The death penalty?

[Milluw]

I read these chapters this morning, and it got me wondering.

10. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last asacrifice; yea, not a bsacrifice of man,

neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl;

for it shall not be a human sacrifice;

but it must be an cinfinite and deternal esacrifice.

11. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another.

Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law,

which is ajust, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12. But the law requireth the alife of him who hath murdered;

therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

My opinion of the death sentence so far has been that, given a life sentence, it would be the "easy" way out, in stead of being locked in prison till the day you die.

But what makes it a better thing that he/she dies before? What affect does it have in the afterlife?

Also, if the sinner have not been convicted. How would he abide that law? Does it allow suicide? And then if he or she would have committed suicide, how would that make it better?

And what if about the man that kills a convicted man, is he a sinner then? Even the man that convicts a man to death?

It's alot of questions, but if anyone had some thoughts or answers on it i would appreciate it

[applepansy]

What you are really asking about is the Atonement. You're probably going to be frustrated with my answer, but I've found that when we study and seek the guidance of the Holy Ghost to understand and apply the scriptures we get more satisfying answers. So with that in mind....

What you need to ask and search the scriptures for is "Why are works important?" We are saved by Grace but we believe that "faith without works is dead." Therefore, why does a person who committs murder need to shed his/her own blood in this life? When you answer that question you'll understand how the Atonement applies to your questions.

PS: Start with Alma 42

Edited February 16, 2011 by applepansy
PS

[rameumptom]

The "law" that is referenced in the scripture you quoted is the Mosaic Law. The Law of Moses is a terrestrial law, created for those not ready to abide a celestial law.

The celestial or law of Christ has room for forgiveness, so that the individual does not have to spiritually/eternally pay for his sins, if he will repent fully of them.

For the sinner who dies without repenting, the Lord explained that such would suffer even as he suffered (D&C 19). While in a coma, what some believe was a Near Death Experience for him, Alma experienced great and excruciating pain for his sins. This pain did not go away until he was fully ready to give his entire soul to the Lord in repentance. For this reason, it is likely that many who rot in Spirit Prison hell will suffer a long time, until they are humbled sufficiently to fully accept the demands placed upon them by the Atonement (repent, believe and obey and then you'll be rescued). Most of us repent, but not fully of everything. For major sinners, they may not wish to fully repent of murder, adultery, or another great sin; and so will suffer immensely for it, until they completely change.

[prophetofdoom]

The official church doctrine on blood atonement today is,

"In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

However, so-called "blood atonement," by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people." ( Mormon church statement on blood atonement | Deseret News)

[Seminarysnoozer]

I read these chapters this morning, and it got me wondering.

10. For it is expedient that there should be a great and last asacrifice; yea, not a bsacrifice of man,

neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl;

for it shall not be a human sacrifice;

but it must be an cinfinite and deternal esacrifice.

11. Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another.

Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law,

which is ajust, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12. But the law requireth the alife of him who hath murdered;

therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

My opinion of the death sentence so far has been that, given a life sentence, it would be the "easy" way out, in stead of being locked in prison till the day you die.

But what makes it a better thing that he/she dies before? What affect does it have in the afterlife?

Also, if the sinner have not been convicted. How would he abide that law? Does it allow suicide? And then if he or she would have committed suicide, how would that make it better?

And what if about the man that kills a convicted man, is he a sinner then? Even the man that convicts a man to death?

It's alot of questions, but if anyone had some thoughts or answers on it i would appreciate it

This is why, I think for us we shouldn't worry about earthly punishments. Give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. I have a hard time understanding how one who claims they are christian would seek out any punishments for anyone in this life. The punishments that God will ask of the individual will be based in Eternal laws which will be just and true, so there is no reason to worry about whether a person will be punished correctly or not for their sins. This is why sometimes victims of crimes will be hurt twice, once for the crime itself and secondly if they don't have forgiveness in their hearts, that is a huge test, I think one of the most difficult tests in this life. For us, our christian duty is to always forgive;

Matthew 5:38 "Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also.

41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.

42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.

43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you"

[Traveler]

This is why, I think for us we shouldn't worry about earthly punishments. Give to Caesar that which belongs to Caesar. I have a hard time understanding how one who claims they are christian would seek out any punishments for anyone in this life.

...

If you have children I am sure you understand the importance of negative reinforcement. If you have children and have never punished or disciplined them for negative behaviors - then will I believe you understand what you are saying and actually believe it.

The Travelr

[Dravin]

I have a hard time understanding how one who claims they are christian would seek out any punishments for anyone in this life.

Do you really not see how a Christian could be in favor of speeding tickets? Fines or jail time for DUI?

Edited February 17, 2011 by Dravin

[applepansy]

I have a hard time understanding how one who claims they are christian would seek out any punishments for anyone in this life.

Alma 42:13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

Part of repentance is restitution. Which leads us back to the scriptures Milluw posted. We have to repent for the atonement to be available to us. In the case of murder, a mortal cannot give the life back, but the murderer can give up his own life. Which is the only thing he can give that is even close to some sort of restitution.

Snoozer, I have to agree with Traveler and Dravin. True repentance means we need to pay restitution in this life.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Alma 42:13 Therefore, according to justice, the plan of redemption could not be brought about, only on conditions of repentance of men in this probationary state, yea, this preparatory state; for except it were for these conditions, mercy could not take effect except it should destroy the work of justice. Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

Part of repentance is restitution. Which leads us back to the scriptures Milluw posted. We have to repent for the atonement to be available to us. In the case of murder, a mortal cannot give the life back, but the murderer can give up his own life. Which is the only thing he can give that is even close to some sort of restitution.

Snoozer, I have to agree with Traveler and Dravin. True repentance means we need to pay restitution in this life.

Then, you didn't read the whole sentence. I said "seek out punishments" for someone else. This isn't referring to oneself and the repentance process.

[Seminarysnoozer]

If you have children I am sure you understand the importance of negative reinforcement. If you have children and have never punished or disciplined them for negative behaviors - then will I believe you understand what you are saying and actually believe it.

The Travelr

I have a hard time with this, of course, no one is perfect. I try to correct my children's behavior with positive reinforcement and calm discussion. I limit activity and exposure to things that they are not mature enough to have in their lives but I don't see that as a "punishment". Again, I am not perfect. But, that doesn't diminish the goal of being Christlike in every way we can.

Don't get me wrong, I think the laws of the land are very important to keep civility and our freedoms but I don't think that we should bother ourselves with making sure someone is punished to the maximum degree allowable by law, for example, in any given crime. We shouldn't be hiring lawyers to make sure someone is sentenced to death or gets the maximum amount of jail time for something they did etc. Likewise, we shouldn't worry about it or be concerned about how much punishment someone gets in this life for their crimes and sins. Leave that to those that find that kind of thing important.

If you want to be critical about what I am saying then explain to me what those versus in Matthew means to you. What does it mean to love your enemies and to hand him your cloke, to those that sue you at the law? ...to turn the other cheek? What does it mean to you to not resist evil as it is said from the mouth of Jesus?

[Seminarysnoozer]

Do you really not see how a Christian could be in favor of speeding tickets? Fines or jail time for DUI?

I am not in "favor" for those ways of dealing with things that would bring chaos to our world if we didn't do anything about it. But if the 'less than best way' to deal with those things is all we have, then I accept it. That doesn't mean that I would promote it or seek it out or ask for more punishments as a Christian.

I tell my children all the time "two wrongs don't make a right". Is that a wrong teaching? Or should I promote an "eye for an eye" mentality. "If a kid hits you in school, hit him back?" Or, "If a kid hits you in school, make sure the principle knows about it so he can get punished?" ... No, what I tell my children is, if a kid does something wrong to you then you tell them to stop, show them love, put an arm around them and be their friend. If that doesn't work then stay away from them. If it continues then you can tell your teacher, privately but try to be their friend first. Is that wrong?

[Dravin]

That doesn't mean that I would promote it or seek it out or ask for more punishments as a Christian.

I take it you don't engage in the political process? The making of laws (and even policy) is backed by the threat of punishment on some level. So if you promote law you promote punishment.

If it continues then you can tell your teacher, privately but try to be their friend first.

The end result of telling the teacher is the child will/should be punished in some manner (even if just warned but warnings carry the threat of punishment behind them) to dissuade repeating of the behaviour. So when push comes to shove you teach your children to seek the punishment of someone else.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Dravin

[Matthew0059]

My opinion of the death sentence so far has been that, given a life sentence, it would be the "easy" way out, in stead of being locked in prison till the day you die.

As a Christian, I would be in favor of giving said convict the punishment that is easiest to bear.

Also, if the sinner have not been convicted. How would he abide that law? Does it allow suicide? And then if he or she would have committed suicide, how would that make it better?

I don't think suicide is ever justified. I don't see how taking another's life justifies the taking of your own- two wrongs don't make a right.

And what if about the man that kills a convicted man, is he a sinner then? Even the man that convicts a man to death?

After the LORD convicted Cain of Abel's death and sentenced him (Cain) to be a "fugitive and a vagabond" on the earth, this interesting exchange took place (Moses 5:28-40):

38 And Cain said unto the Lord: Satan tempted me because of my brother’s flocks. And I was wroth also; for his offering thou didst accept and not mine; my punishment is greater than I can bear.

39 Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the Lord, and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that he that findeth me will slay me, because of mine iniquities, for these things are not hid from the Lord.

40 And I the Lord said unto him: Whosoever slayeth thee, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And I the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

Whenever a person takes another's life outside of the strict confines of the law, there is a very, very harsh penalty affixed- no matter who the murdered person is.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I take it you don't engage in the political process? The making of laws (and even policy) is backed by the threat of punishment on some level. So if you promote law you promote punishment.

The end result of telling the teacher is the child will/should be punished in some manner (even if just warned but warnings carry the threat of punishment behind them) to dissuade repeating of the behaviour. So when push comes to shove you teach your children to seek the punishment of someone else.

I wouldn't say that, but why are you trying to catch me in my words? I don't think teachers should "punish" kids. I would hope that they would be able to resolve the situation without punishment.

What is it that you think Jesus was trying to teach then when he said to give the man your cloke who sues you at law and not to resist evil then?

Under what circumstances do you think you have the right to know someone well enough to judge them and punish them?

[Dravin]

I would hope that they would be able to resolve the situation without punishment.

And if they can't? Want the teacher to just shrug and let it go so the kid can keep hitting on yours? I suspect not, at some point you would want the child punished if other methods fail (expulsion or detention is a punishment, I'm not talking about taking the kid out back for a curb stomping). I'm not claiming that punishment is somehow the first and only option for conflict resolution, but if there is some point where you would say "the kid needs expelled" you would be advocating punishment of his behaviour.

What is it that you think Jesus was trying to teach then when he said to give the man your cloke who sues you at law and not to resist evil then?

Considering his statements on the US Constitution (not to mention D&C 134*, which while not direct revelation I'm disinclined to take as a 180 to Christ's position on the matter) I'm disinclined to think it was a condemnation of secular laws or governments which are built around the idea of punishing unwanted behaviour. Nor a condemnation of grounding your kid.

* Note that verse #5 specifically mentions that sedition should be punished.

Under what circumstances do you think you have the right to know someone well enough to judge them and punish them?

Issuing someone a speeding ticket, grounding a disobedient child, or expelling a belligerent and violent student are not the types of judging we are warned against. So under quite a lot of circumstances honestly. Going with the same examples being a teacher dealing with a violent student, a traffic cop, or a parent would be some of those circumstances.

Edited February 17, 2011 by Dravin

[GeneC]

Nay, Seminarysnoozer, read the scriptures in context they are talking about temporal death though some talk about both temporal and spiritual death.

Capital Punishment is of THIS Earth

Capital Punishment

see also Blood, Shedding of; Murder.

* Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed, Gen. 9:6

* his blood is required, Gen. 42:22

* so that he die, shall be surely put to death, Ex. 21:12

* adulteress shall surely be put to death, Lev. 20:10

* murderer shall surely be put to death, Num. 35:16

* revenger of blood kill the slayer, Num. 35:27

* shalt stone them … till they die, Deut. 17:5

* he that is worthy of death be put to death, Deut. 17:6

* stone her with stones that she die, Deut. 22:21

* rebel … shall be put to death, Josh. 1:18

* judgment be executed … whether it be unto death, Ezra 7:26

* there is one law of his to put him to death, Esth. 4:11

* curseth father or mother, let him die, Matt. 15:4

* they which commit such things are worthy of death, Rom. 1:32

* murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die, 2 Ne. 9:35

* thou art condemned to die, according to the law, Alma 1:14

* he that murdered was punished unto death, Alma 1:18 (Alma 30:10; Alma 34:12).

* executed according to the law, Alma 62:9

* he that killeth shall die, D&C 42:19

See also Ex. 21:28; Ex. 35:2; Deut. 13:5; 1 Kgs. 2:24; Acts 26:31; Alma 42:19; Hel. 1:12.

-----------

Doctrine and Covenants Section 42

18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.

19 And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.

-------

The Book of Alma Chapter 1

14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.

18 And they durst not steal, for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death.

-----------

2 Nephi Chapter 9

35 Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die.

-----------

Alma 62

9 And the men of Pachus received their trial, according to the law, and also those king-men who had been taken and cast into prison; and they were executed according to the law; yea, those men of Pachus and those king-men, whosoever would not take up arms in the defence of their country, but would fight against it, were put to death.

Edited February 18, 2011 by ThankGodForRepentence

[Seminarysnoozer]

The death penalty happened in the Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, and Doctrine and Covenants. It was even part of the prophecy from Joseph Smith concerning the blood of the saints crying from the ground for Justice. Joseph prophesied the Civil War (and other wars) as the result of the cry from those murdered.

-----------

Doctrine and Covenants Section 42

18 And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.

19 And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die.

-------

The Book of Alma Chapter 1

14 Therefore thou art condemned to die, according to the law which has been given us by Mosiah, our last king; and it has been acknowledged by this people; therefore this people must abide by the law.

18 And they durst not steal, for fear of the law, for such were punished; neither durst they rob, nor murder, for he that murdered was punished unto death.

-----------

2 Nephi Chapter 9

35 Wo unto the murderer who deliberately killeth, for he shall die.

Spiritual death.

[Seminarysnoozer]

And if they can't? Want the teacher to just shrug and let it go so the kid can keep hitting on yours? I suspect not, at some point you would want the child punished if other methods fail (expulsion or detention is a punishment, I'm not talking about taking the kid out back for a curb stomping). I'm not claiming that punishment is somehow the first and only option for conflict resolution, but if there is some point where you would say "the kid needs expelled" you would be advocating punishment of his behaviour.

Considering his statements on the US Constitution (not to mention D&C 134*, which while not direct revelation I'm disinclined to take as a 180 to Christ's position on the matter) I'm disinclined to think it was a condemnation of secular laws or governments which are built around the idea of punishing unwanted behaviour. Nor a condemnation of grounding your kid.

* Note that verse #5 specifically mentions that sedition should be punished.

Issuing someone a speeding ticket, grounding a disobedient child, or expelling a belligerent and violent student are not the types of judging we are warned against. So under quite a lot of circumstances honestly. Going with the same examples being a teacher dealing with a violent student, a traffic cop, or a parent would be some of those circumstances.

You are greatly exaggerating what I said and I think you need to take a breath and really look at what I wrote. I said that as Christians we shouldn't be worried about making sure people get punished. You are taking that to mean that I don't think people should be punished at all. And I am saying, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar ... which is what D&C 134: 5 says,"that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated." We shouldn't be concerned with such matters, it is left to the government to use their best calculations to figure this out. But as individuals, I am not going to sit and watch the latest Dateline show or the evening news and debate with my family, "oh, that guy should get the death penalty." I think to desire that someone gets the death penalty for a murder or gets so many years in prison is not Christlike. .... the key word here being DESIRE.

You are trying to turn my discussion about what is in a person's heart into absolutes, into specific laws and rules which is not how we are judged anyways. As Christlike individuals there is no benefit in worrying about whether someone will get their full and just punishment because whatever they deserve they will get at Judgment day.

Read verse 10 of that same section; "We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship."

and verse 9 :"We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."

Accepting it and pushing for it are two different things. We should not be pushing for punishments, desiring that someone else gets punished or take any kind of pride or pleasure or sense of responsibility(which is the same as pride) in punishments. If one feels like it is their personal duty to make sure someone gets punished (i.e. - hiring a lawyer to make sure someone gets the full extent of the law thrown at them), I believe that person has crossed the line beyond what "Christlike" means. That is my opinion.

[Dravin]

I think you need to take a breath and really look at what I wrote

Well let's see what you wrote:

I have a hard time understanding how one who claims they are christian would seek out any punishments for anyone in this life.

You said any punishments.

it is left to the government to use their best calculations to figure this out.

We are nominally the government. It is not some other entity we have no say in. We, by engaging in the political process, have say in the laws and those calculations. And we definitely have say in the punishment of our children and charges, for instance a teacher pursuing an ethic violation for a student for plagiarizing. According to your quoted statement you don't understand how a Christian could seek out such a thing. Even ignoring the democracy/republic angle, your statement means you can't contemplate how someone can be both a legislator and a Christian.

I think to desire that someone gets the death penalty for a murder or gets so many years in prison is not Christlike.

As I quoted, you said any punishment.

You are trying to turn my discussion about what is in a person's heart into absolutes, into specific laws and rules which is not how we are judged anyways.

No I'm not. I'm saying that categorizing anyone that pursues any punishment as unchristian (which you did with your little pondering about how any supposed Christian could do such) is silly.

We should not be pushing for punishments, desiring that someone else gets punished or take any kind of pride or pleasure or sense of responsibility(which is the same as pride) in punishments.

Once again, if you pursue the enacting of laws you are pursuing punishments for behaviour.

We should not be pushing for punishments, desiring that someone else gets punished or take any kind of pride or pleasure or sense of responsibility(which is the same as pride) in punishments.

So a parent shouldn't feel a sense of responsibly in seeking out punishment for their child? Aforementioned teacher contemplating the case of a plagiarizing student shouldn't feel a sense of responsibility?

Edited February 18, 2011 by Dravin

[Guest]

I have to go with Dravin on this one.

I don't know how you could possibly raise my boys without some measure of punishment. Yes, putting them in the corner for 15 minutes is punishment. Nothing unChristian about that.

I don't know how you can prevent a society from going into chaos without some measure of punishment. Yes, incarceration is punishment. A child molester needs to be incarcerated, not just for the good of the molester but for the safety of the children. Nothing unChristian about that.

But, I do believe that the decision between life and death only belongs in the hands of God. So, unless God (or his authorized prophets) commanded that the guy be put to death, I don't see that we can make that call. And no, I'm not including things like war/self-defense, etc. in this statement.

Just my 2 cents.

[Dravin]

But, I do believe that the decision between life and death only belongs in the hands of God. So, unless God (or his authorized prophets) commanded that the guy be put to death, I don't see that we can make that call. And no, I'm not including things like war/self-defense, etc. in this statement.

Just my 2 cents.

Which I have no problem with. Certainly one can draw distinctions on levels of appropriate punishment (though that works both ways).

[Seminarysnoozer]

Well let's see what you wrote:

You said any punishments.

I said "seek out" in that sentence, which you still keep leaving out of your interpretation. This makes it hard to have a conversation with you when you leave out the key words. "Seek out" meaning they enjoy talking about it, or they go beyond what they have been assigned to carry out or have responsibility over. You keep taking that out of your responses.

If you plugged in "killing" to this discussion in place of "punishing" you will see where I am coming from.

If a soldier sneaks out of camp in the middle of a war to kill his enemy while they sleep only because he enjoys the act of killing and seeks it out, that is different than the killing that takes place on the battlefield under the direction and order of his superiors.

If one enjoys the idea of punishing and seeks it out and takes on the responsibility themselves to judge and punish, I think that is wrong. Just like if a soldier learns to enjoy killing and develops a blood lust. In our litigiousness society, where many crimes are on TV, we have come to enjoy the idea of someone getting punished for their crimes. I don't think that is Christian-like.

To watch a show on TV, for example, that attempts to outline a case of murder or what have you and one sits in their easy-chair and says to themselves "I think that guy should get thrown away in jail for life"is not Christlike either. That comes from a lust for punishment. So, it is best not to bother ourselves with such punishments. Yes, if there is something that is under our purview such as raising kids or if you are a policeman and that is your job etc, then yes you have to use some judgment, but even then I would hope those people don't "seek out" or develop a liking to punishments.

Related to the point of this thread, I don't think we have to worry about making sure someone gets punished in this life. We should desire that they repent and make restitution as they have already started the process of repenting. Otherwise, we don't have to worry whether someone gets the death penalty or life in jail.

[NeuroTypical]

If a soldier sneaks out of camp in the middle of a war to kill his enemy while they sleep only because he enjoys the act of killing and seeks it out, that is different than the killing that takes place on the battlefield under the direction and order of his superiors.

What about the soldier who kills his enemy while they sleep because he has been trained to do so, and is under the direction/order of his superiors? If he doesn't relish in it, he's ok by your logic, right?

We should desire that they repent and make restitution as they have already started the process of repenting. Otherwise, we don't have to worry whether someone gets the death penalty or life in jail.

I helped a guy get 5-life. I wish he'd repent. I worry greatly he'll get out and come after my family for revenge. His victim is still very much terrified of him getting out. For these reasons, I submitted additional evidence to his parole board to try to keep him behind bars longer than they would have otherwise kept him.

Am I unchristlike in your eyes?

[Dravin]

I said "seek out" in that sentence, which you still keep leaving out of your interpretation. This makes it hard to have a conversation with you when you leave out the key words. "Seek out" meaning they enjoy talking about it, or they go beyond what they have been assigned to carry out or have responsibility over. You keep taking that out of your responses.

I'm not leaving it out (in fact I used it and its synonym pursue several times). I can seek out the right battery for my remote, it doesn't mean there is an emotional investment like you seem to be attaching to the phrase or that I'm gonna go above and beyond and get D cells or something. If you had said we shouldn't derive schadenfreude from administering punishment then I certainly wouldn't have objected.

If you plugged in "killing" to this discussion in place of "punishing" you will see where I am coming from.

No, because I disagree that a Christian shouldn't or can't pursue the death of someone else under any circumstance (Teancum sought out the killing of Amalickiah). Changing "seeking out" to deriving schadenfreude I can certainly see where you are coming from (Captain Moroni pursued the killing of people but certainly didn't derive pleasure from doing so). Of course if you do that you don't really need to replace "any punishment" with "any killing". I don't think it's entirely righteous to be deriving schadenfreude from grounding your kid either.

Edited February 20, 2011 by Dravin

[JohnnyRudick]

My 2 cents also.

Adding up the study I have done I do believe God

has delivered the power of Capitol punishment to just governments.

I would not vote for the death of anyone who was convicted

on "hear say" evidence.

This would have to be a person who for instance/example (walked

into a restraint and started shooting people unprovoked in any way

by the people in the said restraint.)

This being witnessed by at least three testifying people.

I would have no problem getting this person out from among

living society so that there is no chance for this person to be

released (unless he should be raised from among the dead)

and continue his dangerous life style.

All other convicted of the crime of premeditated murder

should be locked up forever.

Just some of my thinking on the subject.