Death Penalty?

[PruePhillip]

All i saying is that human beings should not kill, state or private person, i am 100% against killing, death penalty and other forms that kill someone

How about when they inject a poison into the heart of an unborn child,
collapse its skull and suck out the brains, then pull the body out of the
mother, sometimes in pieces?

Would you agree with Americans who say we should televised the
death penalty so people can see what this policy means? If so, should
we also televise abortion, particularly late term abortion?

 

[dfnj]

There are instances in the Scriptures (Bible, Quran, many others) where followers of God are commanded to utilize the 'death penalty' as a form of almost Godly punishment. I understand that in the end, the world is to be cleansed of all unrighteousness in order to bring to pass a utopia of peace or what is understood better as heaven, and God is that ultimate judge, yet my question is what benefit has the 'death penalty' brought those in the scriptures? I refer to the massacres or conquests of land produced by Jews and Muslims as a commandment of their God? I haven't seen an instance where this lead to anything good as these same sects are fighting to this day because of wrongs they have caused others. It is written in Mosaic law that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Christ attempted to end this seemingly misinterpreted scripture when he said to love those who hate you and do good to those who despitefully use you. Today, there are several places that believe in the death penalty as a form of punishment for heinous crimes, possibly most due to expenses. I don't believe life should be just thrown away by human judgement or expenses as anyone can change their life and start new as we read in many instances in the Bible. How would you justify the Death Penalty?

What is evil and what is not is purely subjective. What is "righteousness" and what is not is purely subjective. By having a religion built on obedience to authority allows a "king" pretending to be God on Earth to control the population with the threat of eternal damnation if they do not obey his authority. It's all made up self-serving BS.

For example, the executioner and solder are murderers depending on your point of view and what side you take. People who support the death penalty are just too small minded to get the concept of relative morality. And people who participate in obedience religions are told by their religious authority if you do not accept the only one true authority coming from who is in charge then you will not be "saved" and you will suffer eternal damnation. The people in charge of the obedience religions want to be able to kill whoever they want. There are chosen people and there are people chosen die. The king's grace has no boundaries.

 

[PruePhillip]

What is evil and what is not is purely subjective. What is "righteousness" and what is not is purely subjective. By having a religion built on obedience to authority allows a "king" pretending to be God on Earth to control the population with the threat of eternal damnation if they do not obey his authority. It's all made up self-serving BS.

For example, the executioner and solder are murderers depending on your point of view and what side you take. People who support the death penalty are just too small minded to get the concept of relative morality. And people who participate in obedience religions are told by their religious authority if you do not accept the only one true authority coming from who is in charge then you will not be "saved" and you will suffer eternal damnation. The people in charge of the obedience religions want to be able to kill whoever they want. There are chosen people and there are people chosen die. The king's grace has no boundaries.

Well, you will pleased to note we now live in a world where everyone does what is right in
his or her own eyes (sorry for any alternate genders here.) Kids can tell their teachers what
to do, even their own parents. Growing up we kids feared and respected our teachers - now
the teachers fear the kids. There will always be authority - it's just a matter of who wields it
and what outcomes you want for your country.

 

[Spirit of Light]

How about when they inject a poison into the heart of an unborn child,
collapse its skull and suck out the brains, then pull the body out of the
mother, sometimes in pieces?

Would you agree with Americans who say we should televised the
death penalty so people can see what this policy means? If so, should
we also televise abortion, particularly late term abortion?

I am 100% against all killing, So no, I am against what horrible thing you described

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Do you have a verse which shows the introduction of the death penalty after the flood?
Do Christians take notice of the OT?

Yes, (Gen. 9:6).

They, we, should. Though we believe we are not under the Mosaic Law, the law was given by God for a purpose and we can learn much that is in the Law. (Luke 24:27) (Luke 24:44) (1 Cor. 10:11)

And, the death penalty given after the flood was prior to the Law and has never been revoked.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Glaurung]

Because yesterday was yesterday and today is today, the Catechism and statements by Pope Francis clearly state that capital punishment today is not compatible with Catholic teachings.

I don't object to the Church holding to a practical objection to the death penalty. I object to the Church trying to claim that its clear past teachings are somehow, suddenly, inadmissible.

The reason is that truth is truth. What was true yesterday remains true today. Either civil authority has (in principle) the authority to enact retributive justice up to and including the death penalty or the Church has been in error on this issue for most of its existence. And if the Church has been in error then that puts a really big question mark on its claims to teaching authority. Catholic teaching isn't worth much if it is now liable change on any given papacy.

And this controversy was so easy to avoid. If the Church just said that it is deeply preferable that modern legal systems not resort to the death penalty, both out of mercy, and in consideration of many problematic issues surrounding its application (such as the possibility of innocent people being executed) then I would completely get behind that. I agree with Pope Francis insofar as I don't think modern nation states need to resort to it. The trouble is when the pope tries to enshrine his own personal opinions as Catholic teaching. As if he has the right to just veto the past as he sees fit. If that's the case what's to stop the next pope doing a 180 on Francis? Is moral truth nothing more than whatever happens to be the whim of whoever sits on the papal throne at any given time?

Simply put, one cannot be pro-life if they approve of capital punishment because in today's world it simply is revenge, not a panacea.

I don't care about any specific political label.

To claim that opposition to abortion commits one to opposition to the death penalty is something I reject. There's no connection (logical or moral) between the two. One is murder, the other (in principle) is a legitimate exercise civil authority. Even if I agree with both you and the pope that it is better that civil authority not resort to it in current times.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I remain for the death penalty, but think it should be restricted to use in only the most heinous and obvious of cases - much like we already look to do anyway. Such as repeat offenders of some kinds, or people who have murdered multiple people, or are deemed to be a career killer by professionals. Pearl Fernandez comes to mind as someone who should simply be removed from Earth to make it a better place. For points of justification:

1. Regardless whether it works as a deterrent, you are working to remove a terrible person from society. Arguing against on the basis of "it doesn't deter others" I liken to people who claim that rinsing your dishes in cold water is just as good because the hot-water temperature your hands can stand won't kill germs anyway. Well... those people are entirely discounting the fact that warm water dissolves and washes away anything and everything many multiple times better than cold water. The death penalty is like warm water... and it washes away the dirt and grime better than leaving people in terrible conditions and expecting them to somehow magically correct their behavior or mindset.

2. Already mentioned at the tail-end of point 1: the terrible conditions that prison presents its prisoners. These are already some of the worst people our society has to offer, and we put them ALL TOGETHER. Pure genius. Seriously, let's all just shove our heads up our butts while we are at it. Death penalty eases this bull-crap for the individual as well as the communities of prisoners. One less in the population of bad guys to torment one another - mentally and emotionally with impunity, and physically up until the moment a guard is able to (or decides to) intervene.

3. Can any of us describe and catalogue the true difference between killing someone "in the moment" as an act of self defense, and killing them later after they have already committed an equally (or worse) crime? I mean think about it... in the case of killing someone in self-defense who was trying to kill you, that person didn't actually reach the point at which they had committed muder. And yet you killed them. In the case of putting a murderer to death, you have the knowledge that the act was already committed, and a very strong suspicion that they are the ones who committed the act. The only real difference lies in that "very strong suspicion" bit - whereby you have a margin of error and may have the wrong person on your hands. And look... I get it... that's a terrible situation. Which is why we work under the assumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty. And I truly believe that police officers, detectives and investigators who falsify or pressure suspects into giving a confession, and are later proven by circumstance or additional evidence to have perpetrated the act of coercing someone into the role of perpetrator, should themselves face the death penatly. Afford them a trial, etc. - but if found guilty of falsely and purposefully sending someone to a death sentence, then the penalty for such should be death.

 

[metis]

I don't object to the Church holding to a practical objection to the death penalty. I object to the Church trying to claim that its clear past teachings are somehow, suddenly, inadmissible.

That is not what the Pope has said nor what the revised Catechism says. Both deal with today's world whereas each and every country has jails and prisons, thus there simply in not one moral teaching that can justify killing another whereas incarceration can do the job of protecting society.

The trouble is when the pope tries to enshrine his own personal opinions as Catholic teaching.

Changes in the Catechism do not just involve the Pope but also the bishops as well. The change made was not done ex cathedra, which also would involve the bishops as well, btw.

I've discussed this many times before at another website, and the overall impression based on my experiences is that Catholics who justify capital punishment are the same ones who take right-wing secular positions politically. I don't know you well enough to state nor even seriously imply that to you however.

No matter how hard you may try, all I see you doing is try to justify revenge, simply because there's no rational reason to justify its position beyond just that. It simply does not stand to any moral sense whatsoever in modern society because it is neither a deterrent greater than incarceration nor does it recognize the very simple fact that people can, and often do, repent and change.

Also, what you seem to be doing is to not be aware of the Church's role when it comes to the application of Canon Law, which can change depending on circumstances. This is what the Pope, the bishops, and the Catechism now reflects on this topic. If one truly believes in the power of the Holy Spirit to help guide the Church, this should be quite understandable.

To claim that opposition to abortion commits one to opposition to the death penalty is something I reject. There's no connection (logical or moral) between the two. One is murder, the other (in principle) is a legitimate exercise civil authority.

I didn't say anything about abortion, but I will go on to say that pro-life is pro-life (notice I have no capitalized either, btw). To kill someone when there's other viable alternatives for protection's sake is simply not pro-life-- it's revenge.

BTW, since "murder" is a legal term, abortion cannot be correctly called "murder" in a society whereas it's legal. IMO, it's better referred to as "killing an unborn child"-- and I do consider it to be a child, btw, thus I am consistent in being pro-life.

 

[dfnj]

Well, you will pleased to note we now live in a world where everyone does what is right in
his or her own eyes (sorry for any alternate genders here.) Kids can tell their teachers what
to do, even their own parents. Growing up we kids feared and respected our teachers - now
the teachers fear the kids. There will always be authority - it's just a matter of who wields it
and what outcomes you want for your country.

This is a BS argument. Morality is not anarchy. People just don't make up what is moral and what is not. Morality is more like colloquialisms in language. They change slowly over time but there is an overall accepted usage. Same thing with morality. What I was saying there is no absolute morality that is unchanging. You just assumed I meant all morality is defined by what we feel like doing in the moment which is not what I am saying.

 

[PruePhillip]

This is a BS argument. Morality is not anarchy. People just don't make up what is moral and what is not. Morality is more like colloquialisms in language. They change slowly over time but there is an overall accepted usage. Same thing with morality. What I was saying there is no absolute morality that is unchanging. You just assumed I meant all morality is defined by what we feel like doing in the moment which is not what I am saying.

There's two ways of looking at this.
First is the religious foundation - quote, "Right is right if no-one lives by it,
wrong is wrong if everybody lives by it."

That sums up our world today. What was wrong is now considered right
because everyone does it.

Second is this - morality has two foundations, religion and biology.
It became acceptable, for instance, in the 1970's to say that marriage
was superfluous and cultural, anyone can raise kids without fathers etc..
The stats didn't bear that out. 75% of African American kids wound up
without stable families - it showed in outcomes (education, employment,
stable marriages, crime, income etc..)
Ditto for gambling, porn, divorce etc.. That no-harm little affair can have
devastating consequences for instance. And we aren't even allowed to
talk about the loss of children in our society and what that leads to.

So there IS an absolute morality if you are talking religion or social
outcomes. Things have consequences.

 

[Deeje]

There is so much to address in this.....I'll break it up...

I Absolutely agree with Paul to the Corinthians and although the context for this was directed toward a very difficult group of young christians changing the gospel to their own personal objectives, it most certainly applies to todays world doesn't it? It astonishes me to this day how diverse the sects of the world are today though we claim to believe and read the same Bible (translated differently or not).

Paul was hearing...."that there are dissensions among you. 12 What I mean is this, that each one of you says: “I belong to Paul,” “But I to A·polʹlos,” “But I to Ceʹphas,” “But I to Christ.” 13 Is the Christ divided? Paul was not executed on the stake for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

This is how sectarianism starts....admiring men and following them instead of Jesus. This is why we believe that Jesus was God's last prophet....and the apostles were those chosen to make sure that the foretold apostasy held off until the Christian scriptures were complete. Only after the death of the apostles did the "weeds" of false Christianity well and truly surface. (2Thessalonians 2:1-12; Matthew 13:24-30; 36-43)

The tribe of Judah (or ancient Jews) was probably too young to be sectarian from the start, but that doesn't mean it's development didn't show major changes and later divisions. For examples, Jews who lived in Samaria amongst the Canaanites marked some of the tribes first divisions. Theology as with most sects today rapidly germinated to unique interpretations of the Talmud slowly dividing the nation, and in my opinion gave way to easy change of ownership throughout the centuries.

By the time of Jesus arrival on the earthly scene, the sectarian divisions among the Jews had divided them but he did not have a good word to say about any of their teachings, calling them "leaven", symbolizing their permeating corruption.

I think I understand resurrection pretty clearly from what is written and from Christ's prolific and prophetic. I think the scriptures you provided are very nice, but there is little to no context supporting your idea that the dead are in an unconscious states. Why would you chose a scripture in Ecclesiastes talking about the how doing evil results in a dead-like state that has no progress in the future, which hardly speaks of resurrection, when you could hold more to these scriptures that clearly describe Christ's and others journey after death.

From the scriptures you have quoted below, you show that you have no idea what the resurrection is.

In each case, you have swallowed Christendom's party line.
Instead you should go to the Tanakh and see how OT verses are rendered from the Hebrew....

• Abraham gave up the ghost, Gen. 25:8 (49:33).
• "And Abraham expired and died in a good old age, old and satisfied, and he was gathered to his people."
• "And Jacob concluded commanding his sons, and he drew his legs [up] into the bed, and expired and was brought in to his people." (Genesis 49:33 Tanakh) "Giving up the ghost" is an extremely bad translation.....KJV no doubt.
  
  
• Bring my soul out of prison, Ps. 142:7.
• "Take my soul out of confinement to give thanks to Your name".
  
• This is David's request for God to get him out of the cave he was hiding in from Saul. The "soul" here was David himself.
  
  
• spirit shall return unto God who gave it, Eccl. 12:7.
• You seem to equate "soul" and "spirit" as if they were the same thing....they are not.
• A "soul" in scripture is a living, breathing creature...either man or animal. The word never means a disembodied spirit.
• The Hebrew word ruʹach and the Greek word pneuʹma, often translated “spirit,” have a number of meanings. All of them refer to that which is invisible to human sight and gives evidence of force in motion. The Hebrew and Greek words are used with reference to (1) wind, (2) the active life-force in earthly creatures, (3) the impelling force that issues from a person’s figurative heart and causes him to say and do things in a certain way, (4) inspired expressions originating from an invisible source, (5) spirit persons, and (6) God’s active force, or holy spirit. (Exodus 35:21; Psalm 104:29; Matthew 12:43; Luke 11:13)

• Jesus … gave up the ghost, Mark 15:37.
• Jesus gave up his last breath. There is no such thing as a ghost in the Bible. "Ghost" is taken from a German word "geist" which means "spirit". This is a grossly misleading translation.
  
  
• To day shalt thou be with me in paradise, Luke 23:43.
• Yes "Paradise" NOT heaven. Jesus did not go to heaven for 40 days after his resurrection, so he was not "with" the evildoer on that day at all. This was a promise to the man that he would be resurrected to "paradise" right here on earth when Jesus begins ruling as king over this earth.
  
  
• spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have, Luke 24:39.
• Jesus was resurrected as a spirit but he materialized in human form because his apostles and disciples were Jewish and it was against God's law to communicate with spirits. (Deuteronomy 18:9-12) Angels always materialized in human form when bringing God's messages to his earthly servants.
  
  
• dead shall hear the voice of the Son, John 5:25.
• Jesus calls the dead from their graves. Like he did Lazarus. (John 11:11-14) Why call a dead body. First you restore life and then call them. as Jesus did with Lazarus.
  
  
• Stephen, calling … receive my spirit, Acts 7:59.
• Seeing his Lord at God's right hand in a vision of heaven, Stephen knew that Jesus was going to perform the future resurrections, so he commended his spirit (life force) to the one who would restore his life in due course.
  
  
• body without the spirit is dead, James 2:26.
• Yes, a body without breath is a dead body.
  
  
• he went and preached unto the spirits in prison, 1 Pet. 3:19.
• The "spirits in prison" were the demon angels who rebelled in Noah's day. Read verse 20.
  
  
• gospel preached also to them that are dead, 1 Pet. 4:6.
• There is more than one way to be "dead" in God's eyes. (Ephesians 2:1)
  
  
• dead which die in the Lord … may rest from their labours, Rev. 14:13.
• Yes the dead "rest"....It's what is on many a headstone "Rest in Peace". Are you active when you are resting?
  
  
• dead lived not again until the thousand years, Rev. 20:5 (D&C 88:101).
• The resurrected dead come to life by the end of Christ's thousand year reign. That mean being in the same perfect, sinless physical and spiritual condition that Adam was in when God created him.

 

[Deeje]

By definition of death the spirit has to leave the body. The spirit is a definite consciousness of good or evil. as we learned from Christ story of Lazarus and the rich man and the spirits that possessed the swine. There is no reason to think the spirits remain inanimate. We learn in 1 Pet. that these spirits are in a waiting period for resurrection and then judgement but are still being prepared and preached to until the final day it would come.

Oh no, not the rich man and Lazarus again....this is a parable, not to be taken literally...if you do it is ridiculous and contradicts the rest of scripture. The spirits that possessed the swine were demons and the those in 1 Peter are not human spirits either. You are way off the mark I'm afraid.

Resurrection in the biblical sense Acts 2: 31. States that a resurrected body would not be subject to death anymore nor corrupted because of the flesh. Resurrection is a type of transformation, because in order for our bodies to undergo immortality which means death will no longer be an option, due to Christ, a body, even a immortal body must be given to us. You provided excellent proof that Lazarus was in fact dead and brought to life. This doesn't mean he was resurrected, which would be your definition. Christ was the first to be resurrected Acts 26:23 Rev. 1-5, which means he was the first to receive the immortality promised by the Father.

Nope, not even close. There are two different resurrections mentioned in the Bible, and if you had really studied it, you would know this.

1 Thessalonians 4:15-16...
"For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first."

Revelation 20:6...
"Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years."

Those chosen for life in heaven have a specific role...that of rulers and priests. Under their King Christ Jesus these will be resurrected "first" before the general resurrection of the dead begins. Since rulers need subjects and priests need sinners for whom to perform their priestly duties, we see in Revelation 21:2-4 that this heavenly Kingdom rules over earthly subjects....

"And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.”

"New Jerusalem" is a heavenly government with Jesus and his "bride" ready and willing to guide sinful mankind back to their original sinless perfection. The "dwelling of God is with man" and Christ's thousand year reign will see all pain, suffering, sadness and even death, done away with.

Christ is technically God though. He proclaimed that he was the great 'I am' written of in the Old Testament.

He did no such thing. Jesus never said "I Am" in reference to his name. That was never God's name to begin with. All you have to do is consult the Jewish Tanakh.....
Exodus 3:13-15...
"And Moses said to God, "Behold I come to the children of Israel, and I say to them, 'The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they say to me, 'What is His name?' what shall I say to them?"
יגוַיֹּ֨אמֶר משֶׁ֜ה אֶל־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֗ים הִנֵּ֨ה אָֽנֹכִ֣י בָא֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ וְאָֽמַרְתִּ֣י לָהֶ֔ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י אֲבֽוֹתֵיכֶ֖ם שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְאָֽמְרוּ־לִ֣י מַה־שְּׁמ֔וֹ מָ֥ה אֹמַ֖ר אֲלֵהֶֽם:

14God said to Moses, "Ehyeh asher ehyeh (I will be what I will be)," and He said, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'Ehyeh (I will be) has sent me to you.'"
ידוַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־משֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם:

15And God said further to Moses, "So shall you say to the children of Israel, 'The Lord God of your forefathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.' This is My name forever, and this is how I should be mentioned in every generation.
טווַיֹּ֩אמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־משֶׁ֗ה כֹּ֣ה תֹאמַר֘ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהֹוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵֽאלֹהֵ֥י יַֽעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר:"
Shemot - Exodus - Chapter 3 (Parshah Shemot)
God's name means "I Will Be What I Will Be"...."The Lord God" is יְהֹוָ֞ה (Yahweh...Jehovah.)

 

[Deeje]

He directed the prophets of old to unite and build his church even before his birth. We declare that he is the Great Jehovah written in the Old Testament. Now I know you are just about to break your keyboard with a rebuttle to this idea, but it actually makes a lot of sense. A least more sense than the trinity which I know you don't believe. Christ said that there is only one that is good and that is the Father as you mentioned. This doesn't mean that he didn't create the earth or lead the prophets through revelation. This just means that He did everything under the direction of His Father.

Psalm 83:18...
"Let them know that You - Your name alone is יְהֹוָ֞ה Most High over all the earth."

The Most High God has only one name.....the Lord Jesus Christ has many names, but יְהֹוָ֞ה isn't one of them.
He was the "Master Worker" alongside his Father in creation (Proverbs 8:30-31)....He is the "us" and "our" in Genesis 1:26...but he is not and never was "God".

His Father gave Jehovah the map to create and because he created the worlds Christ held the title of Godship. He was so aligned with the will of the Father John 8: 18, 28. That there almost became no distinction between him and the Father. John 17: 11, 21They were one. Jehovah which was the name given by the Father. Yahweh and Yeshua or Jesus. When Joseph Smith saw the awesome vision of the Father and the Son, The Father referred to His Son and a directive to Hear Him. The Father and the Son are one. One God. Important to note, God is not a person or an entity rather a title given to Him who created us. Christ is God, just as Jesus is the Christ.

This is not even remotely what is taught in scripture.
The unity of Father and son is shared by his anointed ones who will rule with him in heaven.

John 10:30..."I and the Father are one,” yet in John 17:20-21, it says....
"...so that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you have given me, in order that they may be one just as we are one."

This has nothing to do with Jesus being God.

You gravely misunderstood. The will was not to punish, the will was to correct a wrong that would inevitably happen. Just because God planned the Fall to happen, Suffering is the last thing God would want for His creations. He has sent us so much help so we can be rid of suffering.

You have got to be joking.....God planned the fall but he never intended for humans to suffer.....
What help has God provided to so we can be rid of suffering now? The human race has been suffering for thousands of years. It could all have been prevented if only the first humans had simply obeyed God's command in the garden....it wasn't even a difficult one to keep. Adam is not a hero.....he sold all his children into slavery to sin and death by his disobedience. (Romans 5:12)

We are all given the same rights and opportunities as the Father gave Christ. We are to follow his example and then obtain a blessing that is far greater than any earthly Garden.

For humans in God's original purpose for this earth, there was nothing better than the garden.....it was the blueprint for the whole world to be transformed into a garden-like paradise. There was never any plan for humans to go to heaven, in fact that was something that the Jewish people never even contemplated.They believed in the resurrection.....that is a return to life on earth in the flesh.

Again, I would that you would understand what I say in these words and don't mistake me. I have tried my best to use only the tools offered me in the Bible and they should be enough to explain the nature of God is unchanging and exact. Please consider in prayer these words. Study them.

I'm sorry but the whole Mormon scenario I find to be completely ridiculous. Your God is not my God. Your scripture is not my scripture. Study the Bible and you will see that nothing adds up in Mormon theology. None of it is based on the Bible......please take your own advice.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

There are instances in the Scriptures (Bible, Quran, many others) where followers of God are commanded to utilize the 'death penalty' as a form of almost Godly punishment. I understand that in the end, the world is to be cleansed of all unrighteousness in order to bring to pass a utopia of peace or what is understood better as heaven, and God is that ultimate judge, yet my question is what benefit has the 'death penalty' brought those in the scriptures? I refer to the massacres or conquests of land produced by Jews and Muslims as a commandment of their God? I haven't seen an instance where this lead to anything good as these same sects are fighting to this day because of wrongs they have caused others. It is written in Mosaic law that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life. Christ attempted to end this seemingly misinterpreted scripture when he said to love those who hate you and do good to those who despitefully use you. Today, there are several places that believe in the death penalty as a form of punishment for heinous crimes, possibly most due to expenses. I don't believe life should be just thrown away by human judgement or expenses as anyone can change their life and start new as we read in many instances in the Bible. How would you justify the Death Penalty?

So I personally believe in the importance in law and morality of everyone's equal rights to non-interference with their liberty, life, or property unless someone interferes with someone else's liberty, life, or property, in which case they should be punished in direct proportion to the severity of the crime they have thereby committed. How one defines 'direct proportion to' is up for grabs. For me, this is where an 'eye for an eye' and a 'life for a life' kicks in. I believe this all to be God-ordained, and both a punishment and a deterrent, but due legal process must needs be followed and if there is any doubt in the mind of the judge, then the death penalty should not be applied and one should instead apply a lesser form of punishment such as imprisonment.

As another poster has said, I also believe that anyone wrongly judging someone to be guilty of a crime for which the death penalty is a legitimate punishment - or playing a significant part in setting someone up as guilty - should also face the death penalty. This should all mean that the death penalty stands in law as an option, but only one to be applied in the most 'straightforward' of cases when there is no doubt in anyone's mind as to the guilt of the perpetrator of the most serious of crimes, e.g. 'cold-blooded' murder.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

You seem to equate "soul" and "spirit" as if they were the same thing....they are not.

Deeje there are many times in this discussion where you try to put words in my mouth, which is kind of odd because I'm writing everything down and there really is no room for that because every word is documented and you can see where I literally stated souls and spirits were not the same thing. It would be a much better discussion if you would read all my posts before responding to them as well. Most of your rebuttals are usually answered and addressed later on. I thought I neatly defined most of the stuff already in my previous posts about this subject. I will say that human breath and spirits are not the same thing.

• body without the spirit is dead, James 2:26.

• Yes, a body without breath is a dead body.

These scriptures were far more convincing than how you describe the waiting period, to me that the spirit, not breath, must leave the body in order to be declared death. Also, although the translations in the Bible vs. The Tanakh differ. I don't think that should create an immense divide in our understanding of these things. I respect the Tanakh, however, I will continue to hold closer to the KJV as it is universally understood and it is better to speak with the Christian Community as well as the content that it offers.

He did no such thing. Jesus never said "I Am" in reference to his name. That was never God's name to begin with

Let's start with this. 'I will be that I will be.' versus 'I am that I am" Hmmm... This is obviously a matter of translation. One is a future tense version of the other. When Christ stated in John 8 that he was I am, which caused the Jews to start to throw stones at him. I am pretty sure that in whatever translation fit this description, Jesus declared his divinity and people were angry at him. Please also note that the Tanakh was in it's history an oral document, meaning that it was passed down mostly between rabbi to rabbi written as someone recited it to them. If you ever played the game telephone, things tend to get changed just a little, where as the scrolls found that comprised the Old and New Testament, had a little more secured method of passing down information.(Not to say it was perfect as well, but just so you are aware.)

This is not even remotely what is taught in scripture

Again with the 'not even remotely what is taught in scripture'. Can't you see I have shared so many teachings in the bible where this is applicable? If you need more I can share more. Don't get caught up in whether Jesus is God. You even stated that He and anointed ones will rule with God which is pretty much what I mean. Again, God is a title not a person. If there are those ruling with God, which is supposedly assuming the office of him who created us, than the anointed, Jesus, and the Father are the same God. If there is no difference to what they do and what they work for, than they are all God. John 10:34-38 and Psalms 82:6. Obviously i must add that we believe God the Father is the Most High, and that will not change.

You have got to be joking.....God planned the fall but he never intended for humans to suffer.....
What help has God provided to so we can be rid of suffering now? The human race has been suffering for thousands of years. It could all have been prevented if only the first humans had simply obeyed God's command in the garden....it wasn't even a difficult one to keep. Adam is not a hero.....he sold all his children into slavery to sin and death by his disobedience. (Romans 5:12)

Again you put words in my mouth here again. You used the word 'intended' in place for my word 'wanted'. God intended for humans to suffer, because he knew that only through suffering could they learn and grow. He never wanted them to suffer. And so he gave them commandments, which if they followed they could be free of suffering. He gave them His Son, who was the Prince of Peace that if they lived through Him they would have joy and peace. Just as you have warped some of my words in these discussions, so you have warped the words of God. Adam and Eve should be respected not because they disobeyed God, but because they like all of us, gave us the opportunity to know good and evil and choose the good and reject the evil. If you finish the story of Adam and Eve, you will find that they spent the rest of their lives teaching their children and grand children and great grandchildren the ways of the Lord. They were our first parents and we shouldn't judge them for being human like us, we should honor them so our days may be long in the land. For all we know, their only sin was taking the fruit, what are the sins in our lives? What would happen if we all simply obeyed God? Please do not blame Adam and Eve for something we could change if we just followed the commandments.

Nope, not even close. There are two different resurrections mentioned in the Bible, and if you had really studied it, you would know this.

I think you confirmed what we believe about the resurrection with those two scriptures. My original argument was more of the difference between a mortal body and a resurrected body as they are different in composition. It is not just being woken up from a sleep as you mentioned previously. It is reuniting the spirit that has been taken up, to an renewed perfect immortal body. How would you able to convince me that a spirit is trapped unconscious in a cremated corpse? There is no scriptural evidence to that and it is just really creepy to think about. All will achieve resurrection as stated in 1st Corinthians 15:20-22. Though as you mentioned in Thessolonians that the just and unjust will be resurrected separately. The just will be first and the unjust will be later on. Then will be the final judgement.

Your God is not my God. Your scripture is not my scripture. Study the Bible and you will see that nothing adds up in Mormon theology

Geez that is pretty harsh wouldn't you say?! I mean again, we are reading from the same scripture,(I was courteous not to add anything you wouldn't deem scripture like the Book of Mormon or Quran) We might not agree with everything, but if our God is different, I think it's time we figure out why? According to the Bible, God has very distinctive characteristics that are unchangeable. He is perfect. He is omniscient, He is merciful, He is just. I think we all agree on this. Then based on these characteristics lets define which version of God shows these the best? You say that God punished Adam and all mankind after him due to Adam's disobedience. All of our suffering is caused by this man's disobedience. I said that God punished Adam for his disobedience, and all of our suffering is because of our disobedience. Which version is a Just God? You said that God wanted us to remain in the Garden to enjoy His bliss for eternity, yet his perfect creation made an imperfect decision to disobey him and now all of us, except 144000 will never see God's Kingdom. I said that God wanted his perfect creation to make the imperfect decision to leave the garden so that they could know good from evil so that they could be tested and tried and be redeemed through his perfect Son so that ALL might return to God's kingdom. Which version is merciful. You said God didn't want Adam and Eve to partake of the fruit, yet he set up every possible way for that to happen (Eve, serpent, unguarded access to the tree, freedom of choice) I said that God planned for Adam to take of the fruit by giving him every possible way for him, and planned for there to be a redemption process afterwards, and then protected the Tree of Life with cherubim so they would live forever in their sins. Which version is Omniscient and perfect? I still believe we believe in the same God, because you have also told me that He is perfect as I believe his is too! I invite you to remove all exceptions in God's character, and see for yourself that God is perfect. He doesn't make mistakes. It would have been a huge mistake if he didn't intend for Adam and Eve to leave the Garden eventually. He would have been to blame being the all-knowing father, leaving his children unattended with snakes and who knows what. Please review these things. I believe them to be true. I believe in an unchangeable God written of in the Bible. I believe it's time for you to believe as well.

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

would live

Wouldn't live

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

How one defines 'direct proportion to' is up for grabs.

I think your comment was very well stated. I think what makes these instances particularly difficult is the one who has to judge these circumstances. Humans will create too much error, therefore, I still think the only allowable circumstance is when it directed by a perfect being, to put it simply, God or Allah. I don't think it is the right for humans to determine if one, who has caused a wrong, even a serious one, should be put to death, when there is a possibility for that same person to cause great good in the world. That right can only be given to the One who knows the heart and future of that individual. However, it still is not that easy. There are many, still, that would justify murder, because it is done in the name of God. For these case, I too worry about human definition of what God or Allah is and whether that goes against or for his teachings. Who is right in this scenario? Can we honestly judge these individuals for having warped interpretations of our scriptures? What are your thoughts @The_Fisher_King?

 

[The_Fisher_King]

I think your comment was very well stated. I think what makes these instances particularly difficult is the one who has to judge these circumstances. Humans will create too much error, therefore, I still think the only allowable circumstance is when it directed by a perfect being, to put it simply, God or Allah. I don't think it is the right for humans to determine if one, who has caused a wrong, even a serious one, should be put to death, when there is a possibility for that same person to cause great good in the world. That right can only be given to the One who knows the heart and future of that individual. However, it still is not that easy. There are many, still, that would justify murder, because it is done in the name of God. For these case, I too worry about human definition of what God or Allah is and whether that goes against or for his teachings. Who is right in this scenario? Can we honestly judge these individuals for having warped interpretations of our scriptures? What are your thoughts @The_Fisher_King?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Just to be clear, can we honestly judge whom and for what?

 

[Jacob Samuelson]

I'm not sure what you're asking. Just to be clear, can we honestly judge whom and for what?

The question is whether humans are able to determine who get's sentence to death. My response is that they do not have the right to do this, and only God has that right. However, in the scriptures, it mentions that God does grant that right to certain people who judge in His behalf, which is correct. Now, what if someone misinterprets God's command, such as in the Christian Crusades and the Islamic Extremist, where people are killed in the name of their God. How should we determine this act of terrorism? How are we to judge between what was correctly interpreted in the Scriptures to what was misinformed? Does that make sense?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

You say that God punished Adam and all mankind after him due to Adam's disobedience. All of our suffering is caused by this man's disobedience.

Romans 5:12 is pretty clear...