CatholicLady

I'm against the DP because I believe all human life is sacred and worth living. That's the bottom line. I think we should only take away a life as an absolute last resort. Like in self defense, or in the case of a just war. When someone is already locked up and they no longer pose a threat to society, I see no justifiable reason to kill them. We are not killing them in order to protect ourselves. We have the technology and the means to keep society safe from these people without having to resort to execution. So I don't see the point. Life is sacred. You don't destroy it unless you absolutely have to. ^That above is the reason why I don't support the DP. Now, there are other things about the DP that I think further makes it horrible, but are not THE reason why I am against it. - One thing is the fact that by executing someone, you are robbing them of their chance to repent and save their soul from Hell. As long as they are still alive, there is always the hope that they will turn to Christ. - Another thing is in regards to the people who already have repented. We can learn from them. They can give us insight into the minds of people who have an urge to kill. They can do good for the world. Ted vehemently warned us about the dangers of pornography in his interviews. Jeffrey became an active Christian and served as a model for other inmates to turn to Christ. - Lastly, of course, is the issue of wrongly convicted innocent people getting executed. Even one innocent person having been convicted is one too many. But even if someone never were to repent, had absolutely nothing positive to contribute to the world, and was 100% guilty, I would still be against the DP for the sole reason that human life is sacred and we don't destroy it unless we absolutely need to.

I'm not saying the law in general doesn't apply to them anymore. I'm just referring to the DP in particular. Though I'm against the DP regardless of whether or not the inmate repents. I only mentioned it because we were talking about Jeffery and Ted.

Lol ok.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say. :)

As long as they are alive, there is always a chance that they may be redeemed and found innocent during their lifetime. It has happened to numerous people on death row, especially once DNA forensics started to evolve. That's how I look at it, anyway.

Yes. Actually those 2 guys are great examples of why the DP sucks. Jeffrey became a Christian while in prison and became very involved with the Christian organizations within the prison. And of course, he repented. Ted went on to become a big anti pornography advocate.

Great point, Vort. I think it's one of those things... a double edged sword. But I do believe he had nothing but the best of intentions when he wrote it.

Interesting post from Matt Walsh today, entitled " Birth Control Pills: Men Get Free Sex, Women Could Get Cancer http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/birth-control-pills-men-get-free-sex-women-get-cancer/

I'm actually kind of torn on that one. Vort makes good points, but so does Parakeet. I did think it was too soon though.

You and I both!

Thank you for the answers, everyone!

What is the LDS church's position on it?

It is not likely to be a liberal and pro life at the same time... sounds like your friends/family got it wrong! :)

Who is Joe Walsh? Lol. And yeah, I don't always agree with him. I usually do though... maybe 90% of the time. I also didn't really know what to think about the Robin Williams' post. But he's had many other posts that I thought had been very good.

Yo FREAKY mama

I think the tragic, horrible thing about people killing people is not death. Death is only the beginning of eternal life. The tragic, horrible thing about people killing people is the hateful deed that is being done. To take another person's life is one of the worst things you can do to another person... it is the opposite of love, of selflessness, of generosity, of purity, of kindness... of everything we are called to be. It is the opposite of laying down our life for another, which is the ultimate act of love. Of course, I'm not talking about self defense here, or of a just war... but those aren't the instances where the OT depicts God ordering to kill.

I think Jesus is the best example of God that there is. Not the God who supposedly ordered people to kill others in the OT. Again, I don't believe that ever happened. When I want to try to understand God better, and the type of entity that He is, I look to Jesus and see the type of man He was... and that is the type of God that I imagine.

Ahh, makes a lot more sense now. Thanks!

Thanks for all the explanations, guys! It sounds perfectly close to Catholic teaching on the OT (open to interpretation of either allegory or literal), except we don't put any sort of specific special emphasis on the Abraham sacrificing Issac part... not more so than the rest of the OT anyway.

That's what I understood the first time, but then I got a couple other conflicting responses.

Gotcha. So it is acceptable for an LDS to take *some* things of the OT as allegorical... but the part about God telling Abraham to kill his son, is not one of them. That part in particular (as well as some others) is to be taken completely literally, and if a Mormon does not take it completely literally he is going against church teaching. Am I understanding you correctly? Also, I want to make this clear because it feels like you are getting the wrong idea. Yes, as Catholics we are free to interpret the OT as allegorical or literal. But we MUST believe the underlying message. That's the important part. Example: we are not required to believe that God created the Earth, the universe, and all of creation as we know it in 7 days. But we are required to believe that God is the ultimate supreme being and everything in existence is put here by Him (whether directly or through evolution). Likewise, I do believe Abraham was a real person and that he was put through some sort of test of faith to do God's will. But I don't believe God's voice beamed from the skies and told him to kill his son. I don't believe that is exactly and literally how things played out.

I vote Republican. I definitely don't think they are perfect or anything like that, that's why I always refer to myself as a conservative vs as a Republican.. But I think they are more in line with my opinions on social and economic issues. That and it's the best I can do to try to keep the likes of Obama and Hilary, etc, out of the White House.

Lol, I am confused. Are you or are you not, as a Mormon, able to take the OT either literally or allegorically? I am getting contradictory answers. Jane Doe was on here earlier specifically talking about a couple things she believes were literal, and others that she believed were allegorical, and no one seemed to have a problem with that. But when I say I think the part about God's voice telling Abraham to kill his son is allegorical, I am told it's problematic to choose which parts I think are allegorical vs literal.

Very interesting, thanks for answering!

It is right in front of me in the old testament, where even you said that belief concerning its literal/allegorical form can vary, and that the church has no official position. Is God telling Abraham to kill his son some sort of exception?