An eye for an eye, aye?

If you feel so strongly perhaps you'd volunteer to personally administer the injection?

You type a good game. Your typing telegraphs your fears and your immaturity.

I'd wager you've not read the Bible from cover to cover.

Sir, I'd gladly administer the injection myself, eating See's candies at that. I believe that man deserves to die so that we can preserve the sanctity of human life. You mutilate a pregnant woman, your life will be taken; end of story. I'm sorry you feel I'm immature, would it help you to know that I'm only 15?

And, sorry to disappoint you, but I have read the Bible cover to cover. Was there something I missed?

I quote lines from an incredible episode of The West Wing, aired in its first season, titled "Take This Sabbath Day":

"God is the only one who gets to kill people."

Obviously, in the world we live in, God isn't the only one who gets to kill people, sadly. Murders are committed. But shouldn't we strive for a world in which God is truly the only one who gets to kill people? How are government/state-sanctioned killings any less murders than the murders that Scott Peterson committed? How is instituting the death penalty going to aid in attaining a world in which God is truly the only one who gets to kill people?

"Society has a right to protect itself, but it doesn't have a right to be vengeful. It has a right to punish, but it doesn't have a right to kill."

The moment our society commits the same act that Scott Peterson committed, it loses its moral authority. It stoops down to a despicably low level, and can never again regain its high ground. Society is tainted when it becomes vengeful. Society is corrupted when it thinks it has a right to kill, just as Scott Peterson apparently thought.

Would Scott Peterson, if kept alive and locked up in a prison, would be a danger to society? I doubt it. Society has a right to protect itself, and putting Scott Peterson in prison for life would most likely have done that.

Would Scott Peterson, if kept alive and locked up in a prison, go unpunished for his actions? No. If anything, my bet is that a life-in-prison sentence would have made his life more of a hell than it will be now, seeing as how he would be surrounded by criminals who would hate him for the acts he committed. Most of the legal experts on TV that I heard agreed that Peterson's life would most likely end much sooner if he had been given life in prison, given the amount of hatred he would experience in a prison surrounded by other criminals. But if that had happened -- if Scott Peterson had been given life in prison, and was then killed by an inmate, the fact remains that the state, the government, would not have sanctioned that murder -- society would not taint itself by committing the same act that Scott Peterson committed.

In other words, I agree, Emily, that perhaps the death penalty is "too nice" in this case. Perhaps murderers really should "be subjected to the same death as their victims." But that is not something society has the right to judge. After they die, murderers will be punished by God; but society has no place in determining when it is that murderers die. Only God should determine that.

Henry, apparently you've never heard of "An eye for an eye." Even if you have, do you know where it came from? Not West Wing, i'll tell you that much.

The West Wing is an incredibly liberal show. Therefore, going by their ideals, they would not want their hands to be bloodied, even with murderer's blood.

[Would Scott Peterson, if kept alive and locked up in a prison, go unpunished for his actions? No. If anything, my bet is that a life-in-prison sentence would have made his life more of a hell than it will be now, seeing as how he would be surrounded by criminals who would hate him for the acts he committed. Most of the legal experts on TV that I heard agreed that Peterson's life would most likely end much sooner if he had been given life in prison, given the amount of hatred he would experience in a prison surrounded by other criminals. But if that had happened -- if Scott Peterson had been given life in prison, and was then killed by an inmate, the fact remains that the state, the government, would not have sanctioned that murder -- society would not taint itself by committing the same act that Scott Peterson committed.]

Just who do you think he's gonna be put in prison with...The Manson family? You gotta remember, even a with a life inprisonment sentence, he's still gonna live a long time. Why? Because he's going to be put into prison with guys who have done the same, if not worse things. Also, it costs alot more to keep a person in prison, than it does to kill them for their crimes. I'm all for the death penalty, but only to those who deserve it (murderers, rapists, etc...). If you've actually read the Bible, you'd know that if a man struck a pregnant woman and killed the baby, he'd be killed.

The Bible is far more violent than people give it credit. It's true that God should be the only person to kill a person, however, God has given us mandates in which a person warrants death.

[Henry, apparently you've never heard of "An eye for an eye." Even if you have, do you know where it came from? Not West Wing, i'll tell you that much.]

I'll tell you this much... I have heard of "an eye for an eye" (and I read it, too, in Emily's post), and it's "The West Wing," not "West Wing."

[The West Wing is an incredibly liberal show. Therefore, going by their ideals, they would not want their hands to be bloodied, even with murderer's blood.]

Your reasoning here doesn't hold up... FYI, in the episode "Take This Sabbath Day," the admittedly very liberal President Bartlet is advised by all types of people to pardon a murderer's life, but instead he carries out the will of the American people, and fails to pardon the man, and then immediately regrets it when he realized he made the wrong decision. On the show, the President is Catholic, and his boyhood priest ends up listening to his Confession at the end of the episode when he realizes he should have pardoned the man.

[Just who do you think he's gonna be put in prison with...The Manson family? You gotta remember, even a with a life inprisonment sentence, he's still gonna live a long time. Why? Because he's going to be put into prison with guys who have done the same, if not worse things.]

See, I'm going on what experts on the cable stations said, here -- and they all agreed that Peterson wouldn't be put with the same types of people if he got a life imprionsoment sentence. Most people he'd be surrounded by wouldn't have killed their unborn sons (and thus wouldn't have done "worse things"). Many might be murderers, though, and that's why his life would be in greater danger there than in a high-security, isolated death row prison.

[Also, it costs alot more to keep a person in prison, than it does to kill them for their crimes. I'm all for the death penalty, but only to those who deserve it (murderers, rapists, etc...). If you've actually read the Bible, you'd know that if a man struck a pregnant woman and killed the baby, he'd be killed.]

I don't quite get what your point is here, unfortunately, Peter.

[The Bible is far more violent than people give it credit. It's true that God should be the only person to kill a person, however, God has given us mandates in which a person warrants death.]

I simply disagree. Regardless of what is said in the Bible, I don't think God has given, or ever will give, humans the authority to kill another human in the name of justice. It's not in line with what I like to think God embodies and stands for, and what I embody and stand for, for that matter.

Henry, luckily, just because you don't believe something, doesn't make it any less real. Thank God. People could not believe in gravity, but that doesn't mean gravity is rendered impotent. The Bible clearly gives the state authority to execute people in the name of justice. It's all over the Old Testament, specifically the Torah, or books of the law. Look it up. It's there.

You may disagree with me all you want, but the state execution of a murderer is not murder. It's justice. It sends a clear message that you are not allowed to take another's life, or yours will be forfeit in exchange. You steal someone's money, you pay it back. You take someone's life, you pay it back with yours. It's extremely Biblical. Take it up with God if you've got a problem with it. I can tell you this much, He's certainly capable of handling your criticism.

Did you yet again not read what I wrote?

Regardless of what is said in the Bible (especially the Old Testament, which, I believe, says some things that today are considered pretty outrageous), I don't think God has given, or ever will give, humans the authority to kill another human in the name of justice. It's not in line with what I like to think God embodies and stands for, and what I embody and stand for, for that matter.

[I can tell you this much, He's certainly capable of handling your criticism.]

Thank you, Grand Spokeswoman for God.

ok, if you don't think that's what God stands for, tell us what He stands for.

If you read the Levitical texts, you'd know what God stands for. He's a God of justice and peace, not a god of pardoning and liberalism. Not to say that God is a conservative either. He's God. That's His party.

Also, what's not to get about my "Murder and your life is forfiet" comment(i know i took that one from emily, but she summed up my post quite well)? Plain and simple, if you commit the crime, you better be willing to submit to the authorities for proper punishment. If you killed someone, you're gonna die. If you raped someone...well, you're still gonna die (sets the precedent that rape is horrible, and therefore the punishment should mirror the crime). I can understand that if you steal something, you not gonna die, however you're still gonna have to repay those from whom you stole from. It's as easy as that.

Here it is again: "The punishment should mirror the crime." If we lived by those rules, i guarantee you there would be alot less crime in this country/in this world.

Henry, did YOU not read what I wrote? Again, I said that it doesn't matter what you think, GOD DOES give us authority to kill murderers. It's in the Bible! You can look it up. I can give you scripture references if you'd like. And as a Catholic, you should read the New Testament that instructs us not to disregard the Old Testament. It's all there my friend, and I'd be happy to help you discover yet more amazing information.

Henry, I would refer you to this site in support of what I've been saying. Greg Laurie, in my opinion is a more weighty spiritual authority than I am anyway. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041217/D871HJVG2.html

[ok, if you don't think that's what God stands for, tell us what He stands for.

If you read the Levitical texts, you'd know what God stands for. He's a God of justice and peace, not a god of pardoning and liberalism. Not to say that God is a conservative either. He's God. That's His party.]

I didn't say he's a God of "pardoning and liberalism," but again, you pretended I said something I didn't say. You know, that's really getting annoying. I agree that God stands for justice and peace; I just don't agree that "justice" equals "an eye for an eye."

Leviticus is part of the Old Testament, is it not? And Exodus, as well?

[And as a Catholic, you should read the New Testament that instructs us not to disregard the Old Testament. It's all there my friend, and I'd be happy to help you discover yet more amazing information.]

By "yet more amazing information," do you mean the following:

Exodus 21:7
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go free as male slaves do."

Does that mean President Bush is allowed to sell Jenna to the highest bidder?

Exodus 35:2
"On six days work may be done, but the seventh day shall be sacred to you as the sabbath of complete rest to the LORD. Anyone who does work on that day shall be put to death."

Does that mean that when my dad goes into work on a Sunday (as he often must do), I should kill him? Or can I get the state to put him death? The punishment should mirror the crime, you say, Peter? In other words, death mirrors working on Sundays, right?

Leviticus 11
"...and the pig, which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you."
"Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you."

I'd imagine this one's a problem for many, many athletes out there. What are all the football players going to do? Wear gloves, I suppose.

There are some more, too, if you'd like to read them:

http://westwing.bewarne.com/second/25admonitions.html

http://www.greaterdemocracy.org/archives/000294.html

The punishment should mirror the crime, you say, Peter? All right, but does that really work when the Old Testament -- which should not be disregarded, you say, Emily? -- says that a woman wearing garments of two different threads should be burned at a small family gathering? To me, it seems like one of many instances in which the punishments mentioned in the Old Testament don't quite mirror the "crime."

But then again, if someone commits rape, no one is going to rape them, as you rightly pointed out, Peter. But you said that putting a rapist to death mirrors the punishment since it "sets the precedent that rape is horrible." I suppose, but I would wager many people feel that rape is more horrible than murder. What can be done about that?

Think about that question, and the others, will you?

Henry, I think our fundamental differences can be summarized in this way. (Credit can be given to Dennis Prager for this clarification.) When I disagree with the Bible, I think I'm wrong and haven't understood what I've read. When you disagree with the Bible, you think the Bible is wrong.

It is obvious to me that you have very little understanding of the context in which much of the Old Testament was written. Of course a great deal of it doesn't make sense to us right now, but that's why we study the text rather than just read it. God was speaking to a specific generation according to their own language and culture. I'm familiar with all of those scriptures you've quoted; you just haven't gone far enough to understand what they meant then and how they can still be applied now.

Again, you may feel that justice isn't killing murderers, but I do, and the Bible is on my side.

Henry,

Nice quotes. Did you look them up yourself and find out the context of the message? If you read further, you'll find this regarding birds:

[14And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
15Every raven after his kind;
16And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
17And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
18And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
19And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.
20All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.]

But if you read 1 Kings 17, you'll find that the prophet Elijah was fed by ravens (they brought him food). Strangely enough, it was thought unclean to touch any food that was touched by an unclean animal. Funny isn't it?

How about Exodus 35:2. You should have used Exodus 31:12-17 :
[12And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 13"Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: "Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that you may know that I am the LORD who sanctifies you. 14You shall keep the Sabbath, therefore, for it is holy to you. Everyone who profanes it shall surely be put to death; for whoever does any work on it, that person shall be cut off from among his people. 15Work shall be done for six days, but the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD. Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. 16Therefore the children of Israel shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout their generations as a perpetual covenant. 17It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed."]

Note the words in verse 16, "as a perpetual covenant." Well, in Hebrews 12, it talks about Jesus as the mediator of a "new covenant".

Now let's break down your passage from Exodus 21:

If you read the passages before and after Ex. 21:7, you'll find out that it is talking about how to treat your servants. Also, in order for a man to sell his own daughter into slavery, he must be poor and own little or no land. You would never see a wealthy merchant sell his daughter into slavery.

Then, if you read verses 8 and 9, you'll see this:
[8If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. 9And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters.]

So in that context, you don't really know what the author meant by "slave". In the New Living Translation, it sais "maid-servant". In the Amplified version, it says "Maidservant or bondwoman". If you look at "bondwoman" you can take it to mean that this woman was sold to pay off a debt. You can't just take this at face value.

You have to look at the context, not just the passage.