Coptic Forums

The official forums of the Coptic Media Network, focusing on Coptic hymns, Orthodoxy, spirituality, friendship, and member experiences.

The Death Penalty

Post new topic Reply to topic

Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

the_youngest

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 17, 2008 - 12:17 AM

I think war itself is wrong and thus you cannot argue whether killing in war is right or wrong.

However, there are many things that we consider wrong, but when we are faced with no choice we have to deal with it. for example, i know in Egypt, everyone has to go to the army for some time unless you have health reasons (or you know someone that can get you out of it). If it happened and you were forced to go to war, you have no choice but to abide. thus you do it but war itself is still wrong.

This is similar to the death penalty. We know that it is wrong but there is nothing we can do about it unless pray.

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 17, 2008 - 01:00 AM

If you are in war, if killing is absolutely wrong, then you should let yourself be killed, not kill. That is if you are killing to protect yourself. If you are killing to protect the man next to you, then that's a judgment call you are making, i.e. you think by killing you will protect the man next to you. I can easily argue that having the death penalty deters people who would otherwise kill, since they know what the punishment will be.

You always have a "choice," even if the alternative is death.

View user's profile Send private message

mikokiko

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 17, 2008 - 05:24 AM

Youngest, you are not seriously espousing pacifism are you? Do you seriously think that war is immoral and wrong? Do you not know that God will not only ask you about what you did, but also about what you did not do? If I leave my family, my country to die, and be killed, I myself, with the duty of saving their lives because of love from the aggressor, should certainly kill the treacherous oppressors who are killing those in this country. At the judgment seat of Christ, not only will I be asked whether I clothed the naked, tended the sick, gave to the poor, helped my brethren, visited the imprisoned, but I will be held responsible for those I did not fight for, for the loved ones who were being sinfully destroyed. If a child is being severely abused by another man before my eyes, what kind of man would I be if I did not use force to stop the abuse of this innocent child? What if this was happening to a country of your people (or another country of people being aggressively massacred), would it not be my duty to stop it? Of course. This is no question about starting aggression to people. Of course not. Those who espouse pacifist views, clearly do not see the implications of their destructive ideologies.

Had not the righteous countries in World War II, the earth would have been plundered asunder by the savage Adolf Hitler. Surely had Great Britain, France, Canada, and the United States and the other countries, not come to rescue those countries that were being aggressively and without cause invaded they would have also been held accountable for the blood of thousands. But they did the right thing, they liberated the Netherlands, and most of Europe from the hands of the racio-supremacist Nazi. Had World War II not been fought and the world remained silent, Adolf Hitler and his savage Nazi socialist regime would have gained power of most of this planet, as was their view, and utterly destroyed those races, who being created equal and as One in the eyes of God, who he considered "undesirable". Could you stand to remain silent? Do you still object to war and capital punishment? And if so, on what grounds? If there be not a reversal of power, war saves lives, rather than destroys them. And the same can be said of Capital punishment.

Some say that war divides, not at all, it unites. It unites people against evil, it unites families, it unites people under one nation, it unites countries with countries. Many of the countries that joined together in World War II were enemies, but joined hand in hand in one common goal of saving those who are innocent. This has nothing to do with hating the Germans. War is not about hatred. Anyone who tells you that is gravely mistaken. War is about love, because its end-goal is not violence, its to defend and establish peace. I hope you change your mind about war and the death penalty.

God Bless

View user's profile Send private message

copt07

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 17, 2008 - 01:35 PM

From Truth.Seeker:"

It's either all or nothing - you can't pick and choose what the state can kill for. Especially when you're making it up as you go along. Either the state has power to kill or not. If it does - then you can have capital punishment and kill in wars. If not - then you can't have capital punishment and you can't kill in wars.

I enjoyed how you directly contradicted yourself in your #2 - "It should not be "our" decision as to whether a person lives or dies; it should be God's." But when you're in war, it becomes your decision?


Truth.Seeker,

Capital Punishment and war are disparate actions for different reasons. Your claim that "you can't pick and choose what the state can kill for" is false. As stated earlier, Canada has laws forbidding the death penalty. However, Canada has military presence in Afghanistan. Would you say Canada's actions are contradictory? I think not.

Peace.

View user's profile Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 17, 2008 - 02:49 PM

You obviously missed what I was talking about. You missed the part where I told Tony that if his premise is that "killing is always wrong" since God is the one who decides when we die, then capital punishment and war are analogous in that both require people killing other people.

The contradiction comes in claiming that killing is always wrong but then saying killing in war is ok. Regarding the "picking and choosing" comment, I meant it from Tony's point of view, i.e. Tony's claim that Christianity says that killing by humans of other humans is always wrong, then picking wars to exclude from that, and choosing to include capital punishment into that.

Why are you talking to me about Canada? We're not arguing whether country's policies exist (all that is required for that is pointing to a newspaper), we're talking about Christianity's acceptance or rejection of these country's policies.

View user's profile Send private message

AMoussa01

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 17, 2008 - 06:11 PM

From Truth.Seeker:You obviously missed what I was talking about. You missed the part where I told Tony that if his premise is that "killing is always wrong" since God is the one who decides when we die, then capital punishment and war are analogous in that both require people killing other people.

It seems like you havent been paying very much attention to my posts. I never said that killing is always wrong. I said that you can not say whether it is right or wrong unless you look at the circumstances. You completely took my number two reason out of context. God should be the only one to decide in the case of capital punishment because you are passing judgement on someone's soul (taking an eye for an eye); whereas, in war, you have no choice but to defend your people/country/family from invaders. Even God helped some people in battle (like Constantine), which shows that he is not against soldiers taking part in their duty.

From Truth.Seeker:The contradiction comes in claiming that killing is always wrong but then saying killing in war is ok. Regarding the "picking and choosing" comment, I meant it from Tony's point of view, i.e. Tony's claim that Christianity says that killing by humans of other humans is always wrong, then picking wars to exclude from that, and choosing to include capital punishment into that.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. Let me make myself more clear: Killing is always wrong if it is done for the WRONG reason. In this case the reason is "an eye for an eye."

GB
Tony


_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member

Image
+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 17, 2008 - 08:46 PM

Looks to me like YOU haven't been paying much attention to what you've been saying. Most of what you just wrote diverges from what you've previously written. Probably a good move on your part since I was right - your broad premises contradict your specific acceptances.

For me, capital punishment, as I've already said five times, is about deterring other would-be criminals from engaging in similar acts, it's not about an eye for an eye. Infact, the US Supreme Court recently struck a state law as unconstitutional that allowed capital punishment in the case of a rape of a child. I think it was as stupid decision.

View user's profile Send private message

mikokiko

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 17, 2008 - 09:51 PM

From Truth.Seeker:Looks to me like YOU haven't been paying much attention to what you've been saying. Most of what you just wrote diverges from what you've previously written. Probably a good move on your part since I was right - your broad premises contradict your specific acceptances.

For me, capital punishment, as I've already said five times, is about deterring other would-be criminals from engaging in similar acts, it's not about an eye for an eye. Infact, the US Supreme Court recently struck a state law as unconstitutional that allowed capital punishment in the case of a rape of a child. I think it was as stupid decision.


That is abhorrent. I also think that that was a very stupid decision.

View user's profile Send private message

Mathitis

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 18, 2008 - 01:28 AM

From mikokiko:From Truth.Seeker:Looks to me like YOU haven't been paying much attention to what you've been saying. Most of what you just wrote diverges from what you've previously written. Probably a good move on your part since I was right - your broad premises contradict your specific acceptances.

For me, capital punishment, as I've already said five times, is about deterring other would-be criminals from engaging in similar acts, it's not about an eye for an eye. Infact, the US Supreme Court recently struck a state law as unconstitutional that allowed capital punishment in the case of a rape of a child. I think it was as stupid decision.


That is abhorrent. I also think that that was a very stupid decision.


Rape of a child leads to a death sentence? Good!

The jails here in Canada will kill you if they found out you were sent because you caused harm to a young child. A friend I worked with, his little cousin was killed by a man who wasn't right in his head. He went to prison, and unfortunately for him, my friend's brother was the prison guard in that prison. He told the Hells Angels members of the reason why he was sent there, and they killed him.

Not too long ago, a Catholic priest was killed in one of our prisons here as well, after the infamous child molestation and abuse cases that were the hot story.

Simply put, I agree with this addition to the law, and the death penalty in general. Karla Homolka should've been sentenced to death, after her horrendous crimes; one including kidnapping, raping, and killing her sister! but our beloved penal system here is but a mere joke.


_________________
For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned. - Matthew 12:37

Image
+ To Protect and Preserve +
HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

AMoussa01

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 18, 2008 - 01:40 AM

From Truth.Seeker:Looks to me like YOU haven't been paying much attention to what you've been saying. Most of what you just wrote diverges from what you've previously written. Probably a good move on your part since I was right - your broad premises contradict your specific acceptances.

That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Show me where i have diverged please. If this is what you think, than it is becuase you have not read what i wrote in context, please go back and read what i wrote previously...

GB
Tony


_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member

Image
+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 18, 2008 - 11:03 AM

Tony:

You went from

"2) It should not be "our" decision as to whether a person lives or dies; it should be God's."

TO

"I never said that killing is always wrong."

That's either a diversion or you didn't convey what you wanted to say the first time around. Instead of recognizing one of those, you tell me I should have ignored what you wrote in the first place and have read your mind, so I would know what you mean now.

Anyway - you base your whole rejection on capital punishment on rejection of "an eye for an eye." Answer my deterrence argument.

View user's profile Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 18, 2008 - 11:05 AM

And come on now - I'm sure you've heard more ridiculous things in life.

View user's profile Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 18, 2008 - 12:34 PM

Mathitis - that state law is no longer in effect since the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional. Apparently it's "cruel and unusual" punishment for the rape of a child.

View user's profile Send private message

AMoussa01

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 19, 2008 - 09:30 PM

From Truth.Seeker:Tony:

You went from

"2) It should not be "our" decision as to whether a person lives or dies; it should be God's."

TO

"I never said that killing is always wrong."


My second point was referring to the idea that we should kill someone based on their sins (or in the case of capital punishment, crimes). There are two things we need to understand here; obviously, it is better to save lives at the expense of one. However, we are not saving lives when we send someone to be executed; in fact, it is the opposite of saving! Capital punishment has no real purpose whatsoever except that of saving expenses. In this case, we should leave the sentencing to God.

GB
Tony


_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member

Image
+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 20, 2008 - 04:17 AM

Tony,

Looks to me like you don't know much about the legal system in the U.S. It costs more money to execute someone than to actually just lock him/her up for life. No one in their right mind would advocate capital punishment in the U.S. to save expenses.

View user's profile Send private message

AMoussa01

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 20, 2008 - 06:06 AM

From Truth.Seeker:Tony,

Looks to me like you don't know much about the legal system in the U.S. It costs more money to execute someone than to actually just lock him/her up for life. No one in their right mind would advocate capital punishment in the U.S. to save expenses.


Well than perhaps you can tell me why it is such a good idea...

Tony


_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member

Image
+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 20, 2008 - 12:40 PM

As I said nine times - deterrence. At this point, I'm starting to think you don't know what that word means. Dictionary.com it. If you do something bad, and the consequences are death, someone else is less likely to do it, since they don't want death for themselves. Simple.

If you're more into politics - that's why the US and the USSR didn't nuke each other but had thousands of nuclear warheads. If the US has nukes, the USSR won't nuke it, because it knows the US will nuke it back. Of course that threat wouldn't exists if one of them didn't have nukes. It's called the "MAD" strategy - Mutually Assured Destruction.

View user's profile Send private message

AMoussa01

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 21, 2008 - 03:17 AM

From Truth.Seeker:As I said nine times - deterrence. At this point, I'm starting to think you don't know what that word means. Dictionary.com it. If you do something bad, and the consequences are death, someone else is less likely to do it, since they don't want death for themselves. Simple.

That is debatable. If you are going to commit a crime worthy of such a punishment, than you will not be thinking rationally at all (even if you are aware that there is a capital punishment).

Tony


_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member

Image
+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Jul 21, 2008 - 10:20 AM

Of course it's debatable. That's my whole point - the state gets to debate it, and see what the better policy is.

View user's profile Send private message

Noosa_1978

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Sep 24, 2008 - 04:42 AM

There is no justification for taking a human life. A life is a life any way we look at it. Even if a man killed many people or commited a grisly murder, the state does not have the right to take a life. It is better to just lock the man up in a cage, throw away the key, and he never sees the light of day, so that he thinks about it till God decide when it is time for him to go. This way he has a chance to repent and ask God for forgiveness.

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address

Truth.Seeker

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Sep 24, 2008 - 12:59 PM

"There is no justification for taking a human life" is your premise. Your premise is untenable - surely you would not hesitate to kill someone you know is about to kill a number of people. Also, you are in disagreement with the Coptic Orthodox Church, which does not reject the death penalty.

View user's profile Send private message

the_youngest

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Sep 26, 2008 - 07:48 PM

Saul killed many people throughout his lifetime, and killing him would have definitely saved a few lives; however, this man was transformed through the holy spirit into St. Paul, and saved many lives and is still saving many lives by his words. Although these are not his words but God's words, he was the tool used to preach these words. We have many examples like these in our church like St. Moses the Black.

You said that the Coptic Orthodox Church does not reject the death penalty, but does it support it??? All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful.(1 Corinthians 6:12)

View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

AMoussa01

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Sep 26, 2008 - 09:28 PM

From Truth.Seeker:"There is no justification for taking a human life" is your premise. Your premise is untenable - surely you would not hesitate to kill someone you know is about to kill a number of people. Also, you are in disagreement with the Coptic Orthodox Church, which does not reject the death penalty.

I want to highlight part of the that last sentence you just wrote: "you are in DISAGREEMENT with the Coptic church." This is not true! The church does not say it is for or against it, thereby making your claim false. I also am curious as to why you think the states should have the authority to decide to send someone to their judgement. No one should have that authority but God himself.

GB
Tony


_________________
Tony Moza,
HCOC Distant Member

Image
+ To Protect and Preserve +

HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

AMoussa01

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Sep 26, 2008 - 09:31 PM

I also forgot to mention that killing someone who is ABOUT to kill a group of people is not the same thing as killing someone because of his previous crime(s). You just can not equate the two.

GB
Tony

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message

mikehenry

Back to top Reply with quote

posted on Sep 27, 2008 - 03:08 AM

Hey,

Just thought I'd like to add this resource:
http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=32&catid=61

I don't know if it was already posted or not, but it's here anyway.

Thanks.

View user's profile Visit poster's website Send private message Send e-mail
 
 
 

Return to the Forum Index

Powered by the coptichymns.net Network of Coptic Hymns and Coptic Orthodox Sites.

TotalDaily
Topics:72213.92
Users:61483.34
Posts:6083333.04
 
hany58
mariham124
sisterMargaret

300 unlogged users and 3 registered users online now.

 

Already a member? Log in above.

Not a member? Register your unique identity to participate more fully in our site!