6 ms·

Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment. But I get nonsense begets more

Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment. But I get nonsense begets more nonsense.

jzackpete 2y ago
[flagged]
- anonzzzies 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - jzackpete 2y ago
    I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't consider myself an expert on their beliefs, but you don't appear to be either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
    - anonzzzies 2y ago
      I guess it's a matter of interpretation; I am also an atheist but was raised a protestant (we had to memorise and read in front of the class selected parts from the bible every day) and our flavour (which might be different from even others in the same branch) definitely has no tolerance for justified killing except by the lord. I know some religions have tolerance for justified killing as you pointed out, just that's not what ours told us. But point taken and people do and read into things whatever fits them.
    - mrangle 2y ago
      Lost in translation, the Commandment is not to murder. Legal killing of the guilty (of murder), and in self defense for example, is not murder. Just as it isn't in the secular legal system. Therefore, there is no conflict. That's not to say that there isn't room for mercy when called for. Also, prudence should be exercised to the highest possible standard and then some. No one has broken a Commandment by executing Ted Bundy for example, by defending from a hostile Army, nor by defending their own life from imminent murder by a criminal aggressor.
      - gen220 2y ago
        Christ gave commandments that superseded the Mosaic law. He explicitly forbade violence in all forms, with no exceptions for retaliation. And he went further to say you should respond to violence with nonviolent love and submission. Christ would not endorse capital punishment of Bundy, soldiers in any army, or “stand your ground” style killings.
        mrangle 2y ago
        That's false on all counts. You're engaging in incorrect conjecture in regard to what he stated. Further, what Christ "would not endorse" is your conjecture and not fact. Christianity is not about allowing society be destroyed by its internal enemies such as criminals and their syndicates, nor about blanket injustice for victims, nor about allowing foreign armies to overtake it (often destroying Christianity). How ridiculous. Although that would be a convenient misinterpretation for wayward Christians, anti-Christians and society's enemies. Imagine giving your statement to virtually any historical Christian Society of any significant size. Such flirtation with this type of interpretation has always been fringe at best or outright secular (from Christianity's enemies), and always incorrect.
        gen220 2y ago
        That institutions who purport themselves to be Christian support violence does not change what Christ himself taught. I interpret Christianity to be following the teachings of Christ, rather than following post-Christ dogma that is frequently in open contradictions to Christ's teachings. I encourage you to (re-)read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7, particularly relevant to violence are verses 38-48) and reflect on how those words might be compatible with state-sanctioned violence of any form? I agree with you that this interpretation is historically one that has been fringe since the Council of Nicaea. That does not mean that it is incorrect. Do you think Christ, who commanded "Do not swear an oath", "Do not resist an evil person", and "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (the word for 'enemy' here carried a nationalistic tone), would endorse any of the earlier-quoted uses of violence? As someone who is very comfortable professing Christian ideas, I don't understand how you could present his commandments as anti-Christian. It is literally how he tells us to live.
- kergonath 2y ago
  Being Christian is about forgiving and loving your neighbours, isn’t it?
  - edm0nd 2y ago
    I dont think so really. The Crusades would have never happened if that were true.
    - pirate787 2y ago
      The Crusades were a valid strategic response to the rise of Islam and the Islamic conquest of Byzantium and the Christian middle east.
    - ImJamal 2y ago
      The crusades (at least the earlir ones) were primarily about protecting Christians who were being attacked and having their land taken by Muslims.
  - swat535 2y ago
    Yes however in Christian theology it's both forgiveness _and_ repentance (which requires a penance), thus it doesn't mean you are free of consequences just because you have been forgiven. Additionally, loving your neighbour means calling on God's mercy which is willing the Good of the other (the definition of "what is good?" is answered differently in Christianity). Finally, not everyone is your neighbour (Jesus also acknowledged his enemies in Luke 19:27).
    - giraffe_lady 2y ago
      "Your enemies are still your neighbors" is entirely consistent with those statements and in fact was how it was understood by the consensus mainstream of christianity until very recently, and is still how it is understood in most variants other than american protestantism.
    - kergonath 2y ago
      > Yes however in Christian theology it's both forgiveness _and_ repentance (which requires a penance), thus it doesn't mean you are free of consequences just because you have been forgiven. Indeed, but for this you need to let the person in question time to realise their errors and repent, which is impossible if you kill them. > Additionally, loving your neighbour means calling on God's mercy which is willing the Good of the other (the definition of "what is good?" is answered differently in Christianity). Calling on God’s mercy does not imply playing god ourselves and disposing of the lives of others. > Finally, not everyone is your neighbour (Jesus also acknowledged his enemies in Luke 19:27). It is not really relevant in this case, though. Murderers can be Christian as well and accept his “reign”. But yeah I take your point: the bible has a lot of inconsistencies.
- sophacles 2y ago
  There was that time Jesus stepped in an prevented a completely legal death sentence from being carried out.
- drewrv 2y ago
  Because their prophet was murdered by the state. It seems weird that a religion would be pro-execution when their founding was, in part, "innocent man was executed". I'm sure believers have jumped through the hoops required to justify it but from the outside, one would expect a country that is majority christian to oppose executions.
giraffe_lady 2y ago
A large part of the organized activism against the death penalty is also run by christians, especially catholics and orthodox who are a lot more consistent on this. It's not the christianity per se that makes them bloodthirsty. Contemporary american evangelical christianity is a novel social-political-religious movement and in some theologically significant ways has broken with near-universal christian tradition. Trying to understand it purely as a religion is too incomplete.
- o11c 2y ago
  As a serious Christian and a dabbling linguist, I really hate that they've ruined a word meaning "gospel" (the English calque). We really should call them "dysangelical" when they bring death like this (as opposed to warning of death, which is in scope of euangel when there's also a way to avoid it).
spacechild1 2y ago
Also, it's often the same people who claim to be "pro life".
- ImJamal 2y ago
  It is pro innconcent life, not pro murderer life? Pro life and pro choice are just marketing terms. People who are pro-choice aren't pro not wearing a seat belt (well some may be, but it has nothing to do with the topic). It has to do with abortion and only abortion.
- squarefoot 2y ago
  As in: "Only God can administer life and death, so stop those abortions or we'll set on fire your clinic and kill the doctors". Psychology can explain completely that behavior, however this is not the right place for such discussions.
  - Ylpertnodi 2y ago
    >Where isn't the right place for such discussions?
Nathanba 2y ago
I think even as a non-christian and especially if you comment like this you should know the absolute minimum about christianity: that the death penalty is obviously in the bible and commanded by God plenty of times
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  There's also testimony of God overturning / fulfilling prior commandments (Matthew 5:17–21, Acts 10:9–16). The Bible contains a lot of laws and punishments that aren't respected in the United States: selective quoting doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling argument. There's also testimony of Jesus disrupting an instance of capital punishment (John 8:3–11). There may have been procedural issues in that case, of course – for example, no accusers are said to have claimed witness to the crime itself, which was legally required for an execution – but Jesus points this out after the mob has dispersed, not before, and many Christians interpret that verdict more generally.
  - cvoss 2y ago
    It is important to understand the difference between moral laws, which are immutable, and other laws in the Bible, often categorized as civil or ceremonial. In modern legal theory, we have a similar distinction, which you may know from Legally Blonde: malum in se (that which is inherently wrong) and malum prohibitum (that which is wrong because a lawful authority prohibits it). Example: endangering the safety of others by driving too fast is wrong in itself, while breaking the speed limit is wrong because the town said so. The former type (moral, and in se) doesn't depend on the existence of a government or system of laws and justice. The latter type certainly does, and the wrongness of those things 1) is changeable at the will of the governing authority, 2) applies only to those properly under the authority, and 3) expires when the governing structure expires. Christians believe the ten commandments are moral law, whereas when we get into the ins and outs of the ancient Israel system of justice, described at length in Leviticus, eg, we are seeing one civilization's implementation of that moral law into civil law, coupled with religious law and ceremonies that symbolized and pointed to deeper realities. When Jesus says he does not abolish but fulfills the law (and he means all of the law, not just some laws), he can't mean you are now free to murder. He means if you murdered someone, you may yet receive eternal life and not eternal death, because he can pay the penalty on your behalf. He means he lived a perfectly moral life and can impute that to you. That's fulfillment of moral law. It also doesn't mean eating pork was immoral and now it's moral. That dietary restriction was a malum prohibitum component of the ceremonial cleanness symbolism that was meant to point the Israelites to the reality of what happens to a soul that consumes unholy things. It was never immoral, only prohibited. But the law is fulfilled in that the symbol is no longer required. Jesus institutes a new symbol that fixates on his own holiness and cleanness imputed to us as if by eating it (the Lord's Supper). The early Christian movement quickly incorporated non-Jews who had no heritage of living under the authority of the Israelite state, which was, by this time, already expired/expiring, many times over through successive conquests and occupations by various other governments. Neither the non-Jewish Christians nor the Jewish Christians needed to abide by those laws, though many did for a time, as it was an integral part of cultural and religious custom.
Beijinger 2y ago
"Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment." You shall not kill! What I don't understand. It is my impression that most of the US states that still have the death penalty, strongly oppose abortion. I find this a contradiction. And also these are the states that oppose abortion, at the same time are strictly against any kind of welfare "not our problem!".
- awb 2y ago
  Here’s my guess: I think it’s a question of agency. If you’re an adult that makes their own choices (crime, bad financial decisions, etc.), then you know what the consequences are. If you’re an unborn child, you’re don’t have agency. For some there’s probably deeper religious belief in good things (birth) being the work of God and bad things (crime, vice, death) being the work of Satan. To your point there are plenty of competing religious teachings that could lead some to be pro-choice, pro-welfare and anti-death penalty.
l0t0b0r0s 2y ago
Straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." The problem with your assertion is that you don't understand the rule book ( Murder is not the same as capital punishment.), and you have nothing for contempt for the said rulebook.

Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment. But I get nonsense begets more nonsense.

jzackpete 2y ago

[flagged]

anonzzzies 2y ago
[flagged]
- jzackpete 2y ago
  I'm an atheist, so I wouldn't consider myself an expert on their beliefs, but you don't appear to be either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thou_shalt_not_kill
  - anonzzzies 2y ago
    I guess it's a matter of interpretation; I am also an atheist but was raised a protestant (we had to memorise and read in front of the class selected parts from the bible every day) and our flavour (which might be different from even others in the same branch) definitely has no tolerance for justified killing except by the lord. I know some religions have tolerance for justified killing as you pointed out, just that's not what ours told us. But point taken and people do and read into things whatever fits them.
  - mrangle 2y ago
    Lost in translation, the Commandment is not to murder. Legal killing of the guilty (of murder), and in self defense for example, is not murder. Just as it isn't in the secular legal system. Therefore, there is no conflict. That's not to say that there isn't room for mercy when called for. Also, prudence should be exercised to the highest possible standard and then some. No one has broken a Commandment by executing Ted Bundy for example, by defending from a hostile Army, nor by defending their own life from imminent murder by a criminal aggressor.
    - gen220 2y ago
      Christ gave commandments that superseded the Mosaic law. He explicitly forbade violence in all forms, with no exceptions for retaliation. And he went further to say you should respond to violence with nonviolent love and submission. Christ would not endorse capital punishment of Bundy, soldiers in any army, or “stand your ground” style killings.
      - mrangle 2y ago
        That's false on all counts. You're engaging in incorrect conjecture in regard to what he stated. Further, what Christ "would not endorse" is your conjecture and not fact. Christianity is not about allowing society be destroyed by its internal enemies such as criminals and their syndicates, nor about blanket injustice for victims, nor about allowing foreign armies to overtake it (often destroying Christianity). How ridiculous. Although that would be a convenient misinterpretation for wayward Christians, anti-Christians and society's enemies. Imagine giving your statement to virtually any historical Christian Society of any significant size. Such flirtation with this type of interpretation has always been fringe at best or outright secular (from Christianity's enemies), and always incorrect.
        gen220 2y ago
        That institutions who purport themselves to be Christian support violence does not change what Christ himself taught. I interpret Christianity to be following the teachings of Christ, rather than following post-Christ dogma that is frequently in open contradictions to Christ's teachings. I encourage you to (re-)read the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7, particularly relevant to violence are verses 38-48) and reflect on how those words might be compatible with state-sanctioned violence of any form? I agree with you that this interpretation is historically one that has been fringe since the Council of Nicaea. That does not mean that it is incorrect. Do you think Christ, who commanded "Do not swear an oath", "Do not resist an evil person", and "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (the word for 'enemy' here carried a nationalistic tone), would endorse any of the earlier-quoted uses of violence? As someone who is very comfortable professing Christian ideas, I don't understand how you could present his commandments as anti-Christian. It is literally how he tells us to live.
kergonath 2y ago
Being Christian is about forgiving and loving your neighbours, isn’t it?
- edm0nd 2y ago
  I dont think so really. The Crusades would have never happened if that were true.
  - pirate787 2y ago
    The Crusades were a valid strategic response to the rise of Islam and the Islamic conquest of Byzantium and the Christian middle east.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    The crusades (at least the earlir ones) were primarily about protecting Christians who were being attacked and having their land taken by Muslims.
- swat535 2y ago
  Yes however in Christian theology it's both forgiveness _and_ repentance (which requires a penance), thus it doesn't mean you are free of consequences just because you have been forgiven. Additionally, loving your neighbour means calling on God's mercy which is willing the Good of the other (the definition of "what is good?" is answered differently in Christianity). Finally, not everyone is your neighbour (Jesus also acknowledged his enemies in Luke 19:27).
  - giraffe_lady 2y ago
    "Your enemies are still your neighbors" is entirely consistent with those statements and in fact was how it was understood by the consensus mainstream of christianity until very recently, and is still how it is understood in most variants other than american protestantism.
  - kergonath 2y ago
    > Yes however in Christian theology it's both forgiveness _and_ repentance (which requires a penance), thus it doesn't mean you are free of consequences just because you have been forgiven. Indeed, but for this you need to let the person in question time to realise their errors and repent, which is impossible if you kill them. > Additionally, loving your neighbour means calling on God's mercy which is willing the Good of the other (the definition of "what is good?" is answered differently in Christianity). Calling on God’s mercy does not imply playing god ourselves and disposing of the lives of others. > Finally, not everyone is your neighbour (Jesus also acknowledged his enemies in Luke 19:27). It is not really relevant in this case, though. Murderers can be Christian as well and accept his “reign”. But yeah I take your point: the bible has a lot of inconsistencies.
sophacles 2y ago
There was that time Jesus stepped in an prevented a completely legal death sentence from being carried out.
drewrv 2y ago
Because their prophet was murdered by the state. It seems weird that a religion would be pro-execution when their founding was, in part, "innocent man was executed". I'm sure believers have jumped through the hoops required to justify it but from the outside, one would expect a country that is majority christian to oppose executions.

giraffe_lady 2y ago

A large part of the organized activism against the death penalty is also run by christians, especially catholics and orthodox who are a lot more consistent on this. It's not the christianity per se that makes them bloodthirsty. Contemporary american evangelical christianity is a novel social-political-religious movement and in some theologically significant ways has broken with near-universal christian tradition. Trying to understand it purely as a religion is too incomplete.

o11c 2y ago
As a serious Christian and a dabbling linguist, I really hate that they've ruined a word meaning "gospel" (the English calque). We really should call them "dysangelical" when they bring death like this (as opposed to warning of death, which is in scope of euangel when there's also a way to avoid it).

spacechild1 2y ago

Also, it's often the same people who claim to be "pro life".

ImJamal 2y ago
It is pro innconcent life, not pro murderer life? Pro life and pro choice are just marketing terms. People who are pro-choice aren't pro not wearing a seat belt (well some may be, but it has nothing to do with the topic). It has to do with abortion and only abortion.
squarefoot 2y ago
As in: "Only God can administer life and death, so stop those abortions or we'll set on fire your clinic and kill the doctors". Psychology can explain completely that behavior, however this is not the right place for such discussions.
- Ylpertnodi 2y ago
  >Where isn't the right place for such discussions?

Nathanba 2y ago

I think even as a non-christian and especially if you comment like this you should know the absolute minimum about christianity: that the death penalty is obviously in the bible and commanded by God plenty of times

wizzwizz4 2y ago
There's also testimony of God overturning / fulfilling prior commandments (Matthew 5:17–21, Acts 10:9–16). The Bible contains a lot of laws and punishments that aren't respected in the United States: selective quoting doesn't strike me as a particularly compelling argument. There's also testimony of Jesus disrupting an instance of capital punishment (John 8:3–11). There may have been procedural issues in that case, of course – for example, no accusers are said to have claimed witness to the crime itself, which was legally required for an execution – but Jesus points this out after the mob has dispersed, not before, and many Christians interpret that verdict more generally.
- cvoss 2y ago
  It is important to understand the difference between moral laws, which are immutable, and other laws in the Bible, often categorized as civil or ceremonial. In modern legal theory, we have a similar distinction, which you may know from Legally Blonde: malum in se (that which is inherently wrong) and malum prohibitum (that which is wrong because a lawful authority prohibits it). Example: endangering the safety of others by driving too fast is wrong in itself, while breaking the speed limit is wrong because the town said so. The former type (moral, and in se) doesn't depend on the existence of a government or system of laws and justice. The latter type certainly does, and the wrongness of those things 1) is changeable at the will of the governing authority, 2) applies only to those properly under the authority, and 3) expires when the governing structure expires. Christians believe the ten commandments are moral law, whereas when we get into the ins and outs of the ancient Israel system of justice, described at length in Leviticus, eg, we are seeing one civilization's implementation of that moral law into civil law, coupled with religious law and ceremonies that symbolized and pointed to deeper realities. When Jesus says he does not abolish but fulfills the law (and he means all of the law, not just some laws), he can't mean you are now free to murder. He means if you murdered someone, you may yet receive eternal life and not eternal death, because he can pay the penalty on your behalf. He means he lived a perfectly moral life and can impute that to you. That's fulfillment of moral law. It also doesn't mean eating pork was immoral and now it's moral. That dietary restriction was a malum prohibitum component of the ceremonial cleanness symbolism that was meant to point the Israelites to the reality of what happens to a soul that consumes unholy things. It was never immoral, only prohibited. But the law is fulfilled in that the symbol is no longer required. Jesus institutes a new symbol that fixates on his own holiness and cleanness imputed to us as if by eating it (the Lord's Supper). The early Christian movement quickly incorporated non-Jews who had no heritage of living under the authority of the Israelite state, which was, by this time, already expired/expiring, many times over through successive conquests and occupations by various other governments. Neither the non-Jewish Christians nor the Jewish Christians needed to abide by those laws, though many did for a time, as it was an integral part of cultural and religious custom.

Beijinger 2y ago

"Still not sure with so many of the (esp right leaning) in the US claiming to be christian, can also accept this as a punishment." You shall not kill! What I don't understand. It is my impression that most of the US states that still have the death penalty, strongly oppose abortion. I find this a contradiction. And also these are the states that oppose abortion, at the same time are strictly against any kind of welfare "not our problem!".

awb 2y ago
Here’s my guess: I think it’s a question of agency. If you’re an adult that makes their own choices (crime, bad financial decisions, etc.), then you know what the consequences are. If you’re an unborn child, you’re don’t have agency. For some there’s probably deeper religious belief in good things (birth) being the work of God and bad things (crime, vice, death) being the work of Satan. To your point there are plenty of competing religious teachings that could lead some to be pro-choice, pro-welfare and anti-death penalty.

l0t0b0r0s 2y ago

Straight out of the Saul Alinsky playbook: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." The problem with your assertion is that you don't understand the rule book ( Murder is not the same as capital punishment.), and you have nothing for contempt for the said rulebook.