re: We see the results of our revolving door of “justice” every day. Meanwhile…

quote:

---

Policies about people

---

Even with this framing, people = everyone.

quote:

---

You aren't advocating for policies that protect innocents

---

People who aren't committing crimes aren't innocents?

quote:

---

You are advocating for policies that enable the violent criminals.

---

I'm advocating for the rights of everyone, including you. The question is why you're so keen to give up your rights and protections from government and why you think this doesn't apply to you.

quote:

---

Go read up on what they did

---

quote:

---

How are you going to unevenly apply this policy?

---

Punish the criminals. Protect the innocents.

quote:

---

My point was that God does not do away with justice at the expense of mercy, but God is just, and the state should uphold justice, as Paul taught in Romans 13, since they "wield the sword" of justice.

---

I get that, but I have two problems with it.

First, the way you're arguing this (which is the way I see many Christians who seem want to satisfy feelings of vengeance in their hearts argue it) is that we should agree with however the state chooses to govern—in this case regarding crime and punishment.

That logic means that abortion (or anything else the stats sanctions) is to be tolerated by Christians, because the authority of the state has legalized it and God put that authority in place. The argument has to be more nuanced than that. Otherwise if the government made it illegal to gather and worship Christ (which it has in many countries around the world,) you should simply shrug and obey the authorities according to your logic.

Speaking of which, saying that Jesus didn't object to people being crucified (including Himself), so it must be just, is an Argument From Silence. Jesus also didn't say anything (that we know about) about abortion (which existed in His day). That doesn't mean it's o.k. since He didn't say anything against it.

In fact, there is an argument to be made that it is specifically the things that everyone agrees upon that do not merit specific discussion. Rome was legendary for harsh punishment and the Jews universally agreed that they did not want to be ruled by Rome. I would argue that Jesus specifically refrained from commenting on their punishments because it was unnecessary since everyone agreed on it anyway, as well as the fact that His mission was so much greater than Earthly justice.

And that brings us back to this discussion. Sure, we need an earthly government in place, the same way we needed the Law of Moses. But it's just to provide some order here and to prevent gross abuses. It's not really "justice." Only God can mete that out. Morality is grounded in God and therefore has to be settled by Him. Which is why He specifically stated that vengeance was His. It's also why Jesus went through His dialogue on, "You have heard that ________, but I say to you, __________. He was telling the people that the Law was insufficient to transform their hearts. Only He could do that.

We know as much of a fact as we can know at this point that capital punishment does not deter crime. So it provides no benefit in terms of helping maintain order. I think we cheer for it because it satisfies our emotional need for revenge or comeuppance, which is obviously not Christ-like at all.

BTW, I'm not accusing you specifically of having that kind of heart (well, any more than all of us do), but you are arguing like people I have seen who I'm pretty sure did lean into that emotion.

As they say, there are people who speak the Truth in love, and there are people who just love to speak the truth.

The difference is in the heart. That's why I was surprised to see your initial post. It sounded a lot more like the latter than the former to me, which I have never gotten from reading your posts before.

God doesn't want people to perish and neither should we. IMO we should be rooting (and praying) for people to turn their lives around and become instruments of the Divine (like Paul and David and Moses, who were all murderers) rather than regarding them impassively like cordwood for the state to burn.

Ezekiel 18:23.

Our legal system makes good money by being dysfunctional.

quote:

---

First, the way you're arguing this (which is the way I see many Christians who seem want to satisfy feelings of vengeance in their hearts argue it) is that we should agree with however the state chooses to govern—in this case regarding crime and punishment.

That logic means that abortion (or anything else the stats sanctions) is to be tolerated by Christians, because the authority of the state has legalized it and God put that authority in place. The argument has to be more nuanced than that. Otherwise if the government made it illegal to gather and worship Christ (which it has in many countries around the world,) you should simply shrug and obey the authorities according to your logic.

---

I respectfully disagree that I'm arguing that we should agree with however the state chooses to govern. I'm not saying that at all, because I don't believe the state is the source of its own authority. In other topics, I have spoken more about this, even recently on the death penalty.

My position is this:
1. The state is God's servant for good (according to God's definition of it), and should be obeyed because God commands us to obey it due to the authority He has given it.
2. The state is to govern justly according to biblical principles of justice, because what is morally right comes from God, not the state.
3. We can disobey the state when she commands disobedience to God, because her authority is derived from God's authority, not the other way around.

So no, my logic is not that we should obey the state over God if she were to command disobedience to God.

quote:

---

Speaking of which, saying that Jesus didn't object to people being crucified (including Himself), so it must be just, is an Argument From Silence. Jesus also didn't say anything (that we know about) about abortion (which existed in His day). That doesn't mean it's o.k. since He didn't say anything against it.

---

I disagree that this is an argument from silence. Not only does the acknowledgement of the right of Rome to execute criminals (even if Jesus was innocent) by Jesus consistent with the rest of the Bible, which it must be, but Jesus affirmed Pilate's authority to crucify Him. When Pilate told Jesus that he had the authority to let Jesus go or to crucify Him (John 19:10-11), Jesus responded, not by denying he had such authority, but by saying he wouldn't have such authority unless it was given to him by God. Jesus didn't challenge his right to execute criminals, but pointed him to the source of his authority.

quote:

---

In fact, there is an argument to be made that it is specifically the things that everyone agrees upon that do not merit specific discussion. Rome was legendary for harsh punishment and the Jews universally agreed that they did not want to be ruled by Rome. I would argue that Jesus specifically refrained from commenting on their punishments because it was unnecessary since everyone agreed on it anyway, as well as the fact that His mission was so much greater than Earthly justice.

---

Again, John 19 was a private audience between Jesus and Pilate, so what the Jews understood was irrelevant in that situation.

More than that, though, whatever the Jews thought about Rome, they had their own law which included the death penalty. Jesus upheld the whole law of Moses, including the laws that breaking them resulted in death. Jesus cited one of these in Matthew 15:4, where, in support of the Bible, He quoted, "Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die."

Jesus didn't abrogate the death penalty with the woman caught in adultery, either. He had no legal right to kill the woman, and He called attention to the hypocrisy of the Jews by only bringing the woman who was "caught", when the law said that both parties were to be stoned.

quote:

---

And that brings us back to this discussion. Sure, we need an earthly government in place, the same way we needed the Law of Moses. But it's just to provide some order here and to prevent gross abuses. It's not really "justice." Only God can mete that out. Morality is grounded in God and therefore has to be settled by Him. Which is why He specifically stated that vengeance was His. It's also why Jesus went through His dialogue on, "You have heard that ________, but I say to you, __________. He was telling the people that the Law was insufficient to transform their hearts. Only He could do that.

---

That position (that imperfect justice isn't justice) is not what was taught in Scriptures, though. Laws of justice were given to the people of Israel even through such justice was imperfect, yet God called on the rulers to act justly, with the assumption that they could do so. Paul's statement that the government wields the sword to reward good and punish evil (Rom. 13) implies that they actually do that, even if imperfectly.

Also, Jesus' statements about "you have heard that..." was not Him condemning the law, but correcting the understanding of the people about the law. He didn't destroy the law, but fulfilled it.

quote:

---

We know as much of a fact as we can know at this point that capital punishment does not deter crime. So it provides no benefit in terms of helping maintain order. I think we cheer for it because it satisfies our emotional need for revenge or comeuppance, which is obviously not Christ-like at all.

---

God commanded the death penalty long before the law of Moses (Gen. 9:6). The death penalty for murder is based on man being created in God's image, and therefore it doesn't matter if it deters crime (though I still believe it would if it were used more consistently). God considers it a just act if used justly, so I believe it should be used justly.

quote:

---

BTW, I'm not accusing you specifically of having that kind of heart (well, any more than all of us do), but you are arguing like people I have seen who I'm pretty sure did lean into that emotion.

As they say, there are people who speak the Truth in love, and there are people who just love to speak the truth.

The difference is in the heart. That's why I was surprised to see your initial post. It sounded a lot more like the latter than the former to me, which I have never gotten from reading your posts before.

God doesn't want people to perish and neither should we. IMO we should be rooting (and praying) for people to turn their lives around and become instruments of the Divine (like Paul and David and Moses, who were all murderers) rather than regarding them impassively like cordwood for the state to burn.

---

Thank you for thinking the best of me and being surprised by my tone. I assure you that I don't say these things out of malice or hatred for anyone, and I, too, desire everyone to repent of their sins and turn their lives around by the power of God's work. Even in this defense, I recognize that many will disagree and even think I am blood-thirsty, but I am not.

God is a just God and condemned Israel time and time again for not providing justice, so it really is something that He cares about and therefore is something we all should care about. When I press for justice, it is not because I want someone to die. It's because I believe God demands us to take justice seriously, and when we let people off easy for destroying God's image-bearers, we become complicit with those who do it. The desire for justice should be held with humility and hesitancy, but it should be held.

quote:

---

Punish the criminals. Protect the innocents.

---

Already covered

quote:

---

Now, if you could create this magical system that determines who is a real criminal from the outset, it would solve everything. That system would be powered by ground unicorn horns and terds of a chupacabra.

---

Read the thread before you look even more foolish

quote:

---

That logic means that abortion (or anything else the stats sanctions) is to be tolerated by Christians, because the authority of the state has legalized it and God put that authority in place. The argument has to be more nuanced than that. Otherwise if the government made it illegal to gather and worship Christ (which it has in many countries around the world,) you should simply shrug and obey the authorities according to your logic.

---

You're correct.

People like Foo argue the point about the interaction between religion and government dishonestly and sometimes separate the two and sometimes combine the two, based on feelings.

There's a lot that I could respond to and I would if it were just the two of us talking. But in a public forum I'll limit it to this:

quote:

---

I, too, desire everyone to repent of their sins and turn their lives around by the power of God's work.

---

How do they do that if they are dead?

Again, Moses was a murderer. So was David. So was Paul. Peter sliced off an attendant's/guard's ear, so under our laws he probably could have been convicted of attempted murder...at the very least assault with a deadly weapon. And if Jesus hadn't miraculously healed the man, what would have happened to Peter?

It's clear that God can use even people who have committed violent crimes to accomplish great things for Him on Earth.

But not if they are dead.

Just for those reading, I'm not in any way saying that people who commit violent crimes shouldn't be removed from society so that they can't continue to hurt other people.

I'm also not saying that everyone can be rehabilitated and be helped to become productive members of society...some people are just anti-social types who cannot develop any sense of empathy or deference to authority.

But we don't even try. We have no idea what the success of a system like that would be, because we've never had one.

In fact, everything about the current system is designed to make cons more violent, more desperate when they get out of prison, and into more skilled and accomplished criminals.

It's really stupid. Forget any spiritual or moral considerations, it's just dumb, dumb, dumb. And SFP is correct...it's also massively expensive.

Even if 30% of convicts were able to be turned around and oriented toward participating in society as productive members instead of outsiders who prey upon others, that would be a great benefit to society.

As it is, we're committed to a system based pretty much entirely upon a punitive theory of justice that produces the worst results and also costs the most. And we continually rank at the top of the list of having the most incarcerated citizens on the planet per capita.

I don't see the win from a practical standpoint nor do I see the justification from a spiritual standpoint. "Justice" doesn't only mean punitive. There are different theories of incarceration and punishment and that is only one of them.

quote:

---

Liberal policies protect the criminals. Thats a major problem.

Now conceptualize your argument when an innocent person is accused of being a criminal.

---

You have twisted the original purpose of the thread into your own, personal stump (again). An innocent person accused of a crime is subject to the same burden of proof as a guilty person.

The point is that those proven guilty under the law are not being punished sufficiently. Recidivism rates are ridiculously high for a reason. That reason is the revolving door.

This has nothing to do, and never did, with the rights of those accused of a crime. How many times do you think that innocent person accused of a crime in your scenario has those accusations made multiple times?