Judicial murder is still murder. Therefore, the commandment is breached by anyone participating in judicial murder.
I don't think this position stands up to Biblical scrutiny. Here's Exodus chapter 19, whilst Moses is up Mt Sinai getting the Commandments:
And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying, Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it: whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death:
There shall not an hand touch it, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live: when the trumpet soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.
Three chapters later, we find the death penalty for witches and bestiality. And so on - there are plenty of Biblically-supported examples of putting someone to death for certain crimes. You can think that all executions are murder, but I don't think you can claim Biblical support for this view.
Who gives a fuck? Most of ys have moved beyond the biblical thingy.
Like it or not, the execution as mentioned in the OP was ill thought out, not appropriately tested and caused unncessary pain and suffering to the index case who only consented ( after one fuck up by a bunch if incompetent clowns) because he desired a pain free death.
Mlle Guillotine, where are you in ‘s hour of need?🙀👿
Not anybody’s remit to encourage “ true repentance”especially when the sword of damoclese is hanging over someone else’s head and especiallt if a declaration of so-called “ true repentance” could stave off ab unpleasant judicial murder.
But of course my irony meter could need to be recalibrated…
It is difficult and anachronistic to refer to the writings Christians call the Old Testament as being Christian.
I note that the books in the Old Testament are not in the same order as the books in the Tanakh.
It would be anachronistic to say they were written by Christians. But since the intentional fallacy was first described it has been difficult to say that the original authors have any determining effect on the reception of the text.
If you had a collection of the Christian scriptures you would expect it to contain the Old Testament (not the Tanakh).
That doesn't mean appeals to the authority of the Old Testament are straightforward.
My point was that to call approaches to the death penalty in the OT ( Yes, I am aware of the different order in the Tanakh) Christian is indeed problematic at best. I agree the authors of these works are not responsible for how they have been appropriated down through the ages.
My point was that to call approaches to the death penalty in the OT ( Yes, I am aware of the different order in the Tanakh) Christian is indeed problematic at best. I agree the authors of these works are not responsible for how they have been appropriated down through the ages.
I think the problem is that if they're inspired and if they contain God's opinions on the subject, when they were written and by what community becomes rather irrelevant. Unless God was in favour of the death penalty three thousand years ago but the old boy has mellowed since than and now he's agin' it.
At the very least, (again with the massive "if"s above) he's not inherently against it, even if he thinks it's probably not a good idea now. It cannot therefore (again, "if"s allowing) be absolutely contrary to his nature to approve of it.
I mean, it's not a problem for me because I don't really believe in inspiration the way it's usually framed and certainly don't think that OT (or necessarily NT) writings contain anything more than people's impressions of what they thought God's opinions were, but if you do, there are some real problems with seeing opposition to the death penalty being inherent in the nature of God.
There is an argument, not sure how much I believe it, that mankind was/is corrupt - and that in instructing an eye for an eye God was improving on the standard massive overkill response, and the in the New Testament improved further. Essentially moving up in a graded hierarchy to improve humanity’s moral behaviour.
My point was that to call approaches to the death penalty in the OT ( Yes, I am aware of the different order in the Tanakh) Christian is indeed problematic at best. I agree the authors of these works are not responsible for how they have been appropriated down through the ages.
No but the church is responsible for how it has appropriated them.
There is an argument, not sure how much I believe it, that mankind was/is corrupt - and that in instructing an eye for an eye God was improving on the standard massive overkill response, and the in the New Testament improved further. Essentially moving up in a graded hierarchy to improve humanity’s moral behaviour.
And yet, lying about tithing is still a capital offense in the New Testament.
There is an argument, not sure how much I believe it, that mankind was/is corrupt - and that in instructing an eye for an eye God was improving on the standard massive overkill response, and the in the New Testament improved further. Essentially moving up in a graded hierarchy to improve humanity’s moral behaviour.
Yeah, but there's a lot of "show no mercy! Eye for eye!" in the way it's phrased, which doesn't sound like an admonition against going too far.
Show no pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.
(Deut 19v21)
You could I suppose argue that that's the end result of God's nature of mercy and forgiveness subtly influencing vengeful human instincts, but you have to abandon ideas of the Law being perfect and given directly by God.
In fairness, that particular reference is in connection with dishonest witnesses. Jesus seems to take it as more general in the Sermon on the Mount however.
Not being a literalist, I do see much of the bible as a human record of how they thought they related to God - with a lot of self justification thrown in. God definitely said to do that fighting we’d decided to do etc.
I think we have to take into account the possibility of the writers/compilers of the biblical texts misunderstanding what God was telling them or filtering the meaning through their own preconceptions. I am not a literalist, you will perceive; Most of Genesis appears to me to be derived from tales told round the camp fire.
Comments
I don't think this position stands up to Biblical scrutiny. Here's Exodus chapter 19, whilst Moses is up Mt Sinai getting the Commandments:
Three chapters later, we find the death penalty for witches and bestiality. And so on - there are plenty of Biblically-supported examples of putting someone to death for certain crimes. You can think that all executions are murder, but I don't think you can claim Biblical support for this view.
I would be all for this. But is it biblical?
Like it or not, the execution as mentioned in the OP was ill thought out, not appropriately tested and caused unncessary pain and suffering to the index case who only consented ( after one fuck up by a bunch if incompetent clowns) because he desired a pain free death.
Mlle Guillotine, where are you in ‘s hour of need?🙀👿
Encouraging true repentance? Absolutely.
But of course my irony meter could need to be recalibrated…
It would be anachronistic to say they were written by Christians. But since the intentional fallacy was first described it has been difficult to say that the original authors have any determining effect on the reception of the text.
If you had a collection of the Christian scriptures you would expect it to contain the Old Testament (not the Tanakh).
That doesn't mean appeals to the authority of the Old Testament are straightforward.
I think the problem is that if they're inspired and if they contain God's opinions on the subject, when they were written and by what community becomes rather irrelevant. Unless God was in favour of the death penalty three thousand years ago but the old boy has mellowed since than and now he's agin' it.
At the very least, (again with the massive "if"s above) he's not inherently against it, even if he thinks it's probably not a good idea now. It cannot therefore (again, "if"s allowing) be absolutely contrary to his nature to approve of it.
I mean, it's not a problem for me because I don't really believe in inspiration the way it's usually framed and certainly don't think that OT (or necessarily NT) writings contain anything more than people's impressions of what they thought God's opinions were, but if you do, there are some real problems with seeing opposition to the death penalty being inherent in the nature of God.
This way of thinking leads to the Inquisition.
No but the church is responsible for how it has appropriated them.
And yet, lying about tithing is still a capital offense in the New Testament.
Yeah, but there's a lot of "show no mercy! Eye for eye!" in the way it's phrased, which doesn't sound like an admonition against going too far.
(Deut 19v21)
You could I suppose argue that that's the end result of God's nature of mercy and forgiveness subtly influencing vengeful human instincts, but you have to abandon ideas of the Law being perfect and given directly by God.
Only if you think torture and threats of execution bring about true repentance rather than forced confessions.