News-Record.com

I read the article three times. He sounds vindictive.

I too read the article and I think it is a hoot that for a man who hates libruls, one of them dam libruls does not wish to see him executed for what he did.

Oh, and Mr Libruls have dee-stroyed the UUU ESS is getting a court appointed lawyer to assure his state and federal constitutional rights are protected.
Oh the irony!

I would LIKE to be against having the option of the death penalty. There are a lot of good reasons on the side of not having it, both moral and practical.

But I can't help thinking that for all intents and purposes, a sentence of life without parole is the same as death - only more expensive to the state. And of course, there is the fact that there are some crimes so hideous, people so dangerous to ANY society, even that of a "Supermax" prison, that death is really the best response.

So I am for the death penalty, but I believe my judgment to use it would have a much higher bar to reach than a lot of people I know.

Obviously, we are dealing here with a deranged man, with a lot of psycho-emotional baggage; on the order of many whom we have seen in the past, of all “political” persuasions. His anti-liberal epithets seem to have been more a cover for his personal vendetta.

Although there are many reasons to dislike, even detest, certain positions of liberals, I for one, do not hate someone JUST because they are liberal in their outlook. As long as they are the LOYAL opposition, I can live with them, as I trust they can live with me and other conservatives. It is when they become treasonous and philosophically anti-US, that they become dangerous. This applies to the estreme right as well, of course. It seems that when you add the Christian element to the mix that liberal vitriol rears its ugly. Well, we I won’t go there tonight.

I must admit that I too, Namtac, support the death penalty for first degree murder; but MY threshold would be lower, even as yours would be higher. This is because of my biblical convictions - the Scripture are clear:

“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made man.” (Gen. 9: 6 & 7)

The reason for capital justice is NOT because the crime was especially heinous, or to assuage the aggrieved party, OR even for social justice. Rather, it is primarily to provide a punishment that fits the crime (lex talionis): an image of God has been destroyed, demanding the death of the perpetrator.

The true Holy of Holies is in the heart of man, where the scriptures declare God dwells. It is, therefore, a desecration of the “temple” of the living God, and as in the physical tabernacle and temple, which, if desecrated incurred the death penalty – whether desecrated by the high priest (without the application of sacrificial blood) or anyone else. This is because sinful, depraved man had entered where only holiness may dwell. Only for first degree intentional murder and military/police protection of the nation from invasion or attack (self defense) does God allow capital justice.

So, by the biblical standard, and for the reason enunciated in Gen. 9, ALL first degree murders, adequately proven in a court of law, should incur capital justice, as swiftly as reasonable safeguards permit. Barnhart’s reasons are strictly personal and emotion-driven; and should not be considered when applying the sentence. He has a perfect right to his personal views and feelings; and the judge has the prerogative to take anything into consideration and do as he/she wishes within the law; but sentencing should be based on principle, not personal emotion. (typical bleeding-heart humanistic philosopher)

How about loving one's "enemies?" (Matthew 5.43-48) Or, Matthew 5.38-42? Or even better, Matthew 22.34-40. What sayesth thou?

Shalom

God instituted the death penalty after the flood and nikos quoted Gen. 9 to confirm it.

The chapter following the giving of the Ten Commandments has a number of commands from God to execute criminals, including:

* "He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:12
* "He who strikes his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:15
* "He who kidnaps a man... shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:16
* "He who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death." Ex. 21:17
* "[If an unborn baby is killed] you shall give life for life." Ex. 21:23

Jesus Himself said "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill," (Matthew 5:17)". Jesus had the perfect venue to criticize the romans for capital punishment while he was on the cross with two others but He did not speak out against the death penalty. only a universalist would propagate the notion that God turns His head on murder and joyfully invites the unrepentant murderer into His kingdom. we are certainly admonished to love our enemies but we should expect them to pay the civil consequence of heinous crimes. God will pardon our penalty for sins (if we are regenerate) but we are still liable for the consequence of our sin.

I think you nailed it, Buz, regarding Darryl's question about loving one's neighbor: there is a distinction between civil penalties for crimes and personal love and forgiveness. Jesus’ teachings about forgiving the “enemy” (understand: one who hurts you or offends you) were NOT civil in scope, but interpersonal. Even in the OT the neighbor was to be loved, and good was to be done in every facet of social interaction. The laws which required capital justice were crimes that either directly desecrated God’s nature and image (murder) or those which undermined the essential elements of the Kingdom (parental authority – 5th Commandment, or that desecrated key aspects of divine worship.

Since the ceremonial law applied to the holy covenant people of ancient Israel, it no longer applies to secular or even Christian societies. God was in the very midst of Israel, and all that He instituted was thus HOLY. Whenever, the Imago Dei (man) transgresses the holy person or kingdom of God, he receives a death sentence.

Even though citizens of modern nations are not part of pure covenant communities, as Israel was, they still always and everywhere are executed by God for their rebellion, blasphemy and capital sins. If man does not take care of his responsibilities in this area, God will! It’s just hard for us to discern it, because it often takes time for it to transpire, and takes place outside normal human channels. For example, if people indulge in sinful sexual activity they get STDs and AIDS, or some other “receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (Rom. 1) Or jealousy sparks a murder, or an abortion. Or guilt causes such severe depression that suicide results. Sin is deadly in all its ramifications, and God is not mocked.

Civil discipline or penalties were set in place to curb the extent and power of sin in the Israelite community, even as they do today. So, criminal sanctions have absolutely NOTHING to do with the teachings of Jesus regarding the interpersonal dynamics of love and forgiveness. These are matters of personal decision, not civil offenses. This whole matter cannot be properly understood or appreciated apart from this key distinction. You are crossing concepts and distorting the whole discussion, Darryl, by not doing so.

some here only believe the scriptures which Jesus personally spoke, so here is a sampling of some things Jesus spoke openly.........

Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

seems to me like Jesus said only those who do the will of the Father will gain heavenly access and others will be cast into the fire. imagine Jesus himself telling others to depart from Him because they were workers of iniquity.sort of rules out universalism don't you think?

Indeed, it does. And I guess our friend, Darryl, would accuse Jesus of being harsh and unloving for such sayings. He seems to enjoy quoting the Master selectively and out of context. The whole idea that Jesus was the softer “feminine” side of the mean old patriarchal deity of the OT is a crock. Such a take reveals a total lack of theological awareness, as well as a woeful ignorance of Scripture. Jesus’ multiple predictions about the total judgment that would fall upon the apostate Jews and Jerusalem in 70 AD are no different from the OT prophets –same sin, same judgment, same God. And since one of God’s primary attributes is immutability, He has also not changed his MO today: “that which ye sow, that shall ye also reap.” Ibid. Buz’s scripture citations.