Are the Orthodox Churches totally pro-life?

[holyorders]

And when I say pro-life I mean anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, and anti fetal stem cell research. Also, when I mean totally I mean no shades of gray.

[eoe]

Of course - who has been filling you with nonsense?

[gzt]

yes.

[eoe]

For future reference, our position on various important topics can be found HERE (http://www.christianforums.com/t2477439-eastern-orthodox-taw-position-on-important-topics.html)

Barnabas: "You shall not kill either the fetus by abortion or the new born" (Letter of Barnabas, circa 125)

Anon: writing circa 135 CE in The Apocalypse of Peter: "I saw a gorge in which the discharge and excrement of the tortured ran down and became like a lake. There sat women, and the discharge came up to their throats; and opposite them sat many children, who were born prematurely, weeping. And from them went forth rays of fire and smote the women on the eyes. These were those who produced children outside of marriage, and who procured abortions." 26 "Those who slew the unborn children will be tortured forever, for God wills it to so." 2:264

Athenagoras: "We say that women who induce abortions are
murderers, and will have to give account of it to God. For the same person, would not regard the child in the womb as a living being and therefore an object of God's care and then kill it.... But we are altogether consistent in our conduct. We obey reason and do not override it." Petition to Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 CE), circa 150 CE

Clement of Alexandria: (? - 215 CE) "Our whole life can go on in observation of the laws of nature, if we gain dominion over our desires from the beginning and if we do not kill, by various means of a perverse art, the human offspring, born according to the designs of divine providence; for these women who, if order to hide their immorality, use abortive drugs which expel the child completely dead, abort at the same time their own human feelings." Paedagogus 2

Tertullian (circa 155 - 225 CE): "...we are not permitted, since murder has been prohibited to us once and for all, even to destroy ...the fetus in the womb. It makes no difference whether one destroys a life that has already been born or one that is in the process of birth." 4

St. Hippolytus (circa 170-236 CE): "Reputed believes began to resort to drugs for producing Sterility and to gird themselves round, so as to expel what was conceived on account of their not wanting to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time." "Refutation of all Heresies" 9:7

Minicius Felix (a Christian lawyer; circa 180 - 225 CE): "Some women take medicines to destroy the germ of future life in their own bodies. They commit infanticide before they have given birth to the infant" 5

St. Basil the Great (circa 330 - 379 CE): "She who has deliberately destroyed a fetus has to pay the penalty of murder...here it is not only the child to be born that is vindicated, but also the woman herself who made an attempt against her own life, because usually the women die in such attempts. Furthermore, added to this is the destruction of the child, another murder... Moreover, those, too, who give drugs causing abortion are deliberate murderers themselves, as well as those receiving the poison which kills the fetus." Letter 188:2 St. Ambrose: (339 to 397 CE) "The poor expose their children, the rich kill the fruit of their own bodies in the womb, lest their property be divided up, and they destroy their own children in the womb with murderous poisons. and before life has been passed on, it is annihilated." 6

St. John Chrysostom (circa 340 - 407 CE): "Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? Where there are many efforts at abortion? Where there is murder before the birth? For you do not even let the harlot remain a mere harlot, but make her a murderer also. You see how drunkenness leads to whoredom, whoredom to adultery, adultery to murder; or rather something even worse than murder. For I have no real name to give it, since it does not destroy the thing born but prevents its being born. Why then do you abuse the gift of God and fight with His laws, and follow after what is a curse as if a blessing, and make the place of procreation a chamber for murder, and arm the woman that was given for childbearing unto slaughter?" Homily 24 on Romans

St. Jerome (circa 342-420 CE): "They drink potions to ensure sterility and are guilty of murdering a human being not yet conceived. Some, when they learn that they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the rulers of the lower world guilty of three crimes: suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child." Letter 22:13


Tertullian circa 160-240 CE:
"For us [Christians] we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb, while as yet the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor does it matter when you take away a life that is born, or destroy one that is coming to birth. That is a man which is going to be one: you have the fruit already in the seed." -Apology 9:6

"They [John and Jesus] were both alive while still in the womb. Elizabeth rejoiced as the infant leaped in her womb; Mary glorifies the Lord because Christ within inspired her. Each mother recognizes her child and is known by her child who is alive, being not merely souls but also spirits." -De A ninta 26:4

[Jacob4707]

And when I say pro-life I mean anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, and anti fetal stem cell research. Also, when I mean totally I mean no shades of gray.

Does "totally pro-life, no shades of gray" also mean/include "anti-death penalty"?

[gzt]

and pacifism [ie, like GEM Anscombe]?

[Jacob4707]

And, is "totally pro-life" only with reference to humans?

[Orthosdoxa]

And, is "totally pro-life" only with reference to humans?

Well, when God came to earth, He came as man. And only we are created in His image and likeness, with the stamp of divinity on us. The same cannot be said of dogs or amoebas. So yes, I think it's fair to say we are generally speaking of humans in this regard. We support (human) life for precisely those reasons listed above. The same (dumb) argument keeps popping up on the Ethics board once in a while how you're not really pro-life and therefore are a hypocrite to have an anti-abortion opinion if you eat meat, because humans and animals are the same, blah blah blah. I would hope no Orthodox would support that, but who knows.

Of course, we are expected to be good stewards of them and be kind to them while they are in our care. That should go without saying.

As far as the death penalty :doh:, please GOD, don't that argument pop up here again. I hate it. MOST Orthodox are against the death penalty. Myself included. There are a few Orthodox who will argue for the death penalty, though, and it's gotten threads shut down here before.


LK

[holyorders]

Does "totally pro-life, no shades of gray" also mean/include "anti-death penalty"?
"Today, in fact, given the means at the State's disposal to effectively repress crime by rendering inoffensive the one who has committed it, without depriving him definitively of the possibility of redeeming himself, cases of absolute necessity for suppression of the offender 'today ... are very rare, if not practically non-existent.'[John Paul II, Evangelium vitae 56.]


I think this definition suffices. :)

[Jacob4707]

As far as the death penalty :doh:, please GOD, don't that argument pop up here again. I hate it. MOST Orthodox are against the death penalty. Myself included. There are a few Orthodox who will argue for the death penalty, though, and it's gotten threads shut down here before.


LK

So, a person does not have to be anti-death penalty to be Orthodox, correct?

[eoe]

So, a person does not have to be anti-death penalty to be Orthodox, correct?
I don't think it is required dogma.

[irishseventysix]

But from everything I've seen and heard, capital punishment is not approved of by the Church. Whether there's a specific dogma relating to it...well...we're not in the habit of dogmatizing everything.

Or am I missing something?

[Orthosdoxa]

But from everything I've seen and heard, capital punishment is not approved of by the Church. Whether there's a specific dogma relating to it...well...we're not in the habit of dogmatizing everything.

Or am I missing something?

I don't think you are. I tend to agree with you. Before becoming Orthodox, I was a "rah rah fry 'em all" type when it came to executing rapists and murderers. Since my reception into the Church however, my attitude has slowly changed as I've come to believe more and more just... I dunno, the whole thing about the image of GOD being stamped on each and every person, despite their sins. The most disgusting of sins can blur it, but never obliterate it. This is not a thing to be taken lightly. It's a type of deicide to take the life of another, state-sanctioned or not. We call God the "Lord and Giver of Life"... I don't recall an addeundum declaring ourselves the rightful takers-away of life. I can't even explain it, it's just so repugnant to me now. A number of saints of the Church would have been executed under US law before having the chance to become saints. God forbid!

And I think it's this understanding that makes MOST of us anti-death penalty. But... not all. I just remember the last thread about this got very nasty very fast. I'm not looking forward to that happening again, as I believe we do have a few members who are pro-death penalty and feel just as strongly about that as those of us who are anti.

LK

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Absolutly PROLIFE no matter what.

After life there is no more opportunity to repent.

Forgive me...

[Michael the Iconographer]

First of all let me straighten one issue out. There is but ONE Orthodox Church. Yes, it is 100% completely pro-life, with no exceptions.

[Jacob4707]

First of all let me straighten one issue out. There is but ONE Orthodox Church. Yes, it is 100% completely pro-life, with no exceptions.

What exceptions might there be? I.e., what do some persons consider to be exceptions to a "pro-life" stance that the Orthodox Church says, "Nope, no expections, including that one."?

[gzt]

"what about rape?" is one common attempt to make an exception to "pro-life", but we don't make it.

[Jacob4707]

"what about rape?" is one common attempt to make an exception to "pro-life", but we don't make it.

I'm inquiring about exceptions to pro-life categories, not instances of specific categories. E.g., "rape" falls under the category "abortion" - Orthodoxy is against abortion in all instances, including rape.

I'm inquiring about what things do some people feel are not "pro-life" issues that Orthodoxy says "Yes, this is a pro-life issue - e.g., euthanasia, stem-cell research, death penalty, killing of animals, polluting streams, etc." (Note: I am NOT saying that all these are pro-life issues or that Orthodoxy says these are pro-life issues - I'm just listing "issues" to show why I am looking for broader "issues" as opposed to instances under these issues.)

[OnTheWay]

Inserting capital punishment is absurd. Furthermore, perhaps the greatest of the Russian mystics gave his blessing (and sent a monk) to the Russian army that handed the Golden Horde their rear ends and sent them packing. I really think he was aware people were going to die in the battle. There are times when war is a necessary evil, and total pacifism is not an acceptable position within Orthodoxy. I think the best way to say it is that life in the womb is to be absolutely protected. In other circumstances, such as war and with criminals, one really won't find out if the killings were acceptable until Christ returns.

[Maksim]

Inserting capital punishment is absurd. Furthermore, perhaps the greatest of the Russian mystics gave his blessing (and sent a monk) to the Russian army that handed the Golden Horde their rear ends and sent them packing. I really think he was aware people were going to die in the battle. There are times when war is a necessary evil, and total pacifism is not an acceptable position within Orthodoxy. I think the best way to say it is that life in the womb is to be absolutely protected. In other circumstances, such as war and with criminals, one really won't find out if the killings were acceptable until Christ returns.

To be fair, the case of the Golden Horde was a clear-cut case of a foreign invasion. Fighting against the Mongols was surely "self-defense" in the same way that fighting against a terrorist who is holding you hostage is. But that is only applicable to a very, very small number of wars in history, and really has nothing to do with institutionalized capital punishment.

It seems to me that the only time when killing is an option is when there is truly mortal danger and you have absolutely no other choice. And frankly, that's almost never the case (though sadly, some people do face such life and death situations in our fallen world).

[Jacob4707]

Why is it wrong to enact the death penalty on someone who has been found guilty of enacting the death penalty on someone? I.e., why should a convicted murderer not be subject to the same act that he or she perpetrated? If God and Jesus used the fear of punishment to convince people to repent and do good, why isn't fear of punishment - i.e., death - a valid way of restraining murderers or would-be murderers?

[OnTheWay]

To be fair, the case of the Golden Horde was a clear-cut case of a foreign invasion. Fighting against the Mongols was surely "self-defense" in the same way that fighting against a terrorist who is holding you hostage is. But that is only applicable to a very, very small number of wars in history,

A small number of wars? Outside a few modern conflicts every war waged has involved an invader and a defender.

It seems to me that the only time when killing is an option is when there is truly mortal danger and you have absolutely no other choice. And frankly, that's almost never the case (though sadly, some people do face such life and death situations in our fallen world).

Sociopaths and the like are so devoid of humanity their continued breathing is a threat to anyone they'd encounter.

[nutroll]

A small number of wars? Outside a few modern conflicts every war waged has involved an invader and a defender. I think his point is that there is a difference between defending yourself, rather than defending someone else. Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, and Hitler invading Poland are two examples of invaders, but the question lies in whether another country should get involved, or whether it should be invadee vs. invader. That being said, these threads tend to get very messy, so I think I'll stay out of answering that dilemma....

Sociopaths and the like are so devoid of humanity their continued breathing is a threat to anyone they'd encounter.Is this in reference to war, to capital punishment, or both?

[Oblio]

If God and Jesus used the fear of punishment to convince people to repent and do good, why isn't fear of punishment - i.e., death - a valid way of restraining murderers or would-be murderers?


Since the fuze is already lit here :) ....


I thought that it was thought, postulated, or imagined that the DP does little to instill fear before a capital crime was commited, or at least so little as to render that objective as unfulfilled.

[Jacob4707]

Since the fuze is already lit here :) ....


I thought that it was thought, postulated, or imagined that the DP does little to instill fear before a capital crime was commited, or at least so little as to render that objective as unfulfilled.

I think "imagined" is the best word to use here. The fact that criminals use the death penalty, or the threat of the death penalty, to intimidate, cower, coerce and/or eliminate their victims or enemies is all the proof I need that the death penalty, if enforced and properly and swiftly enacted, is a deterrent, no matter how many "studies" show otherwise, or claim to show otherwise. If the death penalty or the threat/fear thereof is good enough for criminals to use, it's good enough for the state to use on them, IMO.

The highest respect for human life - the "pro life" position, if you will - says that if you criminally and willfully and illegally take human life, you should forfeit your own.

[Oblio]

The fact that criminals use the death penalty, or the threat of the death penalty, to intimidate, cower, coerce and/or eliminate their victims or enemies is all the proof I need that the death penalty, if enforced and properly and swiftly enacted, is a deterrent, no matter how many "studies" show otherwise, or claim to show otherwise. If the death penalty or the threat/fear thereof is good enough for criminals to use, it's good enough for the state to use on them, IMO.


But that is post crime.

I think few murders are committed by people who stop and think ya know, there is a stiff penalty for this, lemme reconsider. Most are commited in passion (in the Orthodox sense) or by simple nutcases, neither one would be persuaded or hindered by a threat of punishment.

[nutroll]

I think "imagined" is the best word to use here. The fact that criminals use the death penalty, or the threat of the death penalty, to intimidate, cower, coerce and/or eliminate their victims or enemies is all the proof I need that the death penalty, if enforced and properly and swiftly enacted, is a deterrent, no matter how many "studies" show otherwise, or claim to show otherwise. If the death penalty or the threat/fear thereof is good enough for criminals to use, it's good enough for the state to use on them, IMO.

The highest respect for human life - the "pro life" position, if you will - says that if you criminally and willfully and illegally take human life, you should forfeit your own.

I think the problem with that is that fear of death on the part of a victim is a surprise. When one chooses to attack another, knowing full well that it is a capital crime, they are either so sure that the Death Penalty will not be applied, or they simply don't care whether they live or die. A person who robs a convenience store knows that they might get shot in the process, a person who premeditates murder knows that there is a chance that the victim will struggle and they will die. A murderer often has little regard for their own life and therefore would not be deterred by the possibility of death. None of this addresses whether a person should be executed as punishment, it just means that as a deterrent, it isn't really effective.

[Jacob4707]

But that is post crime.

I think few murders are committed by people who stop and think ya know, there is a stiff penalty for this, lemme reconsider. Most are commited in passion (in the Orthodox sense) or by simple nutcases, neither one would be persuaded or hindered by a threat of punishment.

A society that regularly and clearly and properly enforces the death penalty will have fewer crimes of passion that result in murder. It may take a few years or a generation, but when people subconsciously know from repeated fact or exposure to the fact that if they kill, they die, they will be less likely to commit crimes of passion.

It's like training in the army or in languages or in anything. At first you have to be trained and practice and do things over and over. Eventually, though, it becomes subconscious and instinctual. The same with teaching people that if you kill wantonly or out of passion, and it was unlawful to do so, you die. They will learn to react less passionately. Or at least more will.

If you've dulled your mind with drugs or alcohol (but I repeat myself), then that cannot be an excuse. It's like choosing to take the safety off a gun and then swinging it around. Just because you have made it more likely for the gun to go off does not excuse you if it indeed goes off.

[choirfiend]

Hmm...so, how are the murder levels in countries without a death penalty? How is the murder rate in countries that do have it?

The highest respect for human life - the "pro life" position, if you will - says that if you criminally and willfully and illegally take human life, you should forfeit your own.


has to be one of the LEAST rational/logical arguments I have heard for the DP yet.

[nutroll]

A society that regularly and clearly and properly enforces the death penalty will have fewer crimes of passion that result in murder. It may take a few years or a generation, but when people subconsciously know from repeated fact or exposure to the fact that if they kill, they die, they will be less likely to commit crimes of passion.

I think the danger with this is that when death of any kind becomes part of our subconscious mind, there is the danger that we lose respect for the sanctity of life and the dignity of every human being, and we will become more violent. The US has more violent crime than other nations and most of the rest of the world doesn't have the death penalty. I'm no sociologist, but there is more than obvious logic underlying this reality. To many, it feels right to execute those who commit murder, and it is hard to argue against that gut reaction, but in the interest of all, we need to know whether that decision to execute endangers us more that a decision to incarcerate instead.

[Oblio]

It may take a few years or a generation, but when people subconsciously know from repeated fact or exposure to the fact that if they kill, they die, they will be less likely to commit crimes of passion.


With all due respect, that's rather Lamarkian.

[Jacob4707]

With all due respect, that's rather Lamarkian.

I thought it was rather Mosaic:

Deuteronomy 6:

6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

Repeated practice/use/learning inculcates the desired objective, just like repeating the daily prayers soon results in them flowing automatically from your lips and heart in times of need and prayer.

[Oblio]

I think that those that kill in passion, don't think or contemplate, a DP will have no effect, or not in time. Those that are psycopaths won't care.

Even so, do the ends justify the means ? Not saying that they don't, but it is a valid question.

[irishseventysix]

A society that regularly and clearly and properly enforces the death penalty will have fewer crimes of passion that result in murder. It may take a few years or a generation, but when people subconsciously know from repeated fact or exposure to the fact that if they kill, they die, they will be less likely to commit crimes of passion.

It's like training in the army or in languages or in anything. At first you have to be trained and practice and do things over and over. Eventually, though, it becomes subconscious and instinctual. The same with teaching people that if you kill wantonly or out of passion, and it was unlawful to do so, you die. They will learn to react less passionately. Or at least more will.

If you've dulled your mind with drugs or alcohol (but I repeat myself), then that cannot be an excuse. It's like choosing to take the safety off a gun and then swinging it around. Just because you have made it more likely for the gun to go off does not excuse you if it indeed goes off.
Double post...see below.

[irishseventysix]

I thought it was rather Mosaic:

Deuteronomy 6:

6 “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. 7 You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. 8 You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. 9 You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates."

Repeated practice/use/learning inculcates the desired objective, just like repeating the daily prayers soon results in them flowing automatically from your lips and heart in times of need and prayer.
Well, it was also rather Mosaic to kill an Egyptian guard, hide his body in the sand, and flee the scene.

Did he repent? Yes.

Should we give others the chance, while securely containing them...an ability we have? Certainly.

Killing people who kill people to show that killing is wrong...hm...I don't know about that one. Especially because that assumes that murderers are properly functioning individuals who will allow that reasoning to overtake them in the heat of the moment.

And I don't think it's a good idea to be satisfied with the thought that the threat of the DP is the only thing keeping people from murdering each other. And many murderers welcome the DP. It's not going to solve the problem...and it's not going to be purefying for our culture.

Look at historic France, England, or even the Old West. Did the possibility (and swift likelihood) of death deter crime? Absolutely not. Prison in 18th/19th C. Europe was incredibly horrible...yet prisons were in no way empty.

And when it comes to my tax money being used to take a life...I would want it put toward sparing every expense in ensuring that it wasn't an innocent person who was killed. But those things can't be ensured, can they?

[Alchemist]

I think the question is, does the death penalty stop murder? And the answer is no, for one, simple reason: anyone who kills another does not do so in a "right" state of mind, but in either basic "survival" mode or malevolence. IMO, I think the knowledge one will spend the rest of his life in a maximum-security penitentiary, stripped of all freedoms with no chance of parole, would be enough incentive for any rational person to think twice about killing another man, at least with the latter mindset.

So what do you do? Kill them? At the end of the day, that is all the death penalty is; an eye for an eye (or at least, an eye for something). Always the naïve liberal, perhaps, but showing murderers and rapists why their crime was wrong, and helping them to change their behaviour seems the right thing to do, not playing judge and dealing the retribution card. After all, they may be sinners, but not only fetuses have souls...

Peace,
Nick

[OnTheWay]

Is this in reference to war, to capital punishment, or both?

Well I suppose I'd say the following, there are individuals like sociopaths that are utterly devoid of humanity. Personally, I think it stems from the fact that due to some accident related to the fallen nature of the material world there is no soul present in them. Thus I think the term punishment is incorrect. If one had to put a rabid dog down it isn't because the dog has done something it deserves punishment for. It is because, through no real fault of it's own, the dog is now dangerous to everyone it encounters and is beyond help. To be responsible for a crime, one must have the ability to reason that what they are doing is wrong. Sociopaths have no ability to understand the concept, empathize with victims, or display any real human emotions. They can only mimic what they see in others, it's not real emotion. As such when it is necessary to terminate the life of someone in that condition it's really not a punishment. It's merely a security measure that is necessary to protect others. As such I don't support capital punishment. What is, on occassion necessary, is the termination of an individual that is simply too dangerous to be allowed to live. There is no escape proof jail, and there is no doubt that if a sociopath that has progressed into a serial killer is loosed they will kill again.

[Oblio]

Well I suppose I'd say the following, there are individuals like sociopaths that are utterly devoid of humanity.


Rather sounds like the demoniacs.

[Oblio]

And they came over unto the other side of the sea, into the country of the Gadarenes. And when he was come out of the ship, immediately there met him out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit, Who had his dwelling among the tombs; and no man could bind him, no, not with chains: Because that he had been often bound with fetters and chains, and the chains had been plucked asunder by him, and the fetters broken in pieces: neither could any man tame him.
(Mark 5:1-4 KJVA)

[nutroll]

Well I suppose I'd say the following, there are individuals like sociopaths that are utterly devoid of humanity. Personally, I think it stems from the fact that due to some accident related to the fallen nature of the material world there is no soul present in them. Thus I think the term punishment is incorrect. If one had to put a rabid dog down it isn't because the dog has done something it deserves punishment for. It is because, through no real fault of it's own, the dog is now dangerous to everyone it encounters and is beyond help. To be responsible for a crime, one must have the ability to reason that what they are doing is wrong. Sociopaths have no ability to understand the concept, empathize with victims, or display any real human emotions. They can only mimic what they see in others, it's not real emotion. As such when it is necessary to terminate the life of someone in that condition it's really not a punishment. It's merely a security measure that is necessary to protect others. As such I don't support capital punishment. What is, on occassion necessary, is the termination of an individual that is simply too dangerous to be allowed to live. There is no escape proof jail, and there is no doubt that if a sociopath that has progressed into a serial killer is loosed they will kill again.Are all murderers sociopaths? Should we then change the application of the Death Penalty to apply only to those that are sociopaths? And how can we be certain that they are without a soul, without rehabilitation, and without redemption?

[OnTheWay]

Hmm...so, how are the murder levels in countries without a death penalty? How is the murder rate in countries that do have it?



That is one of the least logical arguments against the DP I've heard. Comparing countries that have highly homogenious populations with much less difference in socio-economic status with the US that is boardly diverse ethnically and socio-economically is simply absurd. Apples and patatoes.
Japan has capital punishment and a very low crime rate as well. It's also a much better subject for comparison to the European states.

[nutroll]

That is one of the least logical arguments against the DP I've heard. Comparing countries that have highly homogenious populations with much less difference in socio-economic status with the US that is boardly diverse ethnically and socio-economically is simply absurd. Apples and patatoes.
Japan has capital punishment and a very low crime rate as well. It's also a much better subject for comparison to the European states.

If the homogeneity of a society, and people's respective socio-economic status within a society are so strongly correlated to whether they will commit murder, how can we really expect any punishment to work against such factors?

[OnTheWay]

Are all murderers sociopaths? Should we then change the application of the Death Penalty to apply only to those that are sociopaths? And how can we be certain that they are without a soul, without rehabilitation, and without redemption?

Of course not. Sociopaths that never progress to killing are harder to spot, however those that do wouldn't even require professional traning to dignose. Once again, use of terms like "rehabilitation" or "redemption" with these people is completely wrong. To be rehabilitated or redemed you'd have to understand that you had done something wrong. These people are beyond that, and live in a state where they really aren't criminals, just a product of how they were born. As such it isn't a decision of punishing or not punishing, it's merely protecting society.

[OnTheWay]

If the homogeneity of a society, and people's respective socio-economic status within a society are so strongly correlated to whether they will commit murder, how can we really expect any punishment to work against such factors?

The problem is you're tying to make criminal punishment something it's not. The entire basis of the CJ system is that we punish an indiviudal for his/her deeds. Not that we "fix" society's ills with it.
One fixes these things with positive action, encouraging people to do things (like get an education) that will reduce their poverty. You don't scare people into not committing crime, you make them see that there are other ways to get the things they need.

[nutroll]

Of course not. Sociopaths that never progress to killing are harder to spot, however those that do wouldn't even require professional traning to dignose. Once again, use of terms like "rehabilitation" or "redemption" with these people is completely wrong. To be rehabilitated or redemed you'd have to understand that you had done something wrong. These people are beyond that, and live in a state where they really aren't criminals, just a product of how they were born. As such it isn't a decision of punishing or not punishing, it's merely protecting society.I actually know what a sociopath is, and am certain that someone I knew was one. I was merely trying to clarify your position on the DP. So are you suggesting that all sociopaths should be executed, or only those who commit murder, and possibly a few other offenses? Also I personally don't believe that anyone is beyond rehabilitation and redemption, nor do I believe that there are people who have no soul. I think that there are times where rehabilitation and redemption are such slim possibilities that removing them from the population is necessary for the safety of the rest of society, but I don't think they need to be executed.

[nutroll]

The problem is you're tying to make criminal punishment something it's not. The entire basis of the CJ system is that we punish an indiviudal for his/her deeds. Not that we "fix" society's ills with it.
One fixes these things with positive action, encouraging people to do things (like get an education) that will reduce their poverty. You don't scare people into not committing crime, you make them see that there are other ways to get the things they need.What then is the point of punishment? Why do we punish our children? Is it not to teach them what is wrong so that they have the capacity to choose what is right?

[jckstraw72]

didnt Christ Himself chastise the Pharisees for NOT using the death penalty on children?

What about St. Constantine seeing the Cross and "by this sign conquer"?

[nutroll]

didnt Christ Himself chastise the Pharisees for NOT using the death penalty on children?Where was that in the Bible? I don't ever remember hearing that or reading that in my entire life. Can you point me to a chapter and verse?

[jckstraw72]

Matthew 15


1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jesus calls them hypocrites and uses their lack of the death penalty as an example that they reach for doctrines of men and are far from Him in their hearts, even saying it makes His law of no effect.

[Jacob4707]

Matthew 15


1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jesus calls them hypocrites and uses their lack of the death penalty as an example that they reach for doctrines of men and are far from Him in their hearts, even saying it makes His law of no effect.

While that could be derived from this, most people take it that Jesus is criticizing them for not honoring their parents in that their "traditions" give people a way to "dedicate" their goods to God and not use their means to help their [aged] parents when they need their children's help. This is interesting, though, in that the Pharisees were opposed to the Sadducees, and the Sadducees ran the Temple cult, if I recall correctly, so why the Pharisees wanted people to be able to dedicate their possessions to the Temple treasury (I assume that is what is meant - but I'm just winging it here without really checking into this) is strange.

On the other hand, Jesus says that the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), so He apparently upheld the command to kill a disobedient child. Very ... interesting. Jesus could have made his point by just his first quote from the Law - yet he also quoted the verse in the Law about putting to death such a child, and used that to support his charge against them.

I suspect, though, that he quoted that verse about killing a child who cursed his parents because it represented the opposite of what children were to do: They were (positively) to honor their parents, and they were (negatively) to be punished for cursing = dishonoring their parents. Thus, Jesus used the second quote from the Law to emphasize the requirement that children honor their parents (for a child that cursed (= dishonored) his parents was subject to being put to death). I think that is all Jesus was doing here - i.e., repeating for emphasis another part of the Law that underlined the rule in the 10 Commandments that children honor their parents - a requirement that the Pharisees had relaxed and replaced with their traditions. I think it's stretching things pretty thin to say that Jesus was here condoning killing children who cursed their parents. Jesus certainly was not criticizing the Pharisees for failing to stone/kill children who cursed their parents, because what he goes on to say is about failing to take care of one's parents when one has the means/goods to do so. Nothing he says in this pericope is based on the Pharisees' failure to put to death disobedient children.

[jckstraw72]

On the other hand, Jesus says that the Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35), so He apparently upheld the command to kill a disobedient child. Very ... interesting. Jesus could have made his point by just his first quote from the Law - yet he also quoted the verse in the Law about putting to death such a child, and used that to support his charge against them.

this is all perfectly in line with the picture of God that we find in the Bible, from Genesis 9:6 (Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man), to the mandates of the Mosaic Law and the destruction of alien nations by the Jews, the immediate death of the man who touched the Ark of the Covenant, Ananias and Sapphira who were struck dead, and Romans 13 which speaks of governments, the ordinances of God, wielding a sword not in vain for the purpose of vengeance.

[Jacob4707]

this is all perfectly in line with the picture of God that we find in the Bible, from Genesis 9:6 (Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man), to the mandates of the Mosaic Law and the destruction of alien nations by the Jews, the immediate death of the man who touched the Ark of the Covenant, Ananias and Sapphira who were struck dead, and Romans 13 which speaks of governments, the ordinances of God, wielding a sword not in vain for the purpose of vengeance.

So, you seem to be suggesting that by Jesus upholding every jot and tittle of the Law, and quoting that passage from Exodus 21:17/Leviticus 20:9 in its entirety (and we know that Jesus would truncate a verse if it suited His purpose - compare Luke 4:19 with Isaiah 61:2), He agreed with these commands/commandments and acts of God, or commands of God for His people to perform these acts, and thus Jesus was not "totally pro-life" in the sense of being anti-death penalty.

[jckstraw72]

So, you seem to be suggesting that by Jesus upholding every jot and tittle of the Law, and quoting that passage from Exodus 21:17/Leviticus 20:9 in its entirety (and we know that Jesus would truncate a verse if it suited His purpose - compare Luke 4:19 with Isaiah 61:2), He agreed with these commands/commandments and acts of God, or commands of God for His people to perform these acts, and thus Jesus was not "totally pro-life" in the sense of being anti-death penalty.

Yes. God is clearly not anti-death penalty. God obviously agrees with His own Law and commands.

[nutroll]

Matthew 15


1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jesus calls them hypocrites and uses their lack of the death penalty as an example that they reach for doctrines of men and are far from Him in their hearts, even saying it makes His law of no effect.

Jesus is not criticizing the pharisees for not executing their children, he is calling them hypocrites for questioning why he and his disciples did not uphold the law, while they themselves had replaced the law with their own traditions.

this is all perfectly in line with the picture of God that we find in the Bible, from Genesis 9:6 (Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man), to the mandates of the Mosaic Law and the destruction of alien nations by the Jews, the immediate death of the man who touched the Ark of the Covenant, Ananias and Sapphira who were struck dead, and Romans 13 which speaks of governments, the ordinances of God, wielding a sword not in vain for the purpose of vengeance.
I don't think you can equivocate God directly striking people dead for violations of a command and humans putting people to death. Furthermore, there are many instances where the Christian faith does not enforce the Mosaic Law as we have a new commandment, and a new covenant through Jesus.

[jckstraw72]

Jesus is not criticizing the pharisees for not executing their children, he is calling them hypocrites for questioning why he and his disciples did not uphold the law, while they themselves had replaced the law with their own traditions.

but He also told them that they are making the Law of God of no effect by not using the death penalty. They wouldnt be hypocrites if they werent ignoring part of God's Law. They are picking and choosing what to use from the Law, based on their own rationalizations, when they are to keep all the Law. He also uses this as an example that their hearts are far from Him, in that they do not follow the Law.

I don't think you can equivocate God directly striking people dead for violations of a command and humans putting people to death. Furthermore, there are many instances where the Christian faith does not enforce the Mosaic Law as we have a new commandment, and a new covenant through Jesus.

im not saying we must follow the Law. Im saying that the image of God given to us is not one of an anti-death penalty God, with the Law being one example. If God does not hold the right to life above all else then I'm not sure why I should. Additionally, in Romans 13 St. Paul tells us that governments are the ordinances of God and that in resisting them we bring human (and divine) vengeance upon ourselves, just as St. John Chrysostom says in his homily on Romans 13:

"For it is no common punishment that He will exact of thee, if thou disobey, but the very greatest; and nothing will exempt thee, that thou canst say to the contrary, but both of men thou shalt undergo the most severe vengeance, and there shall be no one to defend thee, and thou wilt also provoke God the more. And all this he intimates when he says, "And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

[Maksim]

Additionally, in Romans 13 St. Paul tells us that governments are the ordinances of God and that in resisting them we bring human (and divine) vengeance upon ourselves...

Yes, but it is worth noting that this doesn't say anything about how we should govern when we are able to participate in that government. Does it even indicate that Christians should seek to govern by force at all? Compare it to the statements regarding slavery, in passages such as Ephesians 6:5 or 1 Peter 2:18. If Romans 13 justifies Christians using government to exact vengeance, then surely those two passages would justify us holding slaves even today, would they not?

[nutroll]

They wouldnt be hypocrites if they werent ignoring part of God's Law.That is only true because they were criticizing Jesus for not following God's Law. It doesn't necessarily mean that they should execute children, it means that they shouldn't presume to criticize Him if they themselves are makking changes to the Law.

im not saying we must follow the Law. Im saying that the image of God given to us is not one of an anti-death penalty God, with the Law being one example. If God does not hold the right to life above all else then I'm not sure why I should. Additionally, in Romans 13 St. Paul tells us that governments are the ordinances of God and that in resisting them we bring human (and divine) vengeance upon ourselves, just as St. John Chrysostom says in his homily on Romans 13:

"For it is no common punishment that He will exact of thee, if thou disobey, but the very greatest; and nothing will exempt thee, that thou canst say to the contrary, but both of men thou shalt undergo the most severe vengeance, and there shall be no one to defend thee, and thou wilt also provoke God the more. And all this he intimates when he says, "And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."The question of whether we are to accept the rule of government doesn't have any bearing on whether Capital Punishment is acceptable. Because we live under the laws of our countries does not mean that a democracy with a majority claiming to be Christians should pass laws that would condemn others to death. It still leaves open whether God wants us to execute criminals. When the woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus, he prevented the crowd from executing her, despite the fact that under the Law, she was deserving of death. Why do you think that was?

[Jacob4707]

Yes, but it is worth noting that this doesn't say anything about how we should govern when we are able to participate in that government. Does it even indicate that Christians should seek to govern by force at all? Compare it to the statements regarding slavery, in passages such as Ephesians 6:5 or 1 Peter 2:18. If Romans 13 justifies Christians using government to exact vengeance, then surely those two passages would justify us holding slaves even today, would they not?

Can of worms time: Is slavery wrong? If a person has become indebted to someone and cannot pay him back, is it intrinsically wrong for a person to pay back the debt or be forced to pay back the debt by coming under the ownership of the person to whom he owes the debt until his service/labor has remunerated that person? (Is that not a better solution than debtors' prison, where the person is cut off from society completely, leaving his family without support?) If it is not wrong for a country to seize the land and goods of a country against whom it has gone to war, or by whom it has been attacked, is it intrinsically wrong for the victor to also seize and lay claim to the labor of those it has bested, as remuneration for the cost it expended in warfare? The Bible doesn't condemn slavery. It requires fair and humane treatment of slaves, and provides for their release, too, but it doesn't condemn the practice per se. Neither Jesus nor Paul condemned or prohibited it.

[jckstraw72]

It doesn't necessarily mean that they should execute children, it means that they shouldn't presume to criticize Him if they themselves are makking changes to the Law.


so God didn't want them to follow the Law that came straight from His mouth?


When the woman caught in adultery was brought before Jesus, he prevented the crowd from executing her, despite the fact that under the Law, she was deserving of death. Why do you think that was?


Thats bc the scribes and Pharisees didnt actually care about Jesus' advice--they were trying to trick Him. Why would these ppl who despise Him go to Him to ask for advice on what to do? They think He's heretical--they clearly weren't being honest in their questioning Him.

They were seeking to trick Him bc under the Roman government the Jews were not allowed to execute anyone, so if Jesus advised the death penalty then they could report Him for sedition. However, on the other hand, if He didn't advise the death penalty then they could accuse Him of not following the Law. Thankfully Jesus was too smart for them. According to the Jewish Law when a couple was found in adultery BOTH of them were to be executed. Where was the man they supposedly caught? Rabbinical thought of the day also said that the people involved had to be caught in such a compromising position that there was absolutely no other way of explaining it. Thus we have scribes and Pharisees bringing before Jesus a dishonest case in order to trick Him, but as they were not following the Law and their own Rabbinical thinking Christ knew it was merely a trick. Do you think the scribes and Pharisees were honestly seeking Jesus' help?


It still leaves open whether God wants us to execute criminals


I'm missing where there is ambiguity in Romans 13. When have we ever seen God to be anti-death penalty?

[holyorders]

Sorry about this guys. I didn't mean for this thread to get this heavy.

[jckstraw72]

It requires fair and humane treatment of slaves, and provides for their release, too, but it doesn't condemn the practice per se.


Yes, the arguments to the contrary are rationalizations based on human reasoning, as are those against the death penalty. We condemn this kind of thinking on just about everything else, so why not this? Capital punishment is undoubtedly abused and used incorrectly at times, but I am only speaking of the death penalty in principle, and not how it is carried out in certain countries.

[jckstraw72]

just for clarification---I'm not like yaaaay lets put people to death. its not like something I enjoy, and i certainly dont like when innocent people get the death penalty, but i dont think a case can be made for saying we MUST be anti-death penalty.

[Maksim]

The question becomes whether it is appropriate for us, as individual Christians, and with Christ as our guide, to actively do certain things. Is it appropriate for me to own a slave, in the Roman sense (which includes the right to decide if they live or die)? In my best (admittedly very fallible) judgment, the answer is no.

We always have to ask ourselves whether an act is just for us, as individuals, to be a part of. To use the example of Romans 13 in another way: I pay my taxes to the government, but I do not support any attempt to levy taxes on others in my name.

[Jacob4707]

The question becomes whether it is appropriate for us, as individual Christians, and with Christ as our guide, to actively do certain things. Is it appropriate for me to own a slave, in the Roman sense (which includes the right to decide if they live or die)? In my best (admittedly very fallible) judgment, the answer is no.

How about in the Jewish/Old Testament sense?

[jckstraw72]

To use the example of Romans 13 in another way: I pay my taxes to the government, but I do not support any attempt to levy taxes on others in my name.

My understanding (also very fallible) of Romans 13 is that we are to obey the government unless it goes against God's laws, and that if we resist the authorities then we knowingly subject ourselves to punishment. It could be kind of like Hell---by doing wrong and resisting God we send ourselves there, God doesn't send us there. By resisting the government, we knowingly punish ourselves, as God has given governments the authority to prosecute those who bring punishment on themselves.

[choirfiend]

That is one of the least logical arguments against the DP I've heard. Comparing countries that have highly homogenious populations with much less difference in socio-economic status with the US that is boardly diverse ethnically and socio-economically is simply absurd. Apples and patatoes.
Japan has capital punishment and a very low crime rate as well. It's also a much better subject for comparison to the European states.


It wasn't an argument; it was a question. The answers to those questions, with proper analysis, may provide an argument; which side it supports is unknown to me.

[buzuxi02]

[quote=jckstraw72]just for clarification---I'm not like


yaaaay lets put people to death. its not like something I enjoy, and i certainly dont like when innocent people get the death penalty, but i dont think a case can be made for saying we MUST be anti-death penalty.[/quote


While Orthodox Christianity is against violence it has never been a 100% pacifist faith.

Greece ,the only country which is officially christian (and Orthodox) along with Cyprus (which is over 95% Orthodox) and one of the most ancient christian countries, military service is mandatory. Greece at one time also had the death penalty.
Most Orthodox believe that a soldier who has killed during war while engaged in proper rules of engagement is exempt from murder, regardless if the war meets the "just war" theory of the west.

This was taught by Metropolitan Antony of the M.P. IN his booklet "the Christian Faith & War" and a book entitled "The Virtue of War" available from Regina Orthodox Press.

[CuriousityKilledThe]

I think the simplest way an Orthodox can understand that in today's context, it's more sensible to be anti-death penalty is to simply bring up the proven fact that innocent people have been executed and will be executed as long as the death penalty exists. As long as there is a tiny possibility that an innocent person will slip into the system because our criminal justice system is not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't have the death penalty at all.

Alot of the discussion I'm reading is how irredeemable sociopaths are, but that's a total red herring. There are plenty of people on Death Row who committed crimes of passion and are not sociopathic, and finally, there are certainly innocent people on death row. People on death row get exonerated all the time, however, certainly there are people who are innocent but aren't lucky enough to have convenient genetic evidence come up to prove their innocence.

Better we incarcerate the worst criminals for life than to sacrifice the occasional innocent person for the gratification of execution.

[Maksim]

My understanding (also very fallible) of Romans 13 is that we are to obey the government unless it goes against God's laws, and that if we resist the authorities then we knowingly subject ourselves to punishment. It could be kind of like Hell---by doing wrong and resisting God we send ourselves there, God doesn't send us there. By resisting the government, we knowingly punish ourselves, as God has given governments the authority to prosecute those who bring punishment on themselves.

As an aside, the founders of the US were clear that citizens have the right, and even the duty, to disobey the government if it becomes tyrannical. Is it obedience to the founding principles of the government that matters, or to the men currently claiming to represent it? It's clearly a complicated issue, at the least.

Still, my main point there was in reference to what we do when we have the ability to govern (in however small a way), such as in the voting booth. My personal view is that if it is not right for me, as a Christian, to do something to my neighbor, how can I cast my vote in favor of someone else doing it for me? If I want my neighbor's car, is it right for me to campaign for it to be taken from him and given to me? And how is this different from voting for taxes to be levied on someone who has done no wrong to me? My point is that I, as a Christian, don't believe that I can support such a thing insofar as I am a part of the government, as we all are when we vote in elections.

[irishseventysix]

Matthew 15


1Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
2Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
3But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?
4For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.
5But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me;
6And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.
7Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,
8This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jesus calls them hypocrites and uses their lack of the death penalty as an example that they reach for doctrines of men and are far from Him in their hearts, even saying it makes His law of no effect.
Then why don't we kill our children for cursing their parents? Should I burn my 50/50 cotton/poly blend shirts and repent for buying them? What about the bacon I just ate? Or men who aren't circumcised (another pre-Law-given commandment)? David should have been struck dead for eating the showbread...and having Uriah killed, and for his adulterous affair with Bathsheba.

Moses killed an Egyptian and buried his body in the sand. Did God bring along someone to kill Moses? No! But God Himself almost killed Moses in the desert for not obeying His command to circumcise his son. But the context of this Genesis passage was with regard to Cain's murder of his brother Abel. Did God kill Cain? No! But He did set a mark on Cain so that NO ONE WOULD KILL HIM IN RETURN. That's the context for the Genesis passage.

All of this, teamed with the fact that we are to consider it a blessing to have a long dying process that we may be watchful and repent and that God considers even our reproductive bodily fluids as sacred because they are imbued with the power to co-create a new life (so much so that He struck Onan dead for not respecting this) tells me that God operates in a way we are so far from understanding. And unless we are incredibly pure and close to Him, we should probably not try to make exectuive decisions about something so sacred as ending life, because we'll be operating with OUR sense of justice...not His. And our government and society seem to being running screaming ever faster away from any attempt to act in obedience to Him, implementing a criminal justice system completely alien to the way God seems to work...especially in contrast to what He commanded of an ancient, chosen, theocratic, pre-Christ Israel. So I would not entrust that grave responsibility to our government in the case of criminal offenders.

His thoughts are not our thoughts. His way is not our way. And He hasn't promised our political nation the things He promised Israel. And we are SO FAR out of tune with His thoughts and His ways that it's pointless to look to Israel as a representative of what we should do and support today.

[Theophorus]

why should a convicted murderer not be subject to the same act that he or she perpetrated?

I can't answer this completely here because it would be too obscene to state the acts of many murderers. Needless to say, not even secular authorities subject these people to the same acts they perpetrated.

To be honest, the innoccent victims of these people and the horrific things that happen to them really tries my faith.

[Xpycoctomos]

I am Orthodox and am personally anti-death penalty.. but that is due to more societal reasons and no so much to any kind of deep intrinsical wrong I see in the act of a government enacting the death penalty for reasons of justice, protection or determent.

I know several american Orthodox personally who are supportive of the DP and in no way do I question their Orthodoxy because of thier stance. In fact, I view them as good Orthodox not IN SPITE of their views but almost because of it.

I don't wish to get into reasons as to why some one should or should not support the DP here... that would be quite beside the point (or at least as far as my post is concerned) but rather would just like to suggest that there are reasons on both sides that can be perfectly virtuous and therefore Orthodox at heart. Not even the the RCC (perhaps the most vocal of the Church on the issue of the DP) says that a Nation does not have the RIGHT to enact the DP, it just points out (And IMO rightly so) that there are very few circumstances in which it can be enacted justly in this day and age. But i don't believe this is a dogma of the RCC, rather fatherly words of wisdom given from the Vatican (from PPJP II personally) regarding the DP.

SCOBA has spoken similarly on the issue. But none of this morally obligates any Orthodox to rebuke the Death penalty.

I think in the end, what is important are the reasons behind one's stance (if they have a definite one). As Orthodox we are to see that all is done with a sense of justice and love. If we support the death penalty, this in and of itself is not right or wrong, but if we support it with a "May he burn in hell" or "I hope his death is painful" attitude (basically.. with hatred) then that IS wrong (and I fear that this is the attitude in which most of the US supports the DP which is sad). So revenge should not be a reason.

On the other hand: If someone believes firmly that the DP (in certain cases) is good for reasons of Justice (not revenge, but more in the manner than the early Greeks spoke of) and/or protection for its people (no matter how correct or flawed this view may be... for we are talking right now about what's in the heart, not what the stats say) but turns his or her back on what HE or SHE believes to be right and just because they found out it costs too much or something frivolous like that then can that be Christian? I hear so often the reason of money brought up and while I realize that our resources are indeed limited, is this a REASON to be pro or anti DP? Personally, I don't care if it is more expensive to hold a person in Prison for life (this isn't true, but for argument's sake)... if I truly belive that this it is more righteous to spare all people's life when possible, then how heartless could I be to turn this into an issue of money? At the same time, if I truly believed that the DP was a way in certain cases of upholded a sense of Justice in a nation where this is rarely even understood then how could I, in good character, turn my back on the good of my society and personal virtue for dollar signs?

Oopps.. I've gotten off topic. Anyhow.... that's just my two cents.

I condemn no one for being on either side of the fence... just make sure your reasons are godly.

God bless,

John

[DonVA]

I've always felt that the death penalty was the easy way out for violent criminals. If prison resources weren't what they are, I think having to live out the rest of his mortal life in solitary confinement, forced EVERY day to think about why he is WHERE he is would be a much more fitting way to prepare for his final judgement day.

[NewToLife]

As long as there is a tiny possibility that an innocent person will slip into the system because our criminal justice system is not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't have the death penalty at all.


This essentially is the reason that a country such as the UK no longer has the death penalty. If we had the death penalty here there would have been a number of wrongly convicted people executed since abolition.

As a christian I can also observe that our prison system contains a number of persons who have come to faith in prison since conviction on what would once have been capital charges, they are still being punished for their crimes but God may have mercy upon their souls in the judgement to come. It does not seem to me to be man's place to pass the ultimate judgement against another where an alternative exists. As execution would remove the opportunity for repentance whereas life imprisonment does not, I could not in good conscience ever support a return to the death penalty in my country.

On a broader note I think in general it is far easier to be taken seriously on the abortion issue if one is also anti-capital punishment and in favour of military actions only as a last resort and only where such action is as limited as possible ( in some cases this would nevertheless be fullscale war of course ). It can appear highly incongruent to be arguing the sanctity of life whilst applauding the execution of convicts and supporting disproportionate or inappropriate uses of military force.

[CuriousityKilledThe]

I've always felt that the death penalty was the easy way out for violent criminals. If prison resources weren't what they are, I think having to live out the rest of his mortal life in solitary confinement, forced EVERY day to think about why he is WHERE he is would be a much more fitting way to prepare for his final judgement day.

Not to mention that such a situation gives a criminal much more time to repent and come to Christ than the death penalty--and we know from the Bible that when one lamb, no matter how wicket or depraved he may be, returns to the flock, all the choirs in heaven rejoice.

And on a secular note, it costs the nation much more resources to execute a person than to put someone in jail for life. Executing a person costs more than jailing him for life because of ongoing trails, appeals, and legal costs, whereas there are no further appeals once someone gets life without parole: the costs for such a prisoner are just his living costs, which are much cheaper than paying for trails and lawyers for 20 years.

[silouanathonite]

Why is it wrong to enact the death penalty on someone who has been found guilty of enacting the death penalty on someone? I.e., why should a convicted murderer not be subject to the same act that he or she perpetrated? If God and Jesus used the fear of punishment to convince people to repent and do good, why isn't fear of punishment - i.e., death - a valid way of restraining murderers or would-be murderers?
I probably came in a little late as I have not read through the rest of posts, but I wanted to reply to this one. When Christ was being crucified he asked for those crucifying him to be forgiven because they know not what they do. St. Paul, persecuted many Christians, and is now one of many saints. I think (although my opinion doesn't mean much) by giving someone the penalty of death negates their opportunity to repent if they choose to. that is all I will say.

Pray for all...

[Jacob4707]

I think the simplest way an Orthodox can understand that in today's context, it's more sensible to be anti-death penalty is to simply bring up the proven fact that innocent people have been executed and will be executed as long as the death penalty exists. As long as there is a tiny possibility that an innocent person will slip into the system because our criminal justice system is not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't have the death penalty at all.

I don't accept the "tiny possibility" argument because it fails in so many other examples:

As long as there is a tiny possibility that a person who is not properly prepared to receive the Eucharist will slip into the line and put themselves at risk of 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 because not everyone properly fasts, prays, confesses & repents, loves his or her neighbor, removes all wrongs between themselves and other believers, defers to others at the coffee hour, etc., then we shouldn't have the Eucharist.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that a person not fully in control of their faculties will slip behind the steering wheel of a car and kill an innocent person because our police and traffic surveillance systems are not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't have driving at all.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that a basically heathy innocent person will die on the operating table because our medical procedures are not 100% accurate and safe, then we shouldn't have surgeries at all.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that an innocent person will be killled because our attacks and missile strikes are not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't use weapons in warfare at all.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that an innocent child will die at the hands of ill-equipped or abusive parents because people aren't perfect and our child welfare system is not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't have children at all.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that a convicted rapist or murderer will slip out of the system and back into society because our criminal justice system and prison system are not 100% perfect, then we should execute every such criminal immediately thus eliminating the possibility of their escape.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that a person with low self-esteem will be crushed by their failure to do well in school because our educational system is not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't have grades or performance measures at all.

[nutroll]

I don't accept the "tiny possibility" argument because it fails in so many other examples:

Here's why I think the "tiny possibility" argument is a valid one.

"Abraham came near and said, 'Will You indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? "Suppose there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are in it?'
'Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?'
So the LORD said, 'If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the whole place on their account.'
And Abraham replied, 'Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord, although I am but dust and ashes.'
'Suppose the fifty righteous are lacking five, will You destroy the whole city because of five?' And He said, 'I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.'
He spoke to Him yet again and said, 'Suppose forty are found there?' And He said, 'I will not do it on account of the forty.'
Then he said, 'Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak; suppose thirty are found there?' And He said, 'I will not do it if I find thirty there.'
31And he said, 'Now behold, I have ventured to speak to the Lord; suppose twenty are found there?' And He said, 'I will not destroy it on account of the twenty.'
32Then he said, 'Oh may the Lord not be angry, and I shall speak only this once; suppose ten are found there?' And He said, 'I will not destroy it on account of the ten.'
33As soon as He had finished speaking to Abraham the LORD departed, and Abraham returned to his place. " -- Genesis 18:23-33


As long as there is a tiny possibility that an innocent person will be killled because our attacks and missile strikes are not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't use weapons in warfare at all.

I tend to agree with this one myself....

[Jacob4707]

Here's why I think the "tiny possibility" argument is a valid one.

I tend to agree with this one myself....

And what about the orders God gave Moses and Joshua to do things like this: Deuteronomy 20:16-18, Joshua 6:21, etc.?

Plus, the Genesis account leaves open the possibility that there were still up to 9 righteous people in Sodom who were also destroyed along with the wicked.

The Bible tells us to have just laws and to enforce them justly, but it does not say to not execute criminals worthy of death because some innocents might be incorrectly executed due to a flawed system, people being framed, etc. In fact, the Bible gives many instances of persons who committed crimes worthy of death, and they were indeed executed, and properly so, it seems - i.e., there is no handwringing about it or thinking that such should not have been executed. In fact, in the case of Achan, his entire possibly-innocent family was executed along with him.

[irishseventysix]

And what about the orders God gave Moses and Joshua to do things like this: Deuteronomy 20:16-18, Joshua 6:21, etc.?

Plus, the Genesis account leaves open the possibility that there were still up to 9 righteous people in Sodom who were also destroyed along with the wicked.

The Bible tells us to have just laws and to enforce them justly, but it does not say to not execute criminals worthy of death because some innocents might be incorrectly executed due to a flawed system, people being framed, etc. In fact, the Bible gives many instances of persons who committed crimes worthy of death, and they were indeed executed, and properly so, it seems - i.e., there is no handwringing about it or thinking that such should not have been executed. In fact, in the case of Achan, his entire possibly-innocent family was executed along with him.
But there is a multitude of cases in Scripture where people could have been executed under the Law and weren't (I've brought a few of these cases up already)

And again, we are not ancient Israel. We have neither been promised the same things, nor do we even ATTEMPT to place God as our leader in this secularized, pluralistic, political nation, AS a nation.

Again, are parents wrong for not putting their rebellious kids to death? Should we stop wearing 50/50 cotton/poly? Should I repent of having taken out college loans? Should there be a national mandate to circumcise all men?

[Jacob4707]

Should there be a national mandate to circumcise all men?

Of course! With my choice of knives, too (i.e., rusty dull ones for people I don't like). Being already circumcised, I'm exempt, of course. ^_^

[eoe]

Hold Still!
http://www.cabelas.com/cabelas/en/content/Item/51/39/08/i513908sq04.jpg

[jckstraw72]

much of the Mosaic Law was for the purpose of segregating the Jews as God's people, such as not eating pig meat and the whole not mixing threads thing, but as far as I can tell, the morality issues have remained intact. The reason I brought up the Law in the first place was not to insinuate that we are bound by their covenant or that we should be, but that it demonstrates that God is not anti-death penalty. If He mandated it then are we to think He is against the idea in principle now? Wouldn't that constitute a change in the supposed-to-be unchanging God?

[nutroll]

If He mandated it then are we to think He is against the idea in principle now? Wouldn't that constitute a change in the supposed-to-be unchanging God?Only insofar as we can be sure why God mandated death for certain offenses. I think that much of the Law was instituted for the sake of man, not for the sake of God. Wee should not steal because it hurts our fellow man. Does God need each person to keep the possessions they have? No, it is for man's sake.

I don't believe that God commanded that people be stoned for certain offenses because he ever wanted those people to die, but because it was important for a new society to be strong. Likewise the wars and the infamous "ban" were something necessary to secure the nation of Israel. I don't think God rejoiced in the deaths of people.

So when Jesus became incarnate, and he told us among other things to turn the other cheek, this was not a changed God from the earlier eye-for-an-eye statement, but rather, the unchanging God saw that there were different needs for the changing world. Jesus preached peace, harmony, and non-violence in a way that does look different from the harsher commands given to Moses, but they are the words of a God who wants people to live together peacefully.

Now you can argue that God would still want ust to keep order, and that the death penalty is necessary to doing so, but when there are many indications that the death penalty kills innocents, and does not deter other violent crimes, I think it begs to be looked at critically. We should be trying to figure out what God wants for our society, and striving to do that.

[irishseventysix]

much of the Mosaic Law was for the purpose of segregating the Jews as God's people, such as not eating pig meat and the whole not mixing threads thing, but as far as I can tell, the morality issues have remained intact. The reason I brought up the Law in the first place was not to insinuate that we are bound by their covenant or that we should be, but that it demonstrates that God is not anti-death penalty. If He mandated it then are we to think He is against the idea in principle now? Wouldn't that constitute a change in the supposed-to-be unchanging God?
I don't necessarily disagree with you here. But this country should not have a DP...nor, in my opinion, should any modern country unless it IS given that mandate by God, Himself.

And even so, when God said "by man shall his blood be shed", he actually ended up PROTECTING Cain from having just that done to him.

And many others in the OT under the Law should have been killed by that mandate...but were actually spared by God and repented later.

So as I see it, these days, we're better off securely containing our criminals in order to give them that chance.

[jckstraw72]

turning the other cheek is about our individual Christian lives, whereas Romans 13 speaks of the state enacting justice and protection for its people. people have said can we support the government doing anything we shouldnt do ourselves--well St. Paul taught Christians in Rome that the state has that right as given by God, so regardless of whether I would kill, I will not teach against what St. Paul taught.

Here's something I found on Conciliar Press's page:

Capital Punishment


I spent most of my formative years and adult life as a pacifist. I registered as a concientious objector during the Vietnam War and was ready to head to Canada if my lottery number came up. I was anti war, anti self defense, anti death penalty. I can't really put a finger on when my views started shifting. The concrete shift happened when I took street fighting classes at a karate studio when I ran a residential treatment center for severely disturbed boys who had inclinations toward wanton mayhem. Being beaten with a baseball bat by a 180 pound "hyperactive" (as they were called back then) kid with no concience was not an option for running an effective treatment program. It might make good classroom arm chair philosophizing about non-violence, but broken teeth and bones and 12 other kids and my wife and child in the path of blind rage are not abstracts, they are real.
So...I know that does not illumine the question of restraint versus retribution and punishment. Life in prison restrains the evil doer. But then so does death. Which biblically and according to the Fathers of the Church, death IS indeed the ultimate constraint on evil. Death is actually the blessed curse, it cuts short the days of man so he cannot wax grossly evil. Death is also referred to in our readings for the Saints during the Vigil services as a blessing: God takes the righteous early so that they will be spared the evil days to come. So the question is not "death or no death" the question is "death by whose hands"? Capital punishment was exacted under the theocracy of Judaism. Yes it was a shadow of the Gospel. But the Theocracy of Judaism is fulfilled in the Church, not the State. No one who supports capital punishment believes the Church should execute its sinners and heretics or apostates. But the State is not the Church.
The Church exists for the redemption of the human being, an agent of the Gospel of forgiveness, the giver of the sacraments, the bearer of grace to the fallen race. What the Church cannot do is undo the temporal consequences of the actions of the human being. It may forgive the sin of embezzlement, but it does not forgive the debt or pay it for the embezzler.
It forgives adultery, but it does not pay the child support of the adulterer. It forgives the negligent homicide but it does not substitutionarily give one of its members to serve the prison sentence for the drunken driver who ran over the child on the sidewalk. While the Church can affirm life, repentance and forgiveness, it cannot legislate it. "The state does not bear the sword for naught", St. Paul says to the evildoer AND to good-doer. Do good and fear not the State and its sword he advises. Of course you've all heard this before. This is nothing new under the sun.
The tension is both theological and emotional. How does a finite human being perfectly join justice and mercy? Can we legitimately call on God, and God's ordained State authority to mete out justice to the evildoer, crush those who are enemies of life, peace and goodness? Is it wrong to cry to God to send SOMEONE to punish the men of a village in Afghanistan who are repeatedly raping 12 year old orphan girls...or whatever heinous crime sticks in YOUR head. Is fire and brimstone from heaven too good for them? What about fire and a bullet from an authorized agent of the State? Should they be given time to repent? Should we let them live to find God? What about the time they've already had? How have they used it? Opportunity for repentance abounds every minute of the day. Will a few more minutes make any difference? Perhaps knowing the minutes are about to end will be more motivating to repentance than the prospect of unlimited minutes in solitary confinement. I don't know.
Is the death penalty inhuman? No, it is ultimately human. Is it ungodly? No, God required it of His people. Is it effective? Depends on how you define effectiveness. Is it a restraint on those who might do evil? Maybe. Maybe not. Does it restrain the one who has done evil. You bet, once and for all. Can he be restrained by confinement? Maybe.
But, ultimately it may not be about restraint alone. It might be more about bringing the inhumanity of humanity left without God up front and personal to the evil doer and the ones who are executing him. If balancing the books of body counts is all its about then what are we about? If its about the violation of something greater than one materialistically determined biological unit doing something to make another biological unit to cease functioning, then we have whole 'nother thing going on here. Justice is about love. We kill the killer because we know more than mere biology has been violated. Love has been violated. No love, no life. The killer exhibits no love and kills someone who is loved by someone else. "Society"...what is society? ...an amalgam of beings that join together in a community mutually respecting and affirming life: love at a primeaval level, I suppose.... society condemns and kills the ones who refuse to submit to love. What if they've learned to love? All the better, then they are prepared to meet their Lover on good terms, and if that is the case, then they are better off than we who are left behind and have to continue the struggle to repent and prepare to meet our God.
Can someone be about grace, love and repentance and still believe in the death penalty. I think so. I am. I pray Tookie Williams or whatever his name was, repented and is forgiven. I even think "society" can forgive him and still take his life, because God would have sooner or later anyway whether he was ready or not... and perhaps this is merely the way God decides to do it by ordaining civil authority to carry the sword.

[CuriousityKilledThe]

I don't accept the "tiny possibility" argument because it fails in so many other examples:

As long as there is a tiny possibility that a person who is not properly prepared to receive the Eucharist will slip into the line and put themselves at risk of 1 Corinthians 11:29-30 because not everyone properly fasts, prays, confesses & repents, loves his or her neighbor, removes all wrongs between themselves and other believers, defers to others at the coffee hour, etc., then we shouldn't have the Eucharist.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that a person not fully in control of their faculties will slip behind the steering wheel of a car and kill an innocent person because our police and traffic surveillance systems are not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't have driving at all.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that a basically heathy innocent person will die on the operating table because our medical procedures are not 100% accurate and safe, then we shouldn't have surgeries at all.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that an innocent person will be killled because our attacks and missile strikes are not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't use weapons in warfare at all.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that an innocent child will die at the hands of ill-equipped or abusive parents because people aren't perfect and our child welfare system is not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't have children at all.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that a convicted rapist or murderer will slip out of the system and back into society because our criminal justice system and prison system are not 100% perfect, then we should execute every such criminal immediately thus eliminating the possibility of their escape.

As long as there is a tiny possibility that a person with low self-esteem will be crushed by their failure to do well in school because our educational system is not 100% accurate, then we shouldn't have grades or performance measures at all.

The tiny possibility argument rests on the assumption that there are better alternatives.

What is being said here is that, "Capital punishment can and does kill innocent people. This is an unacceptable situation because there are better alternatives."

The better alternative being life without a parole, a system that is cheaper and more mercifiul than capital punishment, while capital punishment is not a deterrant, it is not failproof, it is expensive, and at this point in time only serves to satisfy a desire for revenge.

Actually, your examples sort of prove my point. Quite helpful:

If someone needs an operation, and there is a 1% chance that the operation might fail, what should we do? Take a harsh, unmerciful stance towards the operation (analogous to the death penalty) and ban it outright, or should we instead take a more levelheaded, forgiving approach, and realize that there is a much greater change that the operation will result in a success (just like there is a much greater change that a criminal imprisoned for life will come around)? Obviously, you will probably opt for the latter.

If a child might be born to abusive parents, should we take the unmerciful, draconian steps of banning childbirth completely (analagous to the death penalty, a draconian, "final solution" that leaves no room for compromise or repentance) or should we instead focus on improving education and social institutions that will decrease the chance that children will be born into abusive situations?

If there is a chance that a prisoner may escape, should we resort to the merciless solution of executing anyone (take the death penalty, which is a sort of "if someone murders someone we should execute them" and write it large), or should we take the merciful, more commonsensical approach of improving prison security and trying to better social conditions to decrease the amount of criminals?

If a person has low self esteem, should we resort to the rather harsh and unforgiving policy of not allowing them to go to school, or should we instead resort to the more levelheaded, forgiving, and oppurtunity laden path of educating students and their peers about the importance of self esteem and fairness?

You basically ask these questions. Great. The death penalty question fits perfectly into this rubric:

Should we take convicted murderers, and apply an unforgiving tactic of literally murdering them back, regardless of whether or not they may repent, or if they may be innocent, perpetuating a system that is neither an effective deterrant or a cheaper solution, or, should we instead take the more merciful, commonsensical approach of jailing people for life, which is cheaper, more effective, and less vengeful, and which 1) gives those who are guilty much more time to turn to Christ (which has happened several times, who knows how many people who have been executed could've been in heaven right now if they had been given a lifetime to contemplate their deeds) and 2) gives those who are innocent the chance to live.

As for the missile example, I think it's pretty sensical to say if there's a tiny chance that a innocent person might die, it's better not to use the weapon at all.

[jckstraw72]

The better alternative being life without a parole, a system that is cheaper and more mercifiul than capital punishment, while capital punishment is not a deterrant, it is not failproof, it is expensive, and at this point in time only serves to satisfy a desire for revenge.

dont you think St. Paul thought about this before he wrote (except the money issue)? He says states wield the sword for vengeance. He seems to be ok with revenge, or justice, as it is in these cases. What may seem "better" to us may not be better in the eyes of God. In another thread (I think concerning the Orthodox view of salvation) I saw an Orthodox person arguing that God sometimes kills people in order to mercifully end their lives before they are completely hardened against Him. I think he was saying this to show that God's judgment is merciful and not angry like certian Protestant churches understand it to be. So in effect, he was arguing that capital punishment is merciful.

[nutroll]

turning the other cheek is about our individual Christian lives, whereas Romans 13 speaks of the state enacting justice and protection for its people. people have said can we support the government doing anything we shouldnt do ourselves--well St. Paul taught Christians in Rome that the state has that right as given by God, so regardless of whether I would kill, I will not teach against what St. Paul taught.

There is a distinction that bears repeating with regards to Romans 13. I for one am completely against the death penalty. Our country has a death penalty. If I was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, I would accept that death as my punishment for having commited murder. I believe that our country has the right to do that if I am guilty. That being said, when I vote, I look at a person's record on the death penalty. If there was a referendum on the death penalty, i would vote for its abolishment. No one ever asked whether we should personally execute criminals, we are talking about whether we should empower our government to do something on our behalf. St. Paul did not live in a democracy. He could not have voted for against the death penalty.

[jckstraw72]

I believe that our country has the right to do that if I am guilty

that is what im saying.

so if i believe they have the right then i dont see why i would vote against it.

[nutroll]

that is what im saying.

so if i believe they have the right then i dont see why i would vote against it.

They have the right because we gave them the right by voting them into office. That has nothing to do with whether they ought to have the right. Women in the US have the right to an abortion, yet there is great debate over whether they should.

[jckstraw72]

i thought about this while riding my bike earlier:

In Romans 13 we have St. Paul describing for us, by the inspiration of God, the purpose and powers of governments. It seems clear to me that St. Paul is saying governments have this right bc of God, and he is telling other Christians to acknowledge this as well. He says nothing about what form of government it applies to. We are given the God-inspired picture of what a government is for and can do, thus I see it as my duty to uphold this image of a state as St. Paul describes it. He says that the powers that be are for good to the people and not a terror, while also describing the state with a vengeful sword so I dont think we can conclude that capital punishment is a BAD thing, when St. Paul tells us it is a GOOD thing.

[nutroll]

So abortion must be acceptable in God's eyes because the government says that it is. Other countries that have no death penalty must have a different God because their God-appointed leaders have said it is wrong. St. Paul is merely saying that we ought to obey the rules of the society in which we live. But he was not referring to a society in which the people had the capacity to change the law through legal means.

St. Paul was saying the capital punishment was a part of the society in which he lived and that he would not incite political rebellion to change it. But ultimately he would be subjected to the death penalty. Do you think St. Paul should have been executed? Should we execute those who are doing God's work and spreading the true Gospel?

[Theophorus]

i thought about this while riding my bike earlier:

In Romans 13 we have St. Paul describing for us, by the inspiration of God, the purpose and powers of governments. It seems clear to me that St. Paul is saying governments have this right bc of God, and he is telling other Christians to acknowledge this as well. He says nothing about what form of government it applies to. We are given the God-inspired picture of what a government is for and can do, thus I see it as my duty to uphold this image of a state as St. Paul describes it. He says that the powers that be are for good to the people and not a terror, while also describing the state with a vengeful sword so I dont think we can conclude that capital punishment is a BAD thing, when St. Paul tells us it is a GOOD thing.

The very state he talked about considered him guilty and murdered him. I think that it is possible to take the lesson of Paul, which I believe talks of humility, obedience and even martyrdom, to the extreme of patriotism, which would always see the state as promoting good.

I do not think we can apply virtue to the state, only ourselves and to the Church. Paul's lesson is on how to conduct one's self within this often difficult relationship, imo.

[Theophorus]

ROM. XIII. 1.-"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers."
"Of this subject he makes much account in other epistles also, setting subjects under their rulers as household servants are under their masters. And this he does to show that it was not for the subversion of the commonwealth that Christ introduced His laws, but for the better ordering of it, and to teach men not to be taking up unnecessary and unprofitable wars. For the plots that are formed against us for the truth's sake are sufficient and we have no need to be adding temptations superfluous and unprofitable."

St. John Chrysostom concerning Romans 13:1

[Theophorus]

double post

[Maksim]

i thought about this while riding my bike earlier:

In Romans 13 we have St. Paul describing for us, by the inspiration of God, the purpose and powers of governments. It seems clear to me that St. Paul is saying governments have this right bc of God, and he is telling other Christians to acknowledge this as well. He says nothing about what form of government it applies to. We are given the God-inspired picture of what a government is for and can do, thus I see it as my duty to uphold this image of a state as St. Paul describes it. He says that the powers that be are for good to the people and not a terror, while also describing the state with a vengeful sword so I dont think we can conclude that capital punishment is a BAD thing, when St. Paul tells us it is a GOOD thing.

I think we are looking at this in two different ways. God can use anything (including pagan governments) to his purposes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anything God can use is good for us to take part in personally.

St Paul's description of governments doesn't say anything about Christians actually participating in forceful government. As I've mentioned elsewhere, St Paul also gives us what could be called a "God-inspired picture" of slavery, including a similar admonition to that in Romans 13 for slaves to obey their masters. Should Christians feel compelled to actively uphold and participate in slavery, on that basis?

[Theophorus]

I think we are looking at this in two different ways. God can use anything (including pagan governments) to his purposes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anything God can use is good for us to take part in personally.


further on in the same homily...

""For there is no power," he says, "but of God." What say you? it may be said; is every ruler then elected by God? This I do not say, he answers. Nor am I now speaking about individual rulers, but about the thing in itself. For that there should be rulers, and some rule and others be ruled, and that all things should not just be carried on in one confusion, the people swaying like waves in this direction and that; this, I say, is the work of God's wisdom. Hence he does not say, "for there is no ruler but of God;" but it is the thing he speaks of, and says, "there is no power but of God.1 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/footnote/fn30.htm#P3071_2881193) And the powers that be, are ordained of God." Thus when a certain wise man saith, "It is by the Lord that a man is matched with a woman" (Prov. xix. 14, LXX.), he means this, God made marriage, and not that it is He that joineth together every man that cometh to be with a woman. For we see many that come to be with one another for evil, even by the law of marriage, and this we should not ascribe to God. But as He said Himself, "He which made them at the beginning, made them male and female, and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall leave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh." (Matt. xix. 4, Matt. xix. 5; Gen. ii. 24.) And this is what that wise man meant to explain."

St. John Chrysostom

[jckstraw72]

So abortion must be acceptable in God's eyes because the government says that it is.

no, obviously if what a government does is against the laws of God then it is in error.


St. Paul is merely saying that we ought to obey the rules of the society in which we live. But he was not referring to a society in which the people had the capacity to change the law through legal means


how do you know that? are we to believe that this chapter of the Bible no longer carries significance for us, or at least some of the verses?

St. Paul was saying the capital punishment was a part of the society in which he lived and that he would not incite political rebellion to change it. But ultimately he would be subjected to the death penalty. Do you think St. Paul should have been executed? Should we execute those who are doing God's work and spreading the true Gospel?

obviously i do not. and yet it was part of God's plan. Jesus Himself prophecied of St. Peter's execution. God works in mysterious ways that we should not try to rationalize. The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the Church, so martyrdom may suck on the individual level, but it does a wealth of good for the whole

As I've mentioned elsewhere, St Paul also gives us what could be called a "God-inspired picture" of slavery, including a similar admonition to that in Romans 13 for slaves to obey their masters. Should Christians feel compelled to actively uphold and participate in slavery, on that basis?

no. in Philemon St. Paul tells us how a Christian master should treat a slave, but does not say Christians must have slaves. Elsewhere he also says that if we become Christians while in slavery that we should not seek freedom. He is saying IF we are in these situations then act this way.... In Romans 13 St. Paul is telling us what a government should be like and how we should act under it. its not a hypothetical situation, or addressed to a particular situation as in Philemon. He says "Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves", thus continuing God's institution of the death penalty, pre-Law, in Genesis 9:6 in which he says if you kill anyone (resisting authority) you will find death for yourself (receive condemnation upon yourself). Again, it says nothing of applying to only one form of government, or only the Roman government, nor does St. Paul seem to indicate that he thinks governments will be perfect. God gave the death penalty to the Jews but does that mean it was used perfectly by them? I highly doubt it, and yet God, Who would know of its imperfections, gave it to them anyways.

the argument that we have a different situation nowadays bc we are democracies, i think, is weak. Tradition tells us what the Church is for, and in Romans St. Paul tells us what government is for. As a Christian I should be faithful to the words of St. Paul and thus I should agree with the image of government that he provides for us. Why would I attempt to deny to a governemnt the rights and powers that St. Paul tells us a government is God-intended to have?

[jckstraw72]

good night ya'll and God bless.

[Maksim]

no. in Philemon St. Paul tells us how a Christian master should treat a slave, but does not say Christians must have slaves.

But similarly, I have searched Romans 13 in vain for any indication that Christians must or should participate in the vengeance of the government.

(To be honest though, I think we might be overanalyzing a particular passage, given our limited capabilities as laymen. Especially one as difficult and debated as Romans 13)

[irishseventysix]

dont you think St. Paul thought about this before he wrote (except the money issue)? He says states wield the sword for vengeance. He seems to be ok with revenge, or justice, as it is in these cases. What may seem "better" to us may not be better in the eyes of God. In another thread (I think concerning the Orthodox view of salvation) I saw an Orthodox person arguing that God sometimes kills people in order to mercifully end their lives before they are completely hardened against Him. I think he was saying this to show that God's judgment is merciful and not angry like certian Protestant churches understand it to be. So in effect, he was arguing that capital punishment is merciful.
Do you really think that Paul was okay in how Emperor Nero was handling things? He burned down half of Rome and blamed it on the Christians. The Roman government said that homosexuality was okay...and it was practiced then...a lot. Does that mean that we should approve of it, too? There's a difference between what God blesses and simply allows. He blessed Israel's enactment of the DP. Does that mean that He blesses it for everyone?

Does it also mean that it's okay for our government to allow 1.3 million babies a year to be aborted...because God has given our government the power to make that decision?

Wasn't Paul's point more for Christians to not act illegally or rebelliously unless their faith was compromised?

[choirfiend]

Do you really think that Paul was okay in how Emperor Nero was handling things? He burned down half of Rome and blamed it on the Christians. The Roman government said that homosexuality was okay...and it was practiced then...a lot. Does that mean that we should approve of it, too? There's a difference between what God blesses and simply allows. He blessed Israel's enactment of the DP. Does that mean that He blesses it for everyone?

Does it also mean that it's okay for our government to allow 1.3 million babies a year to be aborted...because God has given our government the power to make that decision?

Wasn't Paul's point more for Christians to not act illegally or rebelliously unless their faith was compromised?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to irishseventysix again.

[jckstraw72]

But similarly, I have searched Romans 13 in vain for any indication that Christians must or should participate in the vengeance of the government.


my point is that the state's God-given purpose is vengeance agaisnt those who do evil, therefore, why should i attempt to deny them this purpose? St. Paul flat out says "this is what states are for...." so I dont see a reason to have a problem with it.


Do you really think that Paul was okay in how Emperor Nero was handling things? He burned down half of Rome and blamed it on the Christians. The Roman government said that homosexuality was okay...and it was practiced then...a lot. Does that mean that we should approve of it, too?


Im not sure what the immoral actions of the Roman government have to do with anything....St. Paul said to obey the government, he doesn't say ev