occupied
Diamond Member
- Nov 8, 2011
- 36,705
- 17,202
- 1,590
So I guess we are done here. Besides, the argument that some morally ambiguous things are OK because Jesus never explicitly said anything about them is not something you would ever apply to some of your other pet issues.We are talking about belief and interpretation here. Jesus spoke against vengeance often enough that it is hardly a stretch to apply that injunction to the Law itself. You can cloak the death penalty in the trappings of legal due process and religious acceptance but it is still vengeance. In any case my opposition to the death penalty is not based on Jesus' teachings but rather the old libertarian belief that the state should not have the power to take your life.He was calling the law hypocritical in it's requirement for vengeance. It was the same Hebrew law that he fought against numerous times and that eventually required Jesus be nailed to a cross. Capital punishment is vengeance cloaked in legal respectability. Need I remind you who is the sole owner of vengeance?You said he never spoke out against the death penalty yet he prevented a religiously required stoning just to make a point. Let's see if you even know what that point was.
DERP. . .
Was he speaking out against the death penalty itself? Or was he merely making a point about hypocrites?
Did he speak out against the punishment of the thieves who were being crucified with him?
no.
That's a little worse than someone casting stones at them.
I don't factor religion into my views either.
The Constitution is the law of the land and it allows for the death penalty.
If you don't like it, don't execute anyone.
Sound familiar.