Heidi and I seem to disagree here:
I find that quite interesting. On several levels. Firstly, the law of the land does not, in my humble opinion, supercede the moral and even more importantly spiritual law of right and wrong. To which "law" is MikeT referring, I ask?
Biblical law calls for the death penalty for those who indulge in the abuse of the innocent in the area of sexual immorality. Incest, homosexuality and bestiality being among those behaviors deserving of death. As a side note, that same passage, Leviticus 20, also applies to those who engage in "spiritism" and would call themselves "mediums".
If the national law allows a pedophile to get away with writing an essay is he or she any less deserving of death? I suppose that all depends on whether or not one would choose to acknowledge the relevance of the Torah and the Tanakh, eh?
I stand by my statement. If I am aware that a person has abused my child, I will defend my child to the full extent of my ability to do so. There's no free pass.
......
And to take a life in the spur of the moment as being somehow forgiveable while the pre-meditated and methodical variety being less acceptable? How so? I believe those who prey on the weak forfeit their right to basic human dignity. They show they are incapable of allowing their victims that right.
This is what I said that brough this on:
I don't think I could kill someone like that if I didn't catch them in the act. It's one thing in the spur of the moment, but if you really sit down and think about it, you're no better than they are. If the law has failed you, then you have to accept that as God's will and move on.
I fail to see what the Torah and Tanakh have to do with our secular legal system. If you "give the death penalty" to someone for molesting your small child, and by that I mean commit pre-meditated murder, you are going to be put to death under both God's law and American law. It's that simple. Private citizens are simply not allowed to regard the legal system as entirely optional. A jury might find you not guilty through nullification or insanity, and a priest or God might find your actions in line with scripture on some level, but simply eschewing the legal process which provides remedies for such criminal offenses is not an option.
My point is very simple. Two wrongs don't make a right. If Chester the Molester gets your son, he will be held responsible for that, and if you murder him several days after the fact, you too are guilty of a sin--murder. The people of God are not supposed to indulge in situational, flimsy morality such as saying, "the Law says he should die, so I think I'll put a 9mm bullet through his head." This becomes extremely problematic when talking about gentile nations because there is a consensus in the New Testament that gentiles are not bound to the Mosaic Law, but rather to avoid basic immorality such as sexual immorality.
I do not debate your right to use force, including deadly force, to stop someone in the act. I do not debate your right to use force to haul them before the authorities to stand trial. However, to seek them out and simply shoot them dead fails the self-defense or "other-defense" exceptions to murder. I could not do this to someone who would do that to my kids, when I have them, because how could I ever say to them that murder is wrong if I believe myself, a mere man, to be exempt?
Part of the difference here is that I am a very liberal Calvinist. My thinking on a lot of this is influenced by the concept of total depravity, which basically states that apart from God's grace, there is no righteousness. Even the good we do is purely from God, as it is only possible through God's grace. Naturally, I fully embrace that while I may like to kill someone who molested my kid well after the fact, I am on my own no better than him because I am a sinner. By sheer fact of being a sinner, I deserve death no less than the person who victimized my child. Part of our submission to God is trying to realize that we unworthy recipients of mercy, and that we deserve God's wrath no less than those who hurt us and our own.
As a sinner (and we all are) not one sin is greater than another, correct?
A sin is a sin.
and
Two wrongs make a left, not a right :)
He has it covered, it's all that truly matters.
I disagree with the idea that sins are equivalent.
Certain sins (murder, adultery) are clearly considered by the Bible to be worse than others (causing a miscarriage, for instance) - you can tell by the proscribed penalty.
From a Jewish point of view, Gentiles are bound by the "Noahide laws" (the laws Noah followed to be the most righteous man of his generation) (more in the wikipedia entry).
Jewish law would not permit me to summarily execute Chester the Molester, but being human, I do not know that if a person had molested my child that I would be able to restrain myself from vengance. That desire is very human, and is acknowledged in Jewish law in the form of the laws of the "Blood Avenger" (no longer in force today, because we don't have cities of refuge, a Temple, etc).
Oh disagree all you need to, it still won't make you right - or is that left?
David,
I think you are confusing the Mosaic Law with divine punishment. The Mosaic Law was intended to be the civil law of Israel, and thus it had to be much more liberal than what God would do under His government. Could you imagine execution for every single offense? Yet that is what James 2:10 implies when it says that if you keep all of the law, but one area, you've broken all of the law. If you have just lied, you are in the same boat as a sinner as a murderer or child rapist (ie, you're damned aside from God's grace).
God's punishment and the Mosaic Law served two separate purposes. The former was entrance into union with Him in Heaven, the latter was to keep the peace on this side of eternity and to govern Israel.
You are all missing the point.
The basis of the death penalty to to protect the next victim, not the last one.
A molester deserves death. Society gives him death because there is no safe way to ever permit such a person to be free in society. The same goes for the pathologically violent.
I believe you have a moral obligation to execute a molester rather than accept the risk that he will harm another child when you are not around.
Legal precedent: In my county, it is illegal to live capture mice, fox, skunks, or groundhogs and release them on another person's property. They are an infestation and a nuisance. The law requires you to kill them outright or let them be.
You can let the courts do their thing if you want, but since there is no death penalty anywhere in the USA for child molestation, this course of action is ultimately futile. Eventually, the bad guy will molest again and you, the jury, the courts and the legislators will all be accomplices to his next crime.
You have a moral right to self defense. You can waive this if you chose. You have a moral obligation to defend others against harm, especially those who cannot defend themselves. Laws to the contrary do not relieve you of that obligation. You cannot waive it.
This is not a turn-the-other-cheek situation.
MikeT,
Jewish law is obviously not bound by Christian scripture, and in fact James' statement is incorrect as a matter of Jewish law (although that has no bearing on its relevance for Christian theology).
Divine punishment is just that: Divine. God knows the hearts of all, and will punish us for our misdeeds, and hopefully will remember our righteous actions when judging us.
Also, saying that lying is always a sin is mistaken: God himself lies when communicating to Abraham about Sarah's response to hearing of her upcoming pregnancy. This shows that there must be acceptable cases, as all of Judeo-Christian religious thought is imitateo Dei (emulating Godly attributes/behaviors), as we're enjoined to do ("Be holy, for I am holy" etc.)
It is not a turn-the-other-cheek situation, but there is ample room there for varying degrees of punishment depending on the situation. I would never support giving the death penalty or life in prison to a grown man who has sex with a thirteen year old girl, except if she's being clearly raped. I would support that for a grown man who did that to a 3 year old. Right now our laws call it all the same, whether the person is 17 months old or 17 years old in many jurisdictions.
That said, I think there is a case to be made, if you want to, for the execution of all violent felons. Everything from armed robbery to rape to murder. I think our society would be better off if armed robbers faced the death penalty even if they did not actually use violence, just the threat of it.
And with respect to recidivism, you have to be careful with blaming the judge and jury. Virtually all felons should then be suspect, no matter what they did.
For a Christian, Jewish law is indeed subordinate to Christian scripture. Doesn't matter whether you're a Hebrew Christian or a gentile Christian. That is why I have said that it doesn't matter what is permissible under Jewish law. Heidi and I are both bound by the new covenant, which would severely judge either of us for cold-blooded murder under ANY circumstance. We would not go to Hell, but it would greatly diminish our standing before God.
How would it diminish your standing before God?
Take this from 1 Corinthians 3:5-15,
It will diminish the sorts of gifts and reward you will get for how you were a steward of your life. You can refer also to the Parable of the Minas in the Gospel of Luke for another reference to what I mean if you want. Committing murder would undoubtedly have a devastating impact on your heavenly rewards and all that goes with that. It might be enough to negate half of the good works from you entire life. You would, in essence, be throwing out a tremendous amount of blessings from God for taking vengeance into your own hands, which we know is wrong because as God said, "vengeance is mine alone."
It seems to me that there is some misreading of the Torah here that should not be overlooked, Mike T.
First, the Bible requires that "everything" be confirmed in the mouths of "two or three" witnesses.
"Caught in the act" is fine - but I don't see the two witness standard being met here, either.
Second, you are correct on the 'cold-blooded' issue, even so far as the etymology of the term.
As others have implied, however, if the Bast$#@ ever so much crosses the threshold of one's house again without permission...
And this bet of probably repetition, Mike:
"Jewish law is indeed subordinate to Christian scripture...Heidi and I are both bound by the new covenant..."
which [read carefully!] Yeshua made VERY clear He did not change. He clarified what He Wrote, in sharp preference to what 'they' said should have been written.
The key here is to understand what "thou shalt not murder" really means.
I didn't say that He changed the Law. What I was trying to get across is that as Christians there are things we cannot do and remain in good standing. Not salvation-killing, but the sort of things that truly displease God. I think God would be severely upset with a Christian who engaged in the "avenger of blood" deal. The way I see it is that part of the covenant is to accept things the way God wants them to. I hear a lot of what is permissible under the law, but not a lot of what we ought to do. Think about the dichotomy between the avenger of blood and all of the words about forgiving one's enemies and "vengeance is mine alone." That's an example of what I am getting at.
I can tell you right now, part of me would have no mercy on someone who justified themselves under the avenger of blood idea and came after me and mine for manslaughter. I'd kill them in a heartbeat. The kind of men who bluster about how they'd shoot or beat a young man if they thought he put the moves on their daughter also get that response out of me.