OK, lets back up the truck then:
And you agreed this conclusion is wrong:
If that is so then the only corollary of denying that conclusion I can see must logically be:
Yet you say “No, I didn’t.”
The verse appears to me to be the instituting of the death penalty. I searched through a number of bible commentaries and could not find a materially different view. And to the best of my knowledge, Jesus did not address CP (eg. seek to clarify or constrain it) and I don’t believe the reasoning of recent Popes relies on any claim that he did.I’ve never really focused on 2260 in this connection.
At first glance its pro life rather than pro retribution.
The phrase “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed;” seems capable of being interpreted to say the very opposite of what Jesus would have said if you wanted to look at it without any reference to the NT.
As in what Jesus said, " whoever lives by the sword shall die by the sword."
That doesn’t sound at all like unmitigated approval or a command for the State to punish criminals to the full extent of eye for eye always and everywhere if desired
To me it seems a warning to anyone who feels they have authority over others - the power of life and death fully belongs to God alone, certainly not to individuals and only very cautiously and in limited fashion to the state…and even then as a necessary evil in a fallen world.
What about you.
How so?
Neither Jesus, Ambrose, nor Augustine ever suggested such a thing, and this position cannot reasonably be interpreted from anything they ever said. There is no justification for suggesting any of them believed capital punishment should be banned or was to be understood differently than it was in the Old Testament. If Jesus actually thought capital punishment was to be banned, why didn’t he say so? He certainly had no problem speaking out about divorce. Where are the parable that suggest this? Why instead did he use parables that included capital punishment?
I think this falls into the “render unto Caeser” category. The state and the church have different rights and responsibilities.
You missed the fact that I have already agreed with this position. Post #211: *There is a significant difference between claiming that no types of executions can be intrinsically evil and claiming only that some can be. **Of course some can be…OK, lets back up the truck then:
And you agreed this conclusion is wrong: [no types of SKilling can be always evil]
If that is so then the only corollary of denying that conclusion I can see must logically be: [Some types of SKilling can be intrinsically evil]
Yet you say “No, I didn’t.”
One of us is not facing logic I suggest.
Have I missed another solution for this binary proposition?
I didn’t ask for evidence about Christ’s position on marriage; that’s not in question. Where is the evidence he felt this way about capital punishment?
Trace the topic thread back Ender.
Doh boy. One of us doesnt consistently use the english language in a way that makes for useful discussion.
But echoing point1, its not clear that the Church asserts that CP in places with secure prisons is always morally evil, though selected statements certainly suggest that position.
One could say his death on the cross at the hands of the roman state is a silent jab at the cruelty of Capital Punishment.
Is “cruelty” key in the debate? LIP is arguably cruel too.
The debate is not really about the black and white prospect your mention. Some argue that the availability of secure prisons makes use of CP immoral (and recent papal statements give that impression), though this seems quite hard to reconcile with historical teaching. Others say the admonishment to choose non-Lethal means of punishment is a prudential judgement about what is best.
I suspect you are far to advanced in years to be held to that.It will go the way I stated in point1, I’ll shout you a trip downunder if I am wrong.
