Personally, I'm against the death penalty. I believe that convicts
should be given all the sledge hammers they need to turn big rocks
into little rocks - 12 hrs a day, 6 days a week.

There must be something wrong here today. Duke actually said something
that I can agree with. :)

Fred Stone wrote:

RainLover <SP-AMB-LOCKrainlover@raincity.com> wrote in
news:7cigi1tfacb733mrbr4vduv2jg2p538voh@4ax.com:

I just have to ask... can a few pro-life people here explain to me
how you can be pro-life and pro-death-penalty without blowing a
circuit?

I'm NOT asking about abortion here...
just the pro-life = pro-deathpenalty question.

I think the logic goes that fetuses are innocent, while condemned
murderers are not.

Not to stretch this thread too far, but the problem that many
people (including myself) have with the death penalty is
that hell of a lot of "condemned murderers" are, in fact, innocent.
In Illinois, the death penalty was put on hold when the number of
exonerated death row inmates exceeded the number or
executions!!!
http://archives.cnn.com/2000/US/01/31/illinois.executions.02/
The most notorious was the Rolando Cruz case
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/depts/clinic/wrongful/
exonerations/cruz.htm
in which the prosecutors fought to have him executed even *after*
DNA proved he wasn't guilty.

The pro-birth supporters seem to make a distinction on "innocent" life,
which permits them to agree with the death penalty since obviously a
convicted felon is guilty. However, this goes against one of the basic
Christian tenets that all humans are sinful and unworthy of salvation.

How can a christian tenet be that humans are unworthy of salvation when
that is exactly what they propose to provide? Or are you saying that by
themselves they are not worthy and therefore need chirst ... which of
course would make sense since they are of course a religion. I believe
there is even a spot in the New Testament which eludes to God "possibly"
saving some "very good" people.

A newborn child or, in fact, and unborn fetus is just as guilty of
original sin as the convicted felon. According to Christianity, there
is no difference.

According to Catholicism. Not all agree with "original sin".

So Christianity came up with the concept of "age of
accountability" above which they determine that one sins willingly and
under which they determine that one sins unwittingly. So the word
"innocent" doesn't really apply since no one is innocent, merely unable
to willfully sin.

And since un-willfully sinning, or at least being unable to comprehend
the consequences they are "considered" innocent.

On this basis, it seems that a faithful Christian could condemn every
willful sinner to death, but that would mean that every adult and
teenager over the age of accountability would be eligible for capital
punishment since one sin is just as bad an any other sin in the eyes of
the Lord=AE, except blasphemy against the Holy Spirt=AE of course, which
can not be forgiven.

Sillyness.

Every other sin whether it is murder, child rape,
adultery, or stealing a loaf of bread is equivalent to God=AE, and any
one can be just as readily forgiven by His=A9 Grace=AE.

Sin is sin to some extent I suppose. I somehow imagine that (assuming
there is) God would be able to tell the difference whether some down here
fail to catch the difference.

Of course, the
Christian is reproved not to try and judge another person's salvation
or state of forgiveness in the eyes of God=AE so condemning a person to
death on this basis is also vexsome for the Christian.

Condeming someone to physical death isn't on par with eternal punishment.
Athough it could bring it on faster... ;)

So, while a christian would be in the wrong to assume the eternal end. If
faced with rendering a civil/criminal judgement I know of no constraint
other than not bearing false witness.

So the Christian must turn to secular authority to provide a process by
which one can put to death those people who are considered to be a
danger to society or against whom society wants revenge. Also, they
are prone to point out, capital punishment is a legal remedy. Of
course, that is secular law and not Biblical law. That abortion is a
legal remedy, too, is ignored.

Abortion is a "current" legal remedy as is capital punishment. Although
I understand the remedy part of the capital punishment, the abortion part
seems to only remedy babies ... ooops sorry ... you guys call them
fetuses.

And so it goes round and round. But somewhere in there, they find
justification for their positions.

as do you Liz

On 14 Sep 2005 09:58:12 -0700, "Liz" <mtstack@hotmail.com> wrote:

RainLover wrote:

I just have to ask... can a few pro-life people here explain to me
how you can be pro-life and pro-death-penalty without blowing a
circuit?

I'm NOT asking about abortion here...
just the pro-life = pro-deathpenalty question.

The pro-birth supporters seem to make a distinction on "innocent" life,
which permits them to agree with the death penalty since obviously a
convicted felon is guilty.

Since when have murder convictions become infallible?

On 14 Sep 2005 09:58:12 -0700, "Liz" <mtstack@hotmail.com> wrote:

RainLover wrote:

I just have to ask... can a few pro-life people here explain to me
how you can be pro-life and pro-death-penalty without blowing a
circuit?

I'm NOT asking about abortion here...
just the pro-life = pro-deathpenalty question.

The pro-birth supporters seem to make a distinction on "innocent" life,
which permits them to agree with the death penalty since obviously a
convicted felon is guilty.

Since when have murder convictions become infallible?

<SNIP>

Ben