Bring back the death penalty?
Scroll to see replies
yes and no tbh
Murderers should be sentenced to death penalty as well as rapists etc since they're despicable human beings
But it's not ideal in the case that someone is wrongly accused but it's too late since they've already been killed. If they were in prison they could be taken out right?
I believe that the afterlife is what is going to make life fair, so like murderers will be punished for what they have done. But if you don't believe in God would you not think of the death penalty as suitable since the criminals will get their sufficient punishment (another's life for theirs)
Ik this is kinda all over the place but do you get what I mean?
Murderers should be sentenced to death penalty as well as rapists etc since they're despicable human beings
But it's not ideal in the case that someone is wrongly accused but it's too late since they've already been killed. If they were in prison they could be taken out right?
I believe that the afterlife is what is going to make life fair, so like murderers will be punished for what they have done. But if you don't believe in God would you not think of the death penalty as suitable since the criminals will get their sufficient punishment (another's life for theirs)
Ik this is kinda all over the place but do you get what I mean?
Original post by Maddie8232
If someone punches you in the face for no reason, are you justified in punching them back? Does that make the two of you the same now?
If someone punches you in the face for no reason, are you justified in punching them back? Does that make the two of you the same now?
Someone punching me for no reason would fall under the crime of assault. Notice how the legal punishment for assault is not for the culprit to get punched as well.
If you murder a murderer as punishment for killing a loved one, that's your own action. Just like me punching someone in return would be my own action. We would in turn be guilty of the same crimes we "punish", and should be held under the law as such. In a legal scenario, these tit for tat punishments would make no sense, and I don't see why murder has to be any different.
Original post by Maddie8232
I might have certain rules in my household that are lenient and you might be a strict parent. Now let's assume we both have kids. What I'll see as disobedience from them might be different to what you see as disobedience because of the difference in rules.
ah I think I see what you mean, you mean in terms of how strict a parent is? I think, looking back at the verse I showed earlier, it'd be the parents deciding, whether their child is completely rebellious, since their the ones bringing them to the judge.
but if they're one to curse or hit their parents, then they should be put to death.
Original post by Leviathan1611
I don't think the old testament outweighs the new testament, I see them as both equally important, unlike some people who want to disregard the old testament because they don't like what it says.
if you're "wasting time" why did you bother responding to my posts in the first place? like you said, you could better spend your time.
ah, for future reference sir, I'm a "she"😁😁🤣
if you're "wasting time" why did you bother responding to my posts in the first place? like you said, you could better spend your time.
ah, for future reference sir, I'm a "she"😁😁🤣
I have responded to your posts in the faith that, eventually, you might listen to something I've said. I have been guided by (and still receive guidance from) people who know far more than me, and make it my goal in life to understand theology and scripture as fully as my fallen human brain can afford. You, on the other hand, simply refuse to listen to others if what they say conflicts in any way with your own opinion. You defend your ignorance, and that is inexcusible. If you were in church, and the minister said something at odds with your understanding, would you listen and revise your understanding, or would you decry that minister as not knowing what he was talking about? This is the same thing. Many of our discussions have at some point involved me sitting for an hour or more writing detailed explanations of things, in attempts to help you better your understanding. But you, ever the close-minded Protestant, either change the subject or simply ignore me - and then, if you please, claim that you have "tried to persuade" me of your own opinion.
You might not believe this, but once upon a time I was very much like you - though that was mostly because I never had the people around to help me understand things. I've spent the last... what, fifteen years... getting out of that, really studying; and what I've learned, I've tried to give to you. I daresay explaining some things would have been easier one-to-one, or even in person, where clinical and slightly formal tones aren't as likely to be misconstrued as uncivil, but it is what it is.
The OT isn't to be disregarded. It's important history. But its law isn't binding in the way it was. The clue's actually in the names - the word "testament" doesn't refer to a testimony or written account, but a covenant. "This is my blood of the new testament" - the Greek word translated here as "testament", diathékés, means "covenant", or "contract". The OT has been fulfilled, isn't binding any more. The same as when a mortgage has been paid off; you don't have to pay it any more. The NT, the new contract between God and Man, is far simpler and easier to adhere to. Thus we don't read the OT for its laws, but to put the NT into context. The law itself isn't binding on us - as I've quoted before, Hebrews 8:13 says "by calling this covenant 'new', he has made the first one obsolete..."
Your profile has never come across as female. As we're on the topic, though, I don't like to be addressed as "sir". "Mark" will do. God help me if I do become a teacher.
Original post by Maddie8232
1) That's the thing though, I don't believe it's inherently wrong to kill a murderer. Your outlook is that no life is ours to take and I do agree with you on this, with a few exceptions (murder being one of them).
2) I do agree it's nuanced. If it's a case of a woman being executed for defending herself against a rape then I obviously don't agree with the death penalty here. However, if it's a man who rapes and murders an innocent woman, I simply cannot accept that this individual deserves rehabilitation. It's an insult to the person who was murdered in cold blood.
2) I do agree it's nuanced. If it's a case of a woman being executed for defending herself against a rape then I obviously don't agree with the death penalty here. However, if it's a man who rapes and murders an innocent woman, I simply cannot accept that this individual deserves rehabilitation. It's an insult to the person who was murdered in cold blood.
What makes it other than wrong to kill a murderer? What does killing them achieve?
Original post by xxlaila03xx
yes and no tbh
Murderers should be sentenced to death penalty as well as rapists etc since they're despicable human beings
But it's not ideal in the case that someone is wrongly accused but it's too late since they've already been killed. If they were in prison they could be taken out right?
I believe that the afterlife is what is going to make life fair, so like murderers will be punished for what they have done. But if you don't believe in God would you not think of the death penalty as suitable since the criminals will get their sufficient punishment (another's life for theirs)
Ik this is kinda all over the place but do you get what I mean
Murderers should be sentenced to death penalty as well as rapists etc since they're despicable human beings
But it's not ideal in the case that someone is wrongly accused but it's too late since they've already been killed. If they were in prison they could be taken out right?
I believe that the afterlife is what is going to make life fair, so like murderers will be punished for what they have done. But if you don't believe in God would you not think of the death penalty as suitable since the criminals will get their sufficient punishment (another's life for theirs)
Ik this is kinda all over the place but do you get what I mean
You've got it backwards. I don't believe in the afterlife, so why would I be okay with giving a murderer a free ticket to oblivion? I want them to be punished. Life in prison is far more of a punishment than the nothingness of death, and gives them a chance to truly repent.
If I did believe in hell, then the death sentence would make more sense knowing they'd be punished eternally
Original post by Yasmin1224
You are ****ing crazy
lol, okay🙂
true
I was trying to get at that
prison isn't always that bad a punishment though
prison conditions should be made worse for bigger crimes then
I was trying to get at that
prison isn't always that bad a punishment though
prison conditions should be made worse for bigger crimes then
Original post by AsithU
You've got it backwards. I don't believe in the afterlife, so why would I be okay with giving a murderer a free ticket to oblivion? I want them to be punished. Life in prison is far more of a punishment than the nothingness of death, and gives them a chance to truly repent.
If I did believe in hell, then the death sentence would make more sense knowing they'd be punished eternally
If I did believe in hell, then the death sentence would make more sense knowing they'd be punished eternally
Our justice system is far from perfect so I wouldn’t support the death penalty lightly. I think it should be reserved for repeat murderers, repeat child sex offenders, repeat rapists and terrorists. Definitely no death penalty for first time offenders but if the criminal has been through prison and rehabilitation has not worked then death penalty would be good in the above cases.
Original post by U33B
If this question hasn`t been asked well you can answer it now. What do people think of the death penalty? List 5 types of people who are deserving of capital punishment. If you were to bring it back which method would you choose and why i.e. Execution (chopping head off), hanging, firing squad, lethal injection etc. Would you do it publicly or privately and why. Please bear in mind that there may be people who are completely against this so don`t fight with people who have different opinions to you. This is a general, healthy discussion so let’s all respect each other.
What about if the parents were telling the children to commit sin and crime and the child disobeys? Still death penalty or is that an exemption?
Original post by Leviathan1611
how is disobedience relative? is disobedience not just, not doing what you were told to do? I'm saying Rebellion is constant disobedience, they never listen and their parents have tried everything with zero improvement
see how God describes it, that may help
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
Deuteronomy 21:18*-21 KJV
see how God describes it, that may help
"If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
Deuteronomy 21:18*-21 KJV
Original post by Tootles
What makes it other than wrong to kill a murderer? What does killing them achieve?
I do listen to others, just not everyone, if they're saved I'm not going take what they're teaching to heart as if they must be right, blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly.
something at odds with my understanding? like what for example? if it's basic important doctrines (ones that are a matter of life and death), or something that is clearly true, I'd probably not bother listening since it's something that will not convince me . but anything else, I have no problem, I'll compare it with what the Bible says and see if it's so.
how is it's law no longer binding when Jesus is still quoting and teaching it? I agree, dietary laws and animal sacrifices and such like are no longer required for new testament Christians, but what people call "Civil Laws" still apply, otherwise how else are we to punish criminals? why not use God's law (which is perfect) rather than our own law as if it's going to be better than God's.
I'll try to remember, feels very weird referring to older people by their name, alright if I just call you Tootles?
Original post by AsithU
Someone punching me for no reason would fall under the crime of assault. Notice how the legal punishment for assault is not for the culprit to get punched as well.
If you murder a murderer as punishment for killing a loved one, that's your own action. Just like me punching someone in return would be my own action. We would in turn be guilty of the same crimes we "punish", and should be held under the law as such. In a legal scenario, these tit for tat punishments would make no sense, and I don't see why murder has to be any different.
If you murder a murderer as punishment for killing a loved one, that's your own action. Just like me punching someone in return would be my own action. We would in turn be guilty of the same crimes we "punish", and should be held under the law as such. In a legal scenario, these tit for tat punishments would make no sense, and I don't see why murder has to be any different.
If you were to punch someone back, you would not be guilty of the same crime. It would be self defence in your case. My point is that you don't both share equal blame morally.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. I have no qualms with the state killing a murderer provided it's clear he / she did it.
Original post by Tootles
What makes it other than wrong to kill a murderer? What does killing them achieve?
What makes it other than wrong to kill a murderer? What does killing them achieve?
What exactly makes it wrong?
Killing them won't bring the dead victim back but it'll at least be some form of justice for the family.
of course it is better to obey God rather than men, if my parents were to tell me to sin, I won't do it. and if my parents tell me to commit a crime, I also won't do it.
and it's not death penalty for disobedience, we've all been disobedient, death penalty for rebellion. for example, they never listen and their parents have tried everything to fix it and nothing has improved.
it's not like my mum tells me to go to bed and I'm still awake and now I must be stoned to death, that's not rebellion. death penalty should be a last resort
and it's not death penalty for disobedience, we've all been disobedient, death penalty for rebellion. for example, they never listen and their parents have tried everything to fix it and nothing has improved.
it's not like my mum tells me to go to bed and I'm still awake and now I must be stoned to death, that's not rebellion. death penalty should be a last resort
I still don’t see how being rebellious is in and in of itself a justification to take someone’s life. Just because God commanded it in the Old Testament to keep the bloodline and society of the Israelites who which Jesus would come through pure it doesn’t mean it should apply now. This is why we don’t stone people who work on the sabbath
Original post by Leviathan1611
of course it is better to obey God rather than men, if my parents were to tell me to sin, I won't do it. and if my parents tell me to commit a crime, I also won't do it.
and it's not death penalty for disobedience, we've all been disobedient, death penalty for rebellion. for example, they never listen and their parents have tried everything to fix it and nothing has improved.
it's not like my mum tells me to go to bed and I'm still awake and now I must be stoned to death, that's not rebellion. death penalty should be a last resort
and it's not death penalty for disobedience, we've all been disobedient, death penalty for rebellion. for example, they never listen and their parents have tried everything to fix it and nothing has improved.
it's not like my mum tells me to go to bed and I'm still awake and now I must be stoned to death, that's not rebellion. death penalty should be a last resort
Original post by Leviathan1611
ah I think I see what you mean, you mean in terms of how strict a parent is? I think, looking back at the verse I showed earlier, it'd be the parents deciding, whether their child is completely rebellious, since their the ones bringing them to the judge.
but if they're one to curse or hit their parents, then they should be put to death.
but if they're one to curse or hit their parents, then they should be put to death.
Ok, I see what you mean although I'll never agree to the death penalty for this.
Original post by Maddie8232
What exactly makes it wrong?
Killing them won't bring the dead victim back but it'll at least be some form of justice for the family.
Killing them won't bring the dead victim back but it'll at least be some form of justice for the family.
Are you saying that ending a person's life is a better way of punishing them and exacting justice than making them feel what they've done? Justice isn't a like-for-like payment. If you want to consider the meaning of justice, consider this: I have £100 and you have £10. I take your £10 off you and tear it up. Which would be more just; to make me give you £10, because that's the amount I took from you, or to make me give you my whole £100, because if I destroyed everything you had, you should be given everything I have?
Original post by Leviathan1611
I do listen to others, just not everyone, if they're saved I'm not going take what they're teaching to heart as if they must be right, blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly.
something at odds with my understanding? like what for example? if it's basic important doctrines (ones that are a matter of life and death), or something that is clearly true, I'd probably not bother listening since it's something that will not convince me . but anything else, I have no problem, I'll compare it with what the Bible says and see if it's so.
how is it's law no longer binding when Jesus is still quoting and teaching it? I agree, dietary laws and animal sacrifices and such like are no longer required for new testament Christians, but what people call "Civil Laws" still apply, otherwise how else are we to punish criminals? why not use God's law (which is perfect) rather than our own law as if it's going to be better than God's.
I'll try to remember, feels very weird referring to older people by their name, alright if I just call you Tootles?
something at odds with my understanding? like what for example? if it's basic important doctrines (ones that are a matter of life and death), or something that is clearly true, I'd probably not bother listening since it's something that will not convince me . but anything else, I have no problem, I'll compare it with what the Bible says and see if it's so.
how is it's law no longer binding when Jesus is still quoting and teaching it? I agree, dietary laws and animal sacrifices and such like are no longer required for new testament Christians, but what people call "Civil Laws" still apply, otherwise how else are we to punish criminals? why not use God's law (which is perfect) rather than our own law as if it's going to be better than God's.
I'll try to remember, feels very weird referring to older people by their name, alright if I just call you Tootles?
I'll PM you in a bit, we've derailed enough threads already.
how is putting rebellious children keeping the bloodline pure? it's simply (in my view) to prevent having such a terrible person in society as a adult, if you refuse submit to authority and have nothing but disrespect your parents, cursing and smiting them, what kind of grown adult will you turn out to be?
Original post by Maddie8232
Ok, I see what you mean although I'll never agree to the death penalty for this.
alright 👍🙂
Original post by Tootles
I'll PM you in a bit, we've derailed enough threads already.
okay🙂
Quick Reply
Latest
Last reply 1 minute ago
Official: Queen's University Belfast A100 2024 Entry ApplicantsLast reply 4 minutes ago
Should I send TMUA to LSE? (Maths, Stats and Business)Last reply 4 minutes ago
year 13 gyg journal : trying not to become an academic victim 🤡📖Last reply 9 minutes ago
Official University of Bath Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryLast reply 9 minutes ago
Edexcel A-level French Paper 3, IRP/Speaking (9FR0 03) - 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 12 minutes ago
November 2023 Illegal Migration Intake Unit - Intake Response Team - Immigration OffiLast reply 16 minutes ago
yet to receive a woodhouse interviewLast reply 16 minutes ago
Official University of Sheffield Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entryTrending
Last reply 12 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 12 hours ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 week ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 3 weeks ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
