5 ms·

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 obvio

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.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    You're right, Jesus isn't saying "you are free to murder". But in every case we see Jesus prevent (or reverse: Luke 22:49–51) bloodshed, the bloodshed would have been retribution or punishment. Jesus is presented as reasonably anti-murder. Whether that holds in the case of capital punishment, I can't say. Though, Jesus was subject to capital punishment, despite the original prosecutor (Pontius Pilate) claiming no lawful basis for the execution (Luke 22:66–23:25). This was presented as unjust, despite Jesus' insistence that it had to happen. This is a bit muddled as an analogy, but I see how some people might take "capital punishment is wrong" from it.
rhcom2 2y ago
The Catholic Church at least is pretty strongly against it.
gen220 2y ago
Christ preached non-violent resistance. Death penalty was in mosaic law, and Christ deliberately contradicted it. Anybody who professes to be a Christian or follower of Christ’s teachings who supports violence in any form is in fact living in contradiction.
anonzzzies 2y ago
This entire thread shows that christians who do believe disagree with eachother about this; I was raised some form of protestant christian and in that form, I was told that any type of killing is only allowed by god and god alone, never by humans. That includes war, capital punishment, abortion and everything else. Of course (... this is religion so it's all nonsense anyway), this did not include the maker his other creation like animals; you can kill and torture those and go to heaven. But nah, nothing 'obviously'; that god commands atrocities obviously means you cannot do them on your own; you need to be commanded; the death penalty is not commanded by god, or, well, in some interpretations it might be.

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.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  You're right, Jesus isn't saying "you are free to murder". But in every case we see Jesus prevent (or reverse: Luke 22:49–51) bloodshed, the bloodshed would have been retribution or punishment. Jesus is presented as reasonably anti-murder. Whether that holds in the case of capital punishment, I can't say. Though, Jesus was subject to capital punishment, despite the original prosecutor (Pontius Pilate) claiming no lawful basis for the execution (Luke 22:66–23:25). This was presented as unjust, despite Jesus' insistence that it had to happen. This is a bit muddled as an analogy, but I see how some people might take "capital punishment is wrong" from it.

rhcom2 2y ago

The Catholic Church at least is pretty strongly against it.

gen220 2y ago

Christ preached non-violent resistance. Death penalty was in mosaic law, and Christ deliberately contradicted it. Anybody who professes to be a Christian or follower of Christ’s teachings who supports violence in any form is in fact living in contradiction.

anonzzzies 2y ago

This entire thread shows that christians who do believe disagree with eachother about this; I was raised some form of protestant christian and in that form, I was told that any type of killing is only allowed by god and god alone, never by humans. That includes war, capital punishment, abortion and everything else. Of course (... this is religion so it's all nonsense anyway), this did not include the maker his other creation like animals; you can kill and torture those and go to heaven. But nah, nothing 'obviously'; that god commands atrocities obviously means you cannot do them on your own; you need to be commanded; the death penalty is not commanded by god, or, well, in some interpretations it might be.