I know that Christ fulfills the old law, but is the death penalty for something like, say...

I know that Christ fulfills the old law, but is the death penalty for something like, say, homosexuality permissible in Christianity? 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. Admittedly some of what it has it pretty brutal and probably beyond what the Torah prescribes, like prying a sinners mouth open and pouring burning lead down their throat. But is the principle still allowed in Christianity or was it totally done away with through the death of Christ? I'm not trying to be edgy, although I know a lot of you on here are probably just edgy contrarian monarchists who support this only because it's edgy, I am just genuinely curious here as if this is possible in Christianity.

Attached: death-penalty-1598x900.jpg (1598x900, 354.57K)

Other urls found in this thread:

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 20:10&version=KJV
fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2014/03/stump-priest-what-did-christ-write-on.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

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.

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.”

Your interpretation seems to forbid any execution

I wonder what he wrote.

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.

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.

"Where is the man?"
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus 20:10&version=KJV
They were breaking the Law trying to stone the woman without the man.

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.

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?

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

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

Can you guys please read what he wrote.

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

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?

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
John 8:1-12

But on another hand some interpret the Noahide commandments to still be valid, including the death sentence for murder:
Genesis 9:1-7
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

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.

According to Orthodox tradition, Jesus was writing down the sins of the woman's accusers.
fatherjohn.blogspot.com/2014/03/stump-priest-what-did-christ-write-on.html

Why does it matter for our question? Let's presume the society just finds homosexuality to be so terribly abhorrent they all need the rope. Is this incompatible with your doctrine of the law?

I'm intending to highlight that your articulation is deficient. Even execution for murderers is a practice with explicit religious basis, if we didn't have the noahic covenant we wouldnt execute. We hardly do now in postmodernism despite our majority Christian country (US)


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.

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.

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.

Pedophilia is a separate crime
Murder is a separate crime
Lol we should kill people because they're more likely to get killed anyway?
Drug use is a separate crime
This is meaningless
Mental health problems are not a justification for capital punishment
Not a justification for capital punishment
Not a justification for capital punishment
I'm not seeing one.

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

Homosexuality is intentionally promoted by Hollywood for a reason.

Attached: image.jpg (2575x3175, 675.3K)

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.

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.

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.

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

Retake civics


You're being arbitrary
This is still not the point but whatever, we're on a rabbit trail.
Every single law to criminalize something is a discrimination. Most of these discriminations 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.
Leviticus 20:13 instructs execution for fags. This wasn't the job of anyone to murder them like a vigilante, it was the government. 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. (No, I'm not being theonomous)

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

you have not provided a single reason to justify executing homosexuals. Therefore, executing them is by definition, unreasonable.
This is fallacious two ways: as an argument to the masses (argumentum ad populum) and an appeal to tradition (argumentum ad antiquitatem).
You have not provided any defense to your position.


I was quoting . That is not being arbitrary.

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.

Jesus prohibits it in John 8.

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

What was Jesus writing on the ground?

Where is the power to execute derived?

Wow, how did this avoid making it into canon? Such advanced scientific knowledge.

Attached: Untitled.png (452x231, 15.65K)

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?

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.


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.

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.

None of those crimes are punishable by death.
Not necessarily.
homosexuality is not related to alcoholism
Not what I said
The people's will does not justify capital punishment
That's literally what I wrote in the first place. Please read
why? "Because the bible says so" is not a sufficient answer in a civil context.

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

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.

I did not put forth any interpretation that has not been explicitly endorsed by the Supreme Court. I'm a lawyer irl.
Never said that.

ad hominem
The state's power to execute is derived from the constitution. Yes.
The consent of the governed, as stated in the Preamble.
nonsense. The constitution as written originally endorsed chattel slavery. This was manifestly unjust, even though legally permissible.

The only thing I understand is how little you know about government and law.
No, it is not. Even if it was, John 8 forbids using religious justifications to commit capital punishment.
I never said capital punishment is intrinsically immoral.
They cannot prescribe capital punishment in accordance with scripture, because scripture specifically forbids it. Read John 8.

No, the punishment is for the crime of sodomy.
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.

Death penalty is always operative for the right crime, it is part of the moral law, it is part of church tradition for over a thousand years. Only heretical prots, atheists and modernist-liberal catholics disagree.

Read the church fathers. See the code of Justinian.

Attached: justin.jpg (537x763, 124.82K)

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

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