/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>764523

>And before you guys pick on me for "DA JOOS" on what I'm about to say, just hear me out. As I understand it, in the Mishnah, tractate Sanhedrin, it has stoning, burning, strangulation, and beheading as possible forms of capital punishment for sins as prescribed in the Torah.

I still don't get why you cited this. It already has the punishment listed as stoning in the Old Testament, isn't that enough? Why cite the Mishnah?

In answer to the question, the moral law still applies, the specific punishments need not be the same as in the Old Testament. Although they could be. It's not really spelled out in the New Testament so I think governments have a bit of leeway.

> is the death penalty for something like, say, homosexuality permissible in Christianity?

No.

John 8

2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?” 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” 8 And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 9 But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus looked up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.”

>>764536

Your interpretation seems to forbid any execution

>>764536

>Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground

I wonder what he wrote.

>>764536

>thinking Jesus was making a statement about capital punishments prescribed by God the Father Himself

Jesus was making a point to the Pharisees who were trying to trap Him, and He knew it. He wasn't trying to overthrow the justice system.

>>764523

Seeing the absolute state of the pro-homo West, I'm tempted to say that capital punishment for homosexuality is mandatory for every society that ever existed and wants to continue to exist.

>>764550

"Where is the man?"

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus+20%3A10&version=KJV

They were breaking the Law trying to stone the woman without the man.

>>764539

No. Only that religious justifications to capital punishment are null. If we cannot enforce capital punishment on an adulterous woman per Leviticus because only those without sin may cast a stone, then we cannot enforce capital punishment on anyone per Leviticus because only the sinless may cast a stone.

Civil justifications are still acceptable.

>>764585

Homosexuality has been a criminal offense for almost all of US history, only until very recently. If the punishment was execution, are you finding that unacceptable?

>>764585

So should a state-licensed executioner only administer lethal injection to a serial killer if he is sinless, too?

>>764588

> If the punishment was execution, are you finding that unacceptable?

Well why was it criminalized in the first place? Is there a civil justification for it?

>>764591

>>764588

>civil justifications are still acceptable

Can you guys please read what he wrote.

>>764591

>should a state-licensed executioner only administer lethal injection to a serial killer if he is sinless, too?

Under what law is the executioner operating? Is he administering capital punishment under Leviticus or under the United States Code?

>>764593

I did read it, it doesn't answer the question. How is it okay for the state to carry it out but not okay for individuals? The state is composed of individuals. So would it be wrong for them to carry it out? And if not, why, if it's wrong for the rest of us?

>>764595

Are you suggesting the the State is held by Christian beliefs?

You do know what secularism is, right?

Death sentence just to follow Leviticus? Of course not. God's use of death in the Old Testament is to purify the world from evil, so that man may not accumulate sin and disfigure God's good world further, but this was only a temporary tolerance, as death is truly our enemy (Ezekiel 18:23, Wisdom 1:12-15, Hebrews 2:14) and Christ has destroyed it on the Cross. Now God purifies His world through His own divine fire, which divinizes us if we are repentant and accept it, and becomes eternal torment for us if we remain in sin and reject it.

With that said, there is the greater issue of tolerating the death sentence as Christians. On one hand, there is this:

Proverbs 24:11-12

>Deliver those who are drawn toward death, and hold back those stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, "Surely we did not know this," does not He who weighs the hearts consider it? He who keeps your soul, does He not know it? And will He not render to each man according to his deeds?

John 8:1-12

>But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Now early in the morning He came again into the temple, and all the people came to Him; and He sat down and taught them. Then the scribes and Pharisees brought to Him a woman caught in adultery. And when they had set her in the midst, they said to Him, “Teacher, this woman was caught in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses, in the law, commanded us that such should be stoned. But what do You say?” This they said, testing Him, that they might have something of which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger, as though He did not hear. So when they continued asking Him, He raised Himself up and said to them, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.” And again He stooped down and wrote on the ground. Then those who heard it, being convicted by their conscience, went out one by one, beginning with the oldest even to the last. And Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. When Jesus had raised Himself up and saw no one but the woman, He said to her, “Woman, where are those accusers of yours? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said to her, “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more.” Then Jesus spoke to them again, saying, “I am the light of the world. He who follows Me shall not walk in darkness, but have the light of life.”

But on another hand some interpret the Noahide commandments to still be valid, including the death sentence for murder:

Genesis 9:1-7

>So God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be on every beast of the earth, on every bird of the air, on all that move on the earth, and on all the fish of the sea. They are given into your hand. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you. I have given you all things, even as the green herbs. But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man. Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man. And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth and multiply in it.”

And interpret the supreme authority of the state holding the sword of God for justice to mean that the state has the divine responsibility to instate the death sentence for those who deserve it:

Romans 13:1-7

>Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.

AFAIK the Orthodox Church in America has released a statement against capital punishment, citing John 8:3-11. But I'm not aware of statements by other churches, and you have catechisms such as St. Philaret's that specifically support capital punishment.

>>764550

According to Orthodox tradition, Jesus was writing down the sins of the woman's accusers.

http://fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2014/03/stump-priest-what-did-christ-write-on.html

>>764606

>Nothing about secularism in government terms forbids religious conviction from being the basis for legislation

Uh, that would be called a state religion if it imposed itself upon the laws. Nothing forbids it no, but that's not how countries are ran anymore.

>>764606

>Why does it matter for our question?

If there is no justification for an offence or for punishing someone for an offence, then that act is not an offence at all.

The primary purpose of the punishment which society inflicts is to redress the disorder caused by the offence. Public authority has the right and duty to redress the violation of personal and social rights by imposing on the offender an adequate punishment for the crime. An adequate and just punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the offense.

Besides exacting adequate expiation or retribution for the crime, society's criminal punishment is also for the purpose of rehabilitating the criminal, defending society against the danger posed by the criminal and deterring other criminals from committing similar crimes.

Is capital punishment an adequate punishment to redress the societal disorder caused by homosexuality?

If the only justification is that homosexuality is that society thinks homosexuality is "terribly abhorrent" then the death penalty is not appropriate.

Moreover, if the disorder to society can be redressed without executing the criminal, then the death penalty should not be invoked. Can we redress the harm to society caused by homosexuality without killing people? Yes. Therefore, capital punishment is not appropriate.

>>764612

>If the only justification is that homosexuality is that society thinks homosexuality is "terribly abhorrent" then the death penalty is not appropriate.

Sodomites have abnormally high rates of pedophilia, committing murder, being murdered, drug abuse, criminality and psychological problems. They are vastly more promiscuous than heterosexuals and they are vastly more likely to catch and spread STDs than normal, healthy adults. There is the civil justification.

>>764624

>Sodomites have abnormally high rates of pedophilia,

Pedophilia is a separate crime

>committing murder

Murder is a separate crime

>being murdered

Lol we should kill people because they're more likely to get killed anyway?

>drug abuse,

Drug use is a separate crime

>criminality

This is meaningless

>and psychological problems.

Mental health problems are not a justification for capital punishment

>They are vastly more promiscuous than heterosexuals

Not a justification for capital punishment

>and they are vastly more likely to catch and spread STDs than normal, healthy adults.

Not a justification for capital punishment

>There is the civil justification.

I'm not seeing one.

>>764626

>Separate crimes

So? Deterring people from homosexuality ultimately deters them from the other crimes sodomites are prone to.

>Not a justification

According to the zeitgeist.

>I'm not seeing one.

Who cares? No one is here to convince you. You're here to police people's thoughts on a Cambodian basket weaving website.

Executing sodomites is reasonable, common to many cultures throughout history for millennia, and entirely defensible.

Why did the mods clean up this thread and delete that excellent image that had that rather long story about a gay guy falling into the depths of sin and in the end leaving it forever?

Seriously, WHY would you delete that? I wasn't finished reading it.

>>764523

>contrarian monarchists

Catholicism has multiple papers about how democracy and anarchy are useless and how Monarchy is the way to go.

I mean if you want to avoid actual theology so you aren't edgy then sure, go ahead and to that.

Also funnily enough those edgy monarchists are the ones that wouldn't support capital punishment for homosexuality.

>>764644

It starts with the sexual liberation of the faggots and always ends in child rape and/or child murder. There is a very strong reason why God calls that unrepentant sodomites be executed. Look at society now! We have so called parents abusing their kids and telling them it okay to be pumped full of hormones and be non-CIS gendered (ie not conform to what God assigned to them). We have STDs evolving at such a rapid rate that our medicine is starting to not work agianst it. We have women turning into Jezebelles because men want to skirt their responsibilities and fornicate with men instead of being good husbands for our women. We have our medical system bogged down with the litany of adverse health effects sodomy has on people's minds and body.

The moment we let modernism tell us that God's laws are biggoted and not who we are much like Israel in Jeremiah/Ezekiel was the moment we disobeyed God and gave the devil's generals a legal stranglehold over our society and our nation.

God did nothing wrong giving His people Leviticus 20:13. He knew that if were to be tolerated this type of soul corrupting bs we have to deal with today would happen.

>embed related

A lecture from Fr. Ripperger on the different levels of spiritual warfare. Sexual immorality (fornication & sodomy) are always the first steps the demonic foot in the door that always ends in child murder (abortion) and child rape.

>>764523

The answer is no. Read the Epistle of St. Barnabas for a full understanding of how Christians should view the Jews' laws.

>>764629

>So? Deterring people from homosexuality ultimately deters them from the other crimes sodomites

I don't think you understand the consequences of this line of reasoning. You just said individuals should receive capital punishment for crimes they did not commit.

>According to the zeitgeist.

this is meaningless.

>Who cares? No one is here to convince you.

If you cannot produce a civil justification for the use of capital punishment for homosexual acts, then you need to change your position.

>Executing sodomites is reasonable

you have not provided a single reason to justify executing homosexuals. Therefore, executing them is by definition, unreasonable.

>common to many cultures throughout history for millennia

This is fallacious two ways: as an argument to the masses (argumentum ad populum) and an appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem).

>and entirely defensible

You have not provided any defense to your position.

>>764734

>You're being arbitrary

I was quoting >>764606 . That is not being arbitrary.

> Most of these discrimination are made by appeals to the moral convictions of the legislators and those who put them in power. In the US, that has been the Bible.

This is wrong. All laws in the United States appeal to the Constitution. The Constitution draws its power from the will of the governed, that is to say, the people. This is established in the Preamble: "We the People in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. . . do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America". There is no appeal to the Bible.

>Leviticus 20:13 instructs execution for fags.

Jesus prohibits it in John 8.

>Clearly from this we can glean that it's God's intent for society to completely rid ourselves of fags, especially coupled with Sodom & Gomorrah.

We can only gather that homosexual acts are sinful. We do not have a grant of power to execute them ourselves.

>>764536

What was Jesus writing on the ground?

Let God be the Judge. In His eyes, I'm sure your own iniquities are far greater than the likes of a man loving another man. Why be so quick to kill and punish another human when you deserve the same fate?

>>764761

I have no idea. However I will say that this is a key symbolic act of Jesus. In Jewish law to convict someone of adultery, a priest would have to stoop down and write the law on the ground that the accused was being charged with breaking and then write the person’s name. In taking this first action, Jesus is identifying himself as a priest with authority to pass judgment.

>>764766

Principally, the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.

The Fifth Amendment states: "No person shall ... be be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This gives the government power to deprive a person of life if that person is given due process of law.

The Eighth Amendment prohibits: "cruel and unusual punishments". In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), Justice Brennan wrote, "There are, then, four principles by which we may determine whether a particular punishment is 'cruel and unusual'." (1) The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity," especially torture. (2) "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in wholly arbitrary fashion." (3) "A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society." (4) "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary."

The death penalty was recently implicitly recognized as constitutional in In Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) where the Court upheld the use of lethal injections using the drug midazolam.

>>764626

>Muh incidents in a vacuum, criminal behaviour is entirely separate from the anti-social behavior that causes it

Moronic logic, may as well defend alcoholism, drug abuse, self harm, etc. Prohibitions on any and all of these things are for the public good since they're all related, and since there need only be a civil reasoning for an act to be just in your (idiotic) system of law and morality, that it is the people's will that these acts be prohibited is enough. But of course the non-idiotic answer is that crimes should be punished proportionally to their injustice, and homosexuality is gravely unjust and immoral.

>>764755

>>764785

>Executing sodomites is reasonable

<You have not provided a single reason to justify executing homosexuals. Therefore, executing them is by definition, unreasonable

Nice faulty syllogism brainlet.

And the incoherent rambling about the great glory of MUH CONSTITUSHUN is overall too stupid to respond to, as though the constitution (or your unsurprisingly faulty interpretation of it) is the finally arbiter of justice or the will of the people, through merely having been written (hate to break it to you, it's neither).

But being the predictably narrow-sighted libertard you are you also misunderstood his question: where is the power to execute derived from? Libertard: "MUH CONSTITUSHUN!!!!" But where then did the founding fathers derive their authority to write the constitution? In your inane model of justice, the government BY DEFINITION could not act unjustly, so long as they followed the laws which they passed, regardless of their content.

I hope you can now begin to understand how immensely stupid you've been, and that the correct answer to anon's question is that the authority to pass judgment and execute justice is derived from God's law. They may not be mandatory, but things like execution were once prescribed specifically by God and so therefore they cannot be INTRINSICALLY immoral; it thus follows that if societies choose to prescribe these punishments in accordance with scripture, they have not acted unjustly.

>>764779

>"loving"

Get lost you sick freak.

>>764846

>may as well defend alcoholism, drug abuse, self harm

None of those crimes are punishable by death.

>Prohibitions on any and all of these things are for the public good

Not necessarily.

>since they're all related

homosexuality is not related to alcoholism

>since there need only be a civil reasoning for an act to be just

Not what I said

>it is the people's will that these acts be prohibited is enough

The people's will does not justify capital punishment

>the non-idiotic answer is that crimes should be punished proportionally to their injustice

That's literally what I wrote in the first place. Please read >>764612

>homosexuality is gravely unjust and immoral

why? "Because the bible says so" is not a sufficient answer in a civil context.

>Nice faulty syllogism brainlet.

Nothing faulty about it. Does the word "unreasonable" mean something other than "not governed by reason" or "without reason?"

> the incoherent rambling about the great glory of MUH CONSTITUSHUN is overall too stupid to respond to,

I never said anything about "the great glory of" the constitution. It is a flawed, fallible document, but it is the final authority in American jurisprudence.

> as though the constitution (or your unsurprisingly faulty interpretation of it)

I did not put forth any interpretation that has not been explicitly endorsed by the Supreme Court. I'm a lawyer irl.

> is the finally arbiter of justice or the will of the people, through merely having been written

Never said that.

>But being the predictably narrow-sighted libertard

ad hominem

>where is the power to execute derived from?

The state's power to execute is derived from the constitution. Yes.

>But where then did the founding fathers derive their authority to write the constitution?

The consent of the governed, as stated in the Preamble.

>the government BY DEFINITION could not act unjustly, so long as they followed the laws which they passed, regardless of their content.

nonsense. The constitution as written originally endorsed chattel slavery. This was manifestly unjust, even though legally permissible.

>I hope you can now begin to understand how immensely stupid you've been

The only thing I understand is how little you know about government and law.

>the correct answer to anon's question is that the authority to pass judgment and execute justice is derived from God's law.

No, it is not. Even if it was, John 8 forbids using religious justifications to commit capital punishment.

>They may not be mandatory, but things like execution were once prescribed specifically by God and so therefore they cannot be INTRINSICALLY immoral

I never said capital punishment is intrinsically immoral.

>if societies choose to prescribe these punishments in accordance with scripture, they have not acted unjustly.

They cannot prescribe capital punishment in accordance with scripture, because scripture specifically forbids it. Read John 8.

>>764755

>receive capital punishment for crimes they did not commit

No, the punishment is for the crime of sodomy.

>If you cannot produce a civil justification for the use of capital punishment then you need to change your position

I can't produce a civil justification according to the premises of enlightenment liberalism. I am not defending the execution of sodomites on the grounds of liberalism or the constitution, I am defending it as beneficial to the common good.

>>764585

Absolutely based

For scriptural basis, I'll turn you to Romans 1:24-2:2 (KJV). Also see Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (KJV) where the sodomite is directly equated with an animal, and also that it is an abomination viz. Leviticus 20:13 and 1 Kings 14:24. And the New Testament gives them as an example deserving eternal burning in fire, see 2 Peter 2:6 and Jude v. 7.

For the legal precedent I will defer to my English common law predecessor.

Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England

Book the Fourth, XV Chapter, p.215

>I will not act so disagreeable a part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate, in this respect, the delicacy of our English law, which treats it in its very indictments as a crime not fit to be named: "peccatum illud horribile, inter Christianos non nominandum." (k) A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constans :(l) "ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis pænis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt rei." Which leads me to add a word concerning its punishment.

>This the voice of nature and of reason and the express law of God(m) determined to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance long before the Jewish dispensation by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven; so that this is a universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our antient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burned to death,(n) though Fleta(o) says they should be buried alive; either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the antient Goths.(p) But now the general punishment of all felonies is the same, namely, by hanging; and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made felony without benefit of clergy

putting gays in prison just seems like a really bad idea as we can see from modern prisons

so it really is best to just give them the death penalty