfortable or disregard His words completely. They basically are then creating their own form of a god that may be very different from what they claim to believe in. Maybe I'm doing that. I'm open to ideas from someone who has analyzed it objectively and can show that things should be interpreted a different way.

I too once believed that the Bible could not be trusted because it was "full" of contradictions. I honestly believed this to be the case because I had heard the charges repeated frequently, but hadn't really gone deeper into the issue to know whether the charges were true or not. I had also been turned off by some hypocritical preachers and had developed a sort of hatred for the Bible and would read into it whatever I desired in order to discredit it.

A couple of life changing events occurred that caused me to study the Bible with the intention of proving that it was wrong. I came to find out that the most damning claims of error were themselves false and decided that the Word of God as expressed in the Bible was not at fault, but that my presuppositions were!

I haven't traced down every possible claim of biblical error, but I have changed the way that I look at it. Instead of first thinking that the Bible is wrong I now have an "innocent until proven guilty" mindset. If I can't rule out all plausible reasons for why the Bible may seem to be at fault then I accept that it is correct and go on with life.

Some people look at differences within parts of the Bible and call them contradictions. A mere difference does not make it a contradiction! When one is confronted with an alleged contradiction, they must ask themself these questions: (1) Is the same thing or person under consideration? (2) Is the same time period in view? (3) Is the language that seems to be self-contradictory employed in the same sense?

You don't say specifically what makes you think the accounts of the crucifixion are fautly. However, I myself had once said there was a mistake in connection with the time of Jesus’ trial and death. Mark writes that the Lord was crucified at the third hour (Mark 15:25), while John’s account has the Savior being tried at the sixth hour (John 19:14)—seemingly, therefore, three hours after His death. Aha, the Bible is self-contradicting so nothing in it can be trusted!

But what if John’s time reference was based upon Roman civil days, while Mark computed time according to Jewish time? Then it works out that they are speaking of the same time and lo and behold the Bible is not in error.

I understood how this could happen because I worked in a business developing military versions of the early GPS systems and saw similar apparent errors in position control software because of different ways of expressing time and dates. Neither of them were really "wrong", but we had to make sure we knew which was being used to make sure the object went where it was intended to go.

You mention Jesus' new commandment and God's delegation of authority to governments as being contradictory. This is a good example of not going deeply enough into the text. As I pointed out in response to Tammy's reply, Jesus himself said a few verses later that He was not abolishing the original laws, but was supplementing them by imposing an even higher spiritual standard. The addition of God's delegating punishment authority to human governments also supplements Jesus' commands and doesn't negate it. Supplementation is not the same as contradiction.

Yes, God says we should submit to the authority of the government, but he goes further and says that when the governing body contradicts God then we should obey God and not man (Acts 5:29 and Daniel 6 are examples, but read passages around that too to understand the time and place and language).

Taking the command to obey authority to the extreme of saying you must obey ALL authority including the Taliban, Al Queda, etc. is non-biblical and, as you say, "prima facie lunacy" and doesn't deserve more comment.

Regarding the part about how anyone could deserve to suffer for eternity, what could anyone possibly do to deserve that and how is God exercising perfect justice by killing anyone that does certain things? It's tough to understand that for God there is not one sin that is more or less offensive than another. In human terms we will allow certain things like lying and adultery since they have become common place, but see murder as a big deal. It's a matter of scale and perspective.

Just like in my guidance system design days, a small error that in the near field represented something thinner than a playing card becomes a big problem after traveling thousands of miles when a missile completely misses the target.

So too with God's perfect nature where the smallest, slightest blemish stands out like a pink elephant in the middle of the living room and it can't be allowed. (Some might argue there is the unforgivable sin of blaspheming God, but that's something for another time.)

It isn't easy, in fact, it is impossible to be as perfect as God demands. God already planned for that by providing Himself, in the form of Jesus, as the sacrifice to stand in our place. So since we can't be perfect should we disregard the whole thing?

Rather than worry about the horrible consequences of sinful disobedience and let that sway me to disbelief I prefer to look forward to the eternity of wonderful and glorious things that are beyond my wildest imagination that allow me to retain my belief.

Let's face it, I will never be able to prove it to you. It's something you've got to find out about in your own way or choose not to.

I'm not sure why you would expect that the Bible would claim itself inerrant. Just because a book claims itself to be true does that make it true? Maybe or maybe not. There is other evidence that one should look at to determine the validity of the text. That being said, there is New Testament scripture (both Jesus' words and also writings of the Apostles) that claim accuracy of the Bible, which at that time would have been the Hebrew Scriptures or reference to the Septuagint or within a particular book such as the case with Revelations. Since the New Testament books weren't developed together there would be no reason why they would claim accuracy of each other, especially if the other part had not yet been written. If you are interested then I can send you some scripture references for that.

I don't know which Bible scholars "generally agree" that the earliest of gospels were written 80 years after the crucifixion. That would put them being written sometime after 110 AD. To the contrary I have read bible scholars who generally agree that the 4 Canonical Gospels were written as near as 20 to 30 years after the crucifixion (50-60 AD) and none later than 70 years later (before 100 AD).

You may be thinking of the gnostic gospels that are generally agreed to have been written in the 2nd century or later. This time lag and other issues make the authenticity and accuracy suspect.

I don't necessarily support capital punishment on "purely religious grounds". In fact, what I said in my first post was that I prefer there not be a need for capital punishment. What I support is the government's right (as a representative of the people) to establish punishment for criminal offenses that could include capital punishment.

I did not say that the U.S. justice system should base punishment on Old Testament Law. To think that way is a case of the need to read the Bible in light of the times in which the passage was written and in context with other scripture as well. For that time, Old Testament Law was necessary for certain reasons that aren't necessarily applicable today or when read in conjunction with other scripture have different ramifications today.

This discussion could go on for ages, and maybe it needs to, but not right now because I've got chores to do at home. Interesting discussion, but let's try not to go too far into the absurd extremes in an attempt to make a point.

Jim

[Sara Hickman]

At these MUSIC FOR LIFE events around Texas, as I am watching and listening to the parents of victims (whether their partners or children were murdered or their partners or children were the murderers), I have yet to hear anyone express that they felt better or gained closure because of an execution.