5 ms·

Honest question. How religious people in these states reconcile these two contrasting ideas, the first one being believing in the bible and thus in the 10 Comma

Honest question. How religious people in these states reconcile these two contrasting ideas, the first one being believing in the bible and thus in the 10 Commandments, and the second being allowing people to be executed under their administration?

padobson 7y ago
Seems like you're talking about the 6th commandment[0], which is more accurately described as "Thou shalt not murder", rather than "thou shalt not kill". I like Dennis Prager's commentary on the 10 commandments[1] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RENPaY043o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RENPaY043o
frankbreetz 7y ago
I went to Catholic School for 12 years, and what they believe is quite different than the Baptists in Alabama, but the Catholic Church says we should not have the death penalty unless there is a risk of the person causing harm to more people. So, in today's society (in the west at least) there is no place for the death penalty.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  > So, in today's society (in the west at least) there is no place for the death penalty. ...according to you or the Catholic Church. What other reasons do you have for there not being a death penalty?
inflatableDodo 7y ago
Christians don't generally follow the ten commandments. For instance, the bit about graven images is ignored by all but a handful of Christian sects.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  The graven images actually refer to an ancient Hebrew practice having to do with the Kabbalah.
  - inflatableDodo 7y ago
    12 And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. 13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. 14 And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. 15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth Deuteronomy 4:12-18
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar
asark 7y ago
The US political system naturally stabilizing at two parties has some weird effects, like psychologically/socially pressuring people to accept a bunch of crap they might not otherwise, to an even greater degree than a somewhat more nuanced political landscape might. This is especially true with major wedge issues, and double especially with abortion. Like, what exactly is your average, normal pro-life person who happens to also kinda support gun control and kinda oppose the death penalty and maybe even favor universal healthcare supposed to do, in the voting booth? Recall that their belief may be that abortion is equal to or at least very close to baby murder, before answering. Their options come down to voting for a 3rd party that's pro-life but agrees with them on some other positions, which is so close to not voting that they may as well be identical and anyway I'm not sure such a party exists (usually they're more extreme, if anything), voting anti-baby-murder but also against all their other positions, or voting pro-baby-murder but for the other things they like. This is clearly not a great position to be in. So rather than going around feeling shitty about their own politics all the time, they soften or reverse their opposition to bundled views they wouldn't otherwise agree with. [EDIT] this was highly visible in the last Presidential election, when a lot of the "WTF happened?" interviews afterward went like "yeah, of course Trump seems like a slimy piece of crap, obviously, I mean have you listened to the guy talk and have we all forgotten how he was, not that long ago, the universal media symbol for highly-successful rich scam artists? But I prayed on it and in the end held my nose and voted for him, because judicial appointments and Roe v. Wade".
- iamthepieman 7y ago
  This is me every election except I don't soften or reverse my opposition, just try to figure out which bundle most closely matches mine and sometimes get frustrated enough that I vote third party anyways. Sometimes I take a whole ticket approach and vote one side for governor. and the other for Lt. governor. One bundle for president and the opposite bundle for senator for instance.
  - asark 7y ago
    If the point is to more-or-less represent the views of the people, our system does an exceptionally poor job of it, between this and lots of winner-take-all elections + gerrymandering (sorry, other 49.9% of the population, better luck next time). I'm probably less on the "more democracy is always a good thing" side of the spectrum than most in the US, but this stuff is subversion of democratic will to no clear systemic beneficial purpose. Quite the opposite, as far as I can tell.
rayiner 7y ago
In addition to the point below, which is that the prohibition on murder does not extend to many instances of homicide the law seems justifiable, I believe you are also confused about the posture in which the question has come up. The article discusses a member of the clergy who requested information about Alabama’s death penalty protocols to help her “pray on” the issue. The state pushed back, and “why does God need to know this information” was a snarky question asked of the clergy woman by the state’s lawyer. So the religious person and the entity executing people are on opposite sides of the issue. The state’s response could just as easily have come from an atheist.
iamthepieman 7y ago
I don't reconcile them. I'm religious and believe the death penalty is wrong for any reason under any circumstances. Because I'm religious though I know people who do not have this view and believe the death penalty is fine. They tend to use the deterrent to crime and protection of society arguments as well as mentioning certain old testament Levitical laws which make the distinction between justified and unjustified killing. Killing someone in self-defense, a soldier killing during war or the state killing as punishment for certain crimes versus an individual killing another.
deogeo 7y ago
The 10 Commandments are Old Testament, which the New Testament supersedes, no? Same logic as how stoning of adulterers got canceled.
- koenigdavidmj 7y ago
  Even those who believe this acknowledge that many of the commandments are repeated, either in word or in idea, in the New Testament. Debates continue today about whether an image of Jesus is an idol, or whether the Sabbath commandment is repeated in any fashion, but "thou shalt not kill" is directly restated in the text, and emphasis added on heart motive as well. (In other words, Jesus calls people out who use harsh words but don't stab people as violators of the commandment.) In any case, the word means murder, not any killing. This is plainly true in that soldiers are not immediately called to abandon their posts.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Sure, but, from a Biblical legalistic point of view, then the appropriate New Testament passage should be cited.
- jkmcf 7y ago
  I've heard conflicting stories about this. Sometimes it is phrased as delivering us from the vengeful god of the OT, other times it just embraces and extends. I'd love to hear something official just to know how best to criticize the hypocrites...
bluGill 7y ago
There is nothing to reconcile because murder is against the OT law and the penalty is death. The 10 commands are a simple summary of OT law. They are a good guide, but the full OT law is (as any set of laws) complex and messy. The full law if you kill someone you will be killed in return, with a very complex set of exceptions for accidental killing.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  Murder was killing someone against God's will. It wasn't against OT law if it was willed by God.
zeta0134 7y ago
Oh my! The 10 commandments were for the Isrealites wandering the desert, but there were a whole bunch of exceptions and specific rules, and in the old law, loooooots of the punishments for breaking those rules were death. Not just any old death, specific kinds of death, like impaling someone with a beam from their own house. Christianity is a bit different, generally believing the old law (including those gruesome punishments) to be done away with, but there are still scriptures in support of local governing authorities. The more commonly cited scripture is Paul's letter to the Romans (Chapter 13, verses 1-2): > 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. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. There are a few other examples, but at least from a Christian point of view, the guiding principal is to presume that the government is at least partially put in place by the hand of God, and should generally be respected. (Disclaimer: I am not a religious person, but I grew up in a religious household.)

padobson 7y ago

Seems like you're talking about the 6th commandment[0], which is more accurately described as "Thou shalt not murder", rather than "thou shalt not kill". I like Dennis Prager's commentary on the 10 commandments[1] [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill [1]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RENPaY043o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RENPaY043o

frankbreetz 7y ago

I went to Catholic School for 12 years, and what they believe is quite different than the Baptists in Alabama, but the Catholic Church says we should not have the death penalty unless there is a risk of the person causing harm to more people. So, in today's society (in the west at least) there is no place for the death penalty.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
> So, in today's society (in the west at least) there is no place for the death penalty. ...according to you or the Catholic Church. What other reasons do you have for there not being a death penalty?

inflatableDodo 7y ago

Christians don't generally follow the ten commandments. For instance, the bit about graven images is ignored by all but a handful of Christian sects.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
The graven images actually refer to an ancient Hebrew practice having to do with the Kabbalah.
- inflatableDodo 7y ago
  12 And the Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a voice. 13 And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone. 14 And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that ye might do them in the land whither ye go over to possess it. 15 Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the Lord spake unto you in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: 16 Lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any figure, the likeness of male or female, 17 The likeness of any beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl that flieth in the air, 18 The likeness of any thing that creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the waters beneath the earth Deuteronomy 4:12-18
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohar

asark 7y ago

The US political system naturally stabilizing at two parties has some weird effects, like psychologically/socially pressuring people to accept a bunch of crap they might not otherwise, to an even greater degree than a somewhat more nuanced political landscape might. This is especially true with major wedge issues, and double especially with abortion. Like, what exactly is your average, normal pro-life person who happens to also kinda support gun control and kinda oppose the death penalty and maybe even favor universal healthcare supposed to do, in the voting booth? Recall that their belief may be that abortion is equal to or at least very close to baby murder, before answering. Their options come down to voting for a 3rd party that's pro-life but agrees with them on some other positions, which is so close to not voting that they may as well be identical and anyway I'm not sure such a party exists (usually they're more extreme, if anything), voting anti-baby-murder but also against all their other positions, or voting pro-baby-murder but for the other things they like. This is clearly not a great position to be in. So rather than going around feeling shitty about their own politics all the time, they soften or reverse their opposition to bundled views they wouldn't otherwise agree with. [EDIT] this was highly visible in the last Presidential election, when a lot of the "WTF happened?" interviews afterward went like "yeah, of course Trump seems like a slimy piece of crap, obviously, I mean have you listened to the guy talk and have we all forgotten how he was, not that long ago, the universal media symbol for highly-successful rich scam artists? But I prayed on it and in the end held my nose and voted for him, because judicial appointments and Roe v. Wade".

iamthepieman 7y ago
This is me every election except I don't soften or reverse my opposition, just try to figure out which bundle most closely matches mine and sometimes get frustrated enough that I vote third party anyways. Sometimes I take a whole ticket approach and vote one side for governor. and the other for Lt. governor. One bundle for president and the opposite bundle for senator for instance.
- asark 7y ago
  If the point is to more-or-less represent the views of the people, our system does an exceptionally poor job of it, between this and lots of winner-take-all elections + gerrymandering (sorry, other 49.9% of the population, better luck next time). I'm probably less on the "more democracy is always a good thing" side of the spectrum than most in the US, but this stuff is subversion of democratic will to no clear systemic beneficial purpose. Quite the opposite, as far as I can tell.

rayiner 7y ago

In addition to the point below, which is that the prohibition on murder does not extend to many instances of homicide the law seems justifiable, I believe you are also confused about the posture in which the question has come up. The article discusses a member of the clergy who requested information about Alabama’s death penalty protocols to help her “pray on” the issue. The state pushed back, and “why does God need to know this information” was a snarky question asked of the clergy woman by the state’s lawyer. So the religious person and the entity executing people are on opposite sides of the issue. The state’s response could just as easily have come from an atheist.

iamthepieman 7y ago

I don't reconcile them. I'm religious and believe the death penalty is wrong for any reason under any circumstances. Because I'm religious though I know people who do not have this view and believe the death penalty is fine. They tend to use the deterrent to crime and protection of society arguments as well as mentioning certain old testament Levitical laws which make the distinction between justified and unjustified killing. Killing someone in self-defense, a soldier killing during war or the state killing as punishment for certain crimes versus an individual killing another.

deogeo 7y ago

The 10 Commandments are Old Testament, which the New Testament supersedes, no? Same logic as how stoning of adulterers got canceled.

koenigdavidmj 7y ago
Even those who believe this acknowledge that many of the commandments are repeated, either in word or in idea, in the New Testament. Debates continue today about whether an image of Jesus is an idol, or whether the Sabbath commandment is repeated in any fashion, but "thou shalt not kill" is directly restated in the text, and emphasis added on heart motive as well. (In other words, Jesus calls people out who use harsh words but don't stab people as violators of the commandment.) In any case, the word means murder, not any killing. This is plainly true in that soldiers are not immediately called to abandon their posts.
- deogeo 7y ago
  Sure, but, from a Biblical legalistic point of view, then the appropriate New Testament passage should be cited.
jkmcf 7y ago
I've heard conflicting stories about this. Sometimes it is phrased as delivering us from the vengeful god of the OT, other times it just embraces and extends. I'd love to hear something official just to know how best to criticize the hypocrites...

bluGill 7y ago

There is nothing to reconcile because murder is against the OT law and the penalty is death. The 10 commands are a simple summary of OT law. They are a good guide, but the full OT law is (as any set of laws) complex and messy. The full law if you kill someone you will be killed in return, with a very complex set of exceptions for accidental killing.

Fjolsvith 7y ago
Murder was killing someone against God's will. It wasn't against OT law if it was willed by God.

zeta0134 7y ago

Oh my! The 10 commandments were for the Isrealites wandering the desert, but there were a whole bunch of exceptions and specific rules, and in the old law, loooooots of the punishments for breaking those rules were death. Not just any old death, specific kinds of death, like impaling someone with a beam from their own house. Christianity is a bit different, generally believing the old law (including those gruesome punishments) to be done away with, but there are still scriptures in support of local governing authorities. The more commonly cited scripture is Paul's letter to the Romans (Chapter 13, verses 1-2): > 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. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. There are a few other examples, but at least from a Christian point of view, the guiding principal is to presume that the government is at least partially put in place by the hand of God, and should generally be respected. (Disclaimer: I am not a religious person, but I grew up in a religious household.)