Was it ever permissible to kill people according to OT laws?

[dan]

However, after a perpetrator is apprehended and in custody where he can no longer threaten society, killing him as a state action, I believe, is unjustifiable and inhumane because the state isn't being threatened, isn't in the heat of passion, isn't afraid. And under these circumstances, to hand down a sentence of death is coldly reflective action. I don't think advanced civilized people should participate in this kind of punishment. It's just sad that the US practices capital punishment along side North Korea, Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia (which beheads witches by sword). While all of Europe, Oceania, and South America have abolished state-sponsored execution.

I distinctly remember that Kenneth Bianchi, one of the "Hillside Stranglers", convinced his girlfriend, later wife, to murder with his letters from prison. Also, some murderers continue to murder once in prison, so just incarcerating them is not the end of their murderous behavior.

Also, I believe that the death penalty for murderers is a "specific cure" for the type of "pollution", mentioned in the Bible, that results from the act of murder:

NUM 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye [are]: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

As for "turn the other cheek":

You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

—Matthew 5:38-42, NIV

I read this as an explicit condemnation of vengeance. No? How can you read this parable and say that it's okay to put a wrongdoer to death?

I believe that it is a modification of God's Law.
Jesus says that you should not require an "eye for an eye" or "tooth for tooth", but there is more to that verse. Life, hand, foot, burning, wound, and stripe, then, were not changed, and we should require the payment thereof.

We should not read more into the verse than is present.

EX 21:23 And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life,
EX 21:24 Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot,
EX 21:25 Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

[powlette]

We should not read more into the verse than is present.

After seeing all manner of interpretation of verses on this board, I find that quite ironic.

So tell me, is torture okay too? I just read this article showing that churchgoers are more likely to support torture. As a moral person, and an atheist, I never would:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/rel...ure/index.html

You can understand why I question the Christian's moral highground when capital punishment and torture are okay (sometimes) but euthanasia and stem cell research are wrong (all the time).

[dan]

After seeing all manner of interpretation of verses on this board, I find that quite ironic.

So tell me, is torture okay too? I just read this article showing that churchgoers are more likely to support torture. As a moral person, and an atheist, I never would:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/rel...ure/index.html

...I wouldn't call the kind of harassment at Gitmo, except waterboarding, torture.

But even waterboarding is the least offensive torture, ever. We even allow our pilots and special forces to try it.

In all the other types of torture, you lose something permanently:

In Chemical Interrogation (torture) most end up in vegetative state. But it has been known to kill.

Physical Interrogation (torture) can mean the loss of any number of appendages, or the use of same and/or gaining of scars. Death is common.

You can understand why I question the Christian's moral highground when capital punishment and torture are okay (sometimes) but euthanasia and stem cell research are wrong (all the time).

Given that you are a person that has never read the Bible, yes, I understand.

But, you must understand that many of these things are in the Bible, in one form or another, and, as such, are a part of our requirements.

Euthanasia is an attempt by a person to take away their life before God has appointed. Although that is between him and God, suicide can be done outside of the patient/doctor relationship, and should be. According to our beliefs, it makes the doctor and the patient, murderers.

Embryonic stem cell research destroys potential, and innocent, humans. Again, murder, by our standards. Adult stem cell treatment is the most productive and harms no one. Another easy choice for any Christian.

[powlette]

...I wouldn't call the kind of harassment at Gitmo, except waterboarding, torture.

But even waterboarding is the least offensive torture, ever. We even allow our pilots and special forces to try it.

In all the other types of torture, you lose something permanently:

In Chemical Interrogation (torture) most end up in vegetative state. But it has been known to kill.

Physical Interrogation (torture) can mean the loss of any number of appendages, or the use of same and/or gaining of scars. Death is common.



Given that you are a person that has never read the Bible, yes, I understand.

But, you must understand that many of these things are in the Bible, in one form or another, and, as such, are a part of our requirements.

Euthanasia is an attempt by a person to take away their life before God has appointed. Although that is between him and God, suicide can be done outside of the patient/doctor relationship, and should be. According to our beliefs, it makes the doctor and the patient, murderers.

Embryonic stem cell research destroys potential, and innocent, humans. Again, murder, by our standards. Adult stem cell treatment is the most productive and harms no one. Another easy choice for any Christian.

That's the problem with this board - threads are so easily hijacked with other discussions unrelated to the original post, but I'll bite.

Have you read the torture memos and the explicit description of what was allowed to try to skirt the issue? I did and they made my skin crawl. Sleep deprivation, confinement in a box with insects, being blindfolded and thrown against a false wall, nourishment in liquid form of only 1,000 calories/day. And waterboarding a single person 180 times in a month. That's six times a day he was subjected to a torture that most CIA operatives can't withstand for 30 seconds. It's deplorable and it really diminishes the relevancy of your religion when you can't take a firm stand and say that no, it's not okay to inflict any kind of "harassment" on a defenseless prisoner. If you want to read the full text of the memos they're here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_187867.html


As for stem cell research, Sam Harris makes three interesting points on this issue:

1) The human embryos in question are about 150 cells and isn't visible without the aid of a microscope. The average housefly has 100,000 cells in its brain alone.

2) It's believed that life begins at conception and embryos have a soul. Sometimes embryos at this stage split into two and become twins. What happens to the soul in this case? And in rarer times, the two split embyos recombine into a single embryo called a chimera. The arithmetic of souls becomes complex here.

3) Between 25% and 40% of pregnancies end spontaneously, often before the mother knows she was pregnant. If these are potential humans appointed by God, then he's the most prolific abortionist in the world.

[Athanasius]

Well everything in the justice system is relative isn't it? Why is 18 the legal age and relations with a 15 yr old statutory rape in the US, but not in Saudi Arabia? Do children in the US mature that much more slowly? And even if they did, why 18? Why not 21? or 25?

Why is robbing someone so much worse if you have a gun that you don't fire? Why is 100 grams of pot in Ohio decriminalized and subject to a civil citation, but 200 grams near a school is a felony?

Everything is relative, so why is a child rapist in Illinois not subject to the death penalty but a bank robber who shoots an armed guard in Texas executed? Who should say what the punishment should be? The people have elected officials to speak for them and these officials have decided what the punishment should be based on a relative scale of infractions.

You walk in on your wife with another man and in a fit of rage, you grab your gun from the nightstand and shoot him dead. You are sentenced to manslaughter and serve 10-15 yrs.

OR: You're tired of your wife and want to collect her life insurance money. You a hire a hitman to kill her, but the hitman is an uncover cop. You are convicted of conspiracy to commit murder and attempted murder and you serve 25 yrs to life in prison although no one was injured.

I could go on and on with perceived inequities in the legal system, but I think we all know that justice is imperfect. How do I decide that capital punishment is wrong? That's a tough question to answer. I remember seeing a standup comic on tv when I was young who joked about it. "If you gotta go, you gotta go" he said flippantly. I supported the death penalty then and I thought it should be more widely used.

Now I feel it's barbaric to tell someone the day they're going to die, walk them to the death chamber knowing they won't be coming out, put a needle in their vein and pump them full of poison while a crowd of spectators watch. It's the 21st century now. People don't break out of high security prisons. They're no threat to anyone and it's usually cheaper to keep them locked up and move them through the legal system anyway.

If you're looking for a reason to condemn one group for their punishment system and not another, I would say there are always going to be people on both sides of an issue like this. For me, I simply look to my conscience for the answer. My conscience tells me no, deciding to kill someone is wrong. How can I quantify that in definitive terms that are supported by some kind of universal truth? I can't other than my humanity telling me to avoid being cruel.

How does this thought process then relate to your original post? What was (or what is) it you are / were trying to get at in asking your original question?

Let me ask you this - if Jesus were serving on a trial jury with me and during deliberations I was the only holdout because I couldn't decide to hand down the death penalty, do you think he would try to sway me to vote for execution?

Jesus said pretty much nothing with respect to politics so I wouldn't know.

Here is your old testament justice in action: a woman blinded by acid has asked an Iranian court to blind her attacker and they're going to do it (they may have already):
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...attack.victim/

This is certainly called for under the old testament - explicitly even. So you should support this right?

Why would I support Islamic law? The difference between saying, 'an eye for an eye' (which is the quote in the article) and 'eye for eye,' which is the Old Testament rendition, is that with the former you have a very literal understanding of the phrase: if you take an eye, you have your eye taken. With the latter rendition we move from a literal to a metaphorical understanding of the command: the punishment is to be proportional to the crime but not necessarily the same as the crime.

In reference to your other statement, there's a difference between punishment and vengeance. When a person harms someone else in violation of the law, he is imprisoned. That isn't vengeance. He's locked up for rehabilitation, deterrence and to punish him. Vengeance implies some kind of retaliation in the sense of, you've wronged me, now I'm going to wrong you. That's why we empower the state to step in and peacefully adjudicate and resolve our differences in a hopefully dispassionate and non-violent way. That, I think, is civilized.

That's agreeable.

[Slug1]

Let me ask you this - if Jesus were serving on a trial jury with me and during deliberations I was the only holdout because I couldn't decide to hand down the death penalty, do you think he would try to sway me to vote for execution?

Jesus already has when you are placed in this position of responsibility... read Romans 13:4. The rulers over you have selected you to be a sword or a Minister of God at that moment as a juror. Jesus isn't gonna sway you, He's asking you to do your job as a juror and if the guilty is deserving of death then your heart will be calmed by being obedient to the will of God. If you put your emotions and feelings into the equation then we have threads like this

Let God be in control, He handed the sword to rulers and if you are to be a sword selected by the rulers... be one in faith you're serving God.

[dan]

That's the problem with this board - threads are so easily hijacked with other discussions unrelated to the original post, but I'll bite.

Have you read the torture memos and the explicit description of what was allowed to try to skirt the issue? I did and they made my skin crawl. Sleep deprivation, confinement in a box with insects, being blindfolded and thrown against a false wall, nourishment in liquid form of only 1,000 calories/day. And waterboarding a single person 180 times in a month. That's six times a day he was subjected to a torture that most CIA operatives can't withstand for 30 seconds. It's deplorable and it really diminishes the relevancy of your religion when you can't take a firm stand and say that no, it's not okay to inflict any kind of "harassment" on a defenseless prisoner. If you want to read the full text of the memos they're here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_187867.html

...At Gitmo chose to join an organization whose purpose is to murder thousands or millions. Some have already murdered, so, whatever is done to them to save others, including killing them, is appropriate, in my opinion.

Of course I realize that not all are guilty. But I believe that those that are innocent will be investigated and released.

[Warrior4God]

There were/are times when the taking of human life was/is allowed by God. God is the Creator of life and He has given man permission to take life at times as punishment and in self defense. Yes, God, in general, does not desire that people kill each other, but don't believe the misconception that God has never authorized lethal force for any reason. It's NOT biblical to think this. To execute a prisoner as capital punishment is permissible. To kill somebody because they angered you or disrespected you is not. As you explore the Bible more, you will discover under what circumstances God allows the taking of life and which ones He doesn't.

[powlette]

There were/are times when the taking of human life was/is allowed by God. God is the Creator of life and He has given man permission to take life at times as punishment and in self defense. Yes, God, in general, does not desire that people kill each other, but don't believe the misconception that God has never authorized lethal force for any reason. It's NOT biblical to think this. To execute a prisoner as capital punishment is permissible. To kill somebody because they angered you or disrespected you is not. As you explore the Bible more, you will discover under what circumstances God allows the taking of life and which ones He doesn't.

I'm not sure that answers my original question. Let me restate it: The OT says blasphemers should be put to death. Was there ever a time which I would be permitted (or required) to kill someone I heard blaspheme? If so, when did that stop being okay? Was there a day when it was required and the next day it wasn't? When, if ever, did that day occur?

[mcgyver]

I'm not sure that answers my original question. Let me restate it: The OT says blasphemers should be put to death. Was there ever a time which I would be permitted (or required) to kill someone I heard blaspheme? If so, when did that stop being okay? Was there a day when it was required and the next day it wasn't? When, if ever, did that day occur?

Hi Powlette...wonderful question btw.

I think that I can answer this for you...but it'll take more time than I have right now (getting ready for Church )

I'm writing now to "bookmark" and remind myself to come back later today; and I'll try to answer to your satisfaction.

[mcgyver]

I'm not sure that answers my original question. Let me restate it: The OT says blasphemers should be put to death. Was there ever a time which I would be permitted (or required) to kill someone I heard blaspheme? If so, when did that stop being okay? Was there a day when it was required and the next day it wasn't? When, if ever, did that day occur?

Hi Powlette, I hope you had a wonderful Mother's day!

To answer your question (I hope ), we must keep in mind that the Levitical law was given to, and binding upon, only the Jewish people and those who lived with them.

The "Law of Moses" as it is often referred to, contained 613 total laws (including the 10 commandments): 365 "thou shalt nots" and 248 "thou must do's", and was part of the covenant between God and the Jewish people....and as I stated earlier was never binding upon the Gentile nations....

The Key word being "Covenant".

The purpose of the law is/was multi-faceted. The law established what sin is, the law established the manner whereby fallen man could approach a perfect God, and the law painted a picture of just how far man was away from God's standard of absolute Holiness.

Additionally, the law established practical relationships in dealing with fellow men, keeping healthy in an era of minimum sanitation (the dietary laws as an example)...and there are others besides.

Now to directly address your questions:

The OT says blasphemers should be put to death. Was there ever a time which I would be permitted (or required) to kill someone I heard blaspheme?

Unless you are a Jew, there has never been a time that you would have been required to put a blasphemer to death (depending on your culture)...because the Torah would not have applied to you.

Was there a day when it was required and the next day it wasn't? When, if ever, did that day occur?

I would say A.D. 70 with the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, and the cessation of Israel as a nation; with the disbanding of the Sanhedrin and the exile and dispersion of the Jewish people.

Even to this day in modern Israel, though the Torah is still in force for them...there are a lot of laws that can not be obeyed due to the fact that there is no temple standing.

I hope that this helps a bit.

[powlette]

Wow, thanks for that detailed reply mcgyger. Raises all sorts of other questions for me though which I have highlighted in bold. My questions may seem flippant, but I'm only trying to point out how extreme and counter-intuitive these laws are. I can pick up a law book or browse the state's statutes on any type of crime. It's very clearly laid out who the law applies to, what constitutes a violation and what the range of punishments are. This is necessary to be sure that there are no ambiguities or loopholes and to be sure that everyone who wants to understand the law can read it plainly. Of course there are misunderstandings or odd scenarios that the legislature never imagined, but the process for resolving these disputes in the judiciary is well understood and designed to be impartial. It's not a perfect system, but I think it's a very good one.

The OT laws on the other hand, are very ambiguous and open to interpretation - often by the loudest voice or strongest ruler. So here are some more questions based on your detailed response, which I am grateful for:

You've said that the laws stopped applying after the destruction of the temple, so I'll phrase my questions assuming it's AD 69.

You've said that there are 613 laws in the OT.

My first question is, reading the OT as a gentile in AD 69, how do I know these laws don't apply to me? Is there a blanket statement somewhere that says they only apply to Jews?

Can I convert to Judaism and then kill my family for worshiping a different god?

Let's say I'm a Jew at Jesus's sermon on the mount and immediately afterward I see a Jewish woman practicing idolatry. Do I follow Jesus's teachings do unto others... or should I follow the Torah and put her to death?

You said that the law only applied to Jews before AD 70 to help them show how to approach a perfect God and and following the laws was required by the Jewish people.

If I were a gentile living in a Jewish community in AD 69 and witnessed a Jewish woman committing adultery, could I do the Jews a favor and kill her or do I need to notify a Jewish leader so he could do it?

You said the destruction of the temple ended the enforcement of the laws.

Did it become a sin to follow the laws after the destruction of the temple and continue executing homosexuals?

If so, let's say the temple was destroyed, but I live in a far away city and before word has reached me, I killed someone I saw practicing witchcraft. Have I sinned?

You said laws cannot be obeyed due to the temple not standing.

If the temple is rebuilt, will my Jewish neighbor be required to kill me?

So again, I thank you for the response. I hope you can see why it's difficult to understand all these laws and how they applied. I'm sure I don't have it in me to kill somebody and I don't think any of my Jewish friends do either. It's hard to believe they'd be required to kill someone for violating any of these rules - many of which seem arbitrary to me.

[chisel]

Powlette,

If you actually took the time to read the Law of Moses you'd find that citizens weren't allowed to just willy nilly execute people like in the Wild West. There was in fact a government and a justice system, and offenders were given a trial with witnesses etc before execution was effected. I think you'll also find the Law of Moses to be very fair when compared to the way things were done in other cultures of that time, but unlike today's secular humanism inspired legal system, those Laws were predominantly tailored to protect the innnocent, the God fearing, and the downtrodden and the basic functional family unit.

Do watch Mel Gibson's Apocalypto to get a fair idea of how other cultures justice systems worked, oh and while you're at it. Since your atheist morality (based on what exactly?) is totally against killing or harm, do shake your fist in outrage when the 'good guy' kills the bloodthirsty marauder, who murdered and raped his family, toward the end of the movie.

I'm wondering what your point with this thread is. Are you seriously trying to convince us that the Bible actually promotes violence, but that we've just never noticed it before? You've been trying to ridicule and lambaste Christianity for months now on this forum, which means you're either quite brave if you're convinced that we're prone to violence and torture or otherwise you're not really fully your own misotheistic ideas.

As for the killing of blasphemers: If there really is a God. And that God really did create everything. And that God lovingly formed you in your mothers womb and breathed into your nostrils life, and let you walk on His earth. And that God really did give His Son, to be killed and mocked by those such as you, so that you can be looked upon as one righteous, such as His Son. And you turned around and spat in His face and blasphemed His Holy name, even though you depend on Him for your very existence, would that not be a heinous thing indeed? The blasphemer needs to climb onto the lap of God, so they can to reach His face in order to slap Him.

[mcgyver]

Once again you've asked some great questions, and I don't think that they are flippant at all.

First of, just as with any law...whether it be Hammurabi's code or the Mosaic law, or the penal code of a state in the US; enforcement of the law is not to be placed in the hand of an individual; but rather is the responsibility of the government as expressed through the courts.

In Israel, God initially set up a system of Judges; and in the time of Saul Israel rejected rulership by judges and demanded a king.

Never the less, it always intended that justice should be dispensed through a "court"; and never the individual.

In fact, there were a whole series of safeguards given to insure that one would have a fair trial under Jewish law.

For example:

Whoever is deserving of death shall be put to death on the testimony of two or three witnesses; he shall not be put to death on the testimony of one witness. The hands of the witnesses shall be the first against him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So you shall put away the evil from among you. (Deut 17:6-7)

Notice here that not only must there be multiple witnesses against someone...but that the ones who testified against the accused must be the first to cast stones in executing the person. If they had lied in their testimony, then "bloodguilt" would be upon them...something that a Jew would take quite seriously.

By the first century, according to contemporary sources as well as the Talmud...the system had further developed to the point that if one were brought before the Sanhedrin (the ruling council at the time) accused of a capitol offense, after testimony had been given...there had to be a 24 hour break to consider the testimony...and if the death sentence was passed, then another 24 hours as a "cool down period" before sentence could be executed. (Jesus' trial was illegal under Jewish law btw.) Furthermore, as the Romans reserved all executions to themselves (with the single exception of blasphemy) the Sanhedrin had to report that one was to be executed to the Roman authorities...and the Romans could exercise their prerogative to overrule the Sanhedrin.

Now there is another dynamic that comes into play here...the nature of Jewish society and culture during the time of Jesus.

Due to a mistrust of the Sanhedrin and a general breakdown in society; many had taken to using Levitical law in order to justify their actions in inter-tribal feuds and disputes.

In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount we see Jesus repeatedly saying "You have heard it said.....But I say to you...." He doesn't say "It is written".

The significance of this idiom is quite profound: "You have heard it said" literally means (roughly) "You've come to think that you can do this, but it is not the case nor the law"...whereas "It is written" means that (once again roughly) "This is the law...period."

Now the reason that I've said all this is to point out that these laws were part of a judicial system set up by God for the Jewish people...

We might think of it this way: I am subject to the laws of the United States and the State of Florida, because I am a US citizen and reside within the boundaries of the US.

I am not subject to the laws of Saudi Arabia, or Kenya, or any other country.

Now, should I decide to sojourn in another country; then I would be subject to their laws.

Same principle applies here. When Israel was its own kingdom, then those who lived among the Jews were subject to Jewish law...those outside of Israel were subject to the laws of their own land; but not subject to the Torah (unless they were Jews some where else).

I've got to take a quick break....but if this doesn't serve to answer, then I'll address your questions individually.