Defiant, but hanged
There has been a lot of comment over the last couple of days about the hanging of Saddam Hussein. Some of it has even penetrated the busyness of the season to resonate a little. I have been reflecting a little on a photo that was on the age website (which I now cannot find). It was a side on picture of Hussein, his head lowered with the noose around his neck. And for some reason I thought that I had seen a very similar image before recently. Or that the image was evoking reactions in me that had stirred in relation to something similar. For the life of me I couldn’t figure it out.
It came to me in the end. The image was evoking for me the photos of the Abu Graib torture. The last time I saw such a high profile image of someone with a noose around their neck, it was damning evidence of torture. I haven’t read much commentary so I don’t know how original this response was, and maybe it is entirely appropriate that a known torturer die with these sorts of images echoing in my head.
But I can’t really believe that. I don’t remember very much about the victims of the Abu Graib torture. Because it was irrelevant what crimes the victims may have been guilty of. I do remember a fair bit about the people in those photos who were putting nooses around necks. When talking about outrageous and obscene acts such as torture, the perpetrators commit a crime against humanity itself, not just against the individual victim. Such acts diminish the human race.
I am pretty comfortable calling Hussein evil. He was certainly a man worthy of criminal punishment. But in hanging him, and in condoning or accepting or allowing or refusing to condemn that action, we are smaller and less just and just less.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
“Halieus’s thesis is absurd. First take something out of context and then if you take it to its natural conclusion then there would be no convictions as everyone sins!”
We’re talking about the death penalty. Jesus made it impossible for his followers to carry out executions, to take someone’s life whether in principle they deserve it or not. In one sentence he returned that right to God. You haven’t argued the point. Your argument is with Jesus Christ not me.
Would you kill a Christian brother or sister begging for mercy because the state told you it was right and just? Would Gen9 inspire you to do it? Comfort you in doing it?
I can’t see the interest in Christians seeking to make people pay with their life, life for life. I won’t be killing anyone based on Gen9 or advocating that the state execute murderers based on Gen9.
Christ didn’t order his followers to avenge his death or the death of the Baptist, life for life, and when Stephen preached to the people who murdered Jesus, he wasn’t calling for their deaths but preaching the truth and seeking their salvation.
The Sermon on the mount forbids believers from retaliating against their enemies but further than that are commanded to love them. Early Christian leaders rejected committing any type of violence against enemies either personal or of their family, faith or nation. The state will never fail to find people willing to execute prisoners on their behalf but be it far from us to condone or participate in the violent and unmerciful act. If we couldn’t commit the act ourselves or even retaliate against our enemies how do we think we can suspend our faith while we condemn people to death in support of or on behalf of others, to condone or participate in the execution of theirs or someone else’s enemies? or God’s enemies for that matter. Athenagoras, an early church writer, expressed that even to witness an execution was more than the Christians of his time could endure and poses the question ” So how could we put people to death?”
GB Caird comments on the words for love:
The Greek language has three words for love, which enable us to distinguish Christian love (agape) from passionate devotion (eros) and warm affection (philia). Jesus did not tell his disciples to fall in love with their enemies or to feel for them as they felt for their families and friends. Agape is a gracious, determined, and active interest in the true welfare of others, which is not deterred even by hatred, cursing, and abuse, not limited by calculation of deserts or results, based solely on the nature of God. Love does not retaliate (vv. 27-31), seeks no reward (vv. 32-36), is not censorious (vv. 37-38).(GB Caird, Saint Luke, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1963, page 103-105)
An active interest in the true welfare of others extends to people facing the death penalty, as seemingly deserving as they may be of death because of their crimes.
January 4th, 2007 at 8:37 pm
still wonndering what you thought of the cartoon homer?
January 5th, 2007 at 8:26 am
Homer said “Bec, check out Jewish law at the time but striking someone wasn’t really top of the tops but it occurred regularly in society.”
Now that’s the sort of hair-splitting that Jesus was a really big fan of!
January 5th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Homer you said “Halieus’s thesis is absurd.” I was just expanding on what his thesis was - one of love, grace and forgiveness.
January 5th, 2007 at 4:26 pm
phil, codswallop.
I explicitly said what Halieus said. ie a sinful person cannot judge another.
You brought up something different for whatever reason.
If you do not like capital punishment then say it. Do not hide behind conflated statements.
Greg,
No I haven’t looked at it .
Bec,
it isn’t hairsplitting bec. What Jesus was talking about in essence were incidents they would not seek legal remedies for.
Halieus,
You are saying no person can judge another for any crime. This is an incredibly silly statement.
IF a christian wantonly and wilfully murders another human being I have no problem in believing he should be put to death given what his offence has said about God let alone his fellow people born in God’s image in society.
You are saying that Genesis 9:6 is about retaliation, revenge etal.
IT is not it is about punishment fitting the crime, the worst crime imaginable.
The Sermon on the Mount pointed people toward the correct understanding of various topics of the law as opposed to what Jewish tradition has said it to be.
The treatment of the adulterous is completely irrelevant to this topic.
January 5th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Homer,
Haelieus in his first comment (no 27 for your reference) said this right at the top of his comment:
“Forgiveness, mercy, love.”
You responded that his thesis was absurd.
I just thought that was funny. As Halieus says your argument that his thesis of forgiveness, mercy and love is absurd is with Jesus. Sorry
January 6th, 2007 at 9:11 am
I see you still wish not to read what I said.
Halieus is saying ONLY those without sin can send a fully convicted murderer to the death chamber.
ergo no-one can be convicted.
It may have missed your radar but grace, forgiveness and mercy are things God gives us.
Nowhere in the bible does God tell us that people who perpetrate crimes should be let off unless one brings in totally irrelevant passages to back one up as Halieus does.
If you think Halieus use of passages is correct then say so.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:08 am
I think Halieus use of passages is correct.
January 6th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Homer, is it possible that when you said the Halieus thesis was absurd that you were not talking about Helieus thesis of love, mercy and grace? Is it possible that you wrote it in a way that may leave something open to misinterpretation?
Rather than saying I can’t read, why not indulge me and read what you wrote again through my eyes. Is that possible for you to do?
January 6th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Thanks Phil, that’s what I’m talking about, forgiveness, mercy and love.
Homer, you said,
“You are saying no person can judge another for any crime. This is an incredibly silly statement.”
Straw man argument. You misrepresent my argument, make a statement I haven’t used and then call it a silly statement.
No points for the that one. Try again.
The context of John 8:7 is the execution of the death penalty.
I’ll take it up again later, I’ve no time now and was flat out yesterday.
January 6th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
The thing about the death penalty for me is that it seems hypocritical… it’s wrong to put someone to death, and you’ve killed someone, so we’ll put you to death. I have the same objection to smacking children… it’s wrong to smack your brother, so I’ll smack you to teach you it’s wrong to smack.
It seems to me if society is to uphold certain values it must do so consistently… we don’t whip prisoners who assult people any more because we try to communicate the message that inflicting unnecesary physical pain others is wrong. A civilised society should model behaviour it believes to be appropriate.
I’m not opposed to punishment for crime, but ideally it should allow redemptive possibilities.
January 6th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
It seems to me that the whole Christian faith is about redemption.
Redemption that we have received freely and so shouldn’t we construct our society in ways that gives redemptive space to the very people that need it.
January 6th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
How valuable to society ad to the world wold a redeemed Saddam Hussein have ben? We will never know - however from the anals of history where peopol who deserved to die did not and had their lives changed via an enounter with Jesus - History was made.
Sadness is all I am left with at the murder of Saddam Hussein.
Homer - look at the carton ad tell me what you think of it - I want; your opinion - a view is just a click away
http://www.signposts.org.au/2007/01/03/saddam-hussein-the-cartoon/
January 7th, 2007 at 12:03 am
So anyway Homer, I think John 8:7 is not about conviction, the woman had already been found guilty, at least by the mob, and the sentence from the law was about to be carried out. We often think of this saying metaphorically in a similar way to, “take the log out of your own eye”, and ‘don’t judge’ which is fine but it’s also is a real situation where the rocks where the instruments of death, like the guns of a firing squad or the hangman’s noose or the electric chair. Throwing the stones was killing the person.
Jesus was dealing with the punishment of death. He dealt with the woman in a beautiful and gracious way just after.
So I don’t believe the death penalty is any way ‘Christian’. It’s the opposite.
I read a speech ages ago by Gov. George Ryan, a Christian, concerning the scandalous use of the death penalty in his state of Illinois which made him rethink the whole issue,
http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/spring03/ryanspeech.html.
In it is a quote from Desmond Tutu, he says:
“To take a life when a life has been lost is revenge. It’s not justice….justice allows for mercy and clemency and compassion. These virtues are not weaknesses.”
January 7th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Janet,
you seem to have at least two problems with the bible!!
Phil,
I have been quite explicit about why Halieus’s statement was quite silly.
you do not seem to want to address that.
Greg,
Saddam was not murdered. He was found guilty of murder and sentenced thus. There is a big difference.
Halieus,
The adulterous woman has no bearing on the punishment for cold hearted murder.
First you have to realise Israel was no longer at the time a ‘holy’ nation and thus the law pertaining to it did not apply. We are seeing the starting of the church.
We also have the reasons why the men brought the woman. Was it justice?
Then we have the crime itself. She was caught in the act yet no male is present.
I could go on but it has application to the church not to society as a whole.
No-one yet has shown why Genesis 9:6 was bad, revenge or even murder and we have had tow episodes taken completely from context to assert this no longer applies.
I also notice Halieus seems to be backtracking form his let on those without sin judge and so he should.
January 7th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Homer, I’ll confess I have a lot of problems with the bible!!!! Much of it to do with the teachings of Jesus being darn hard to do. Some of it to do with the difficulty of knowing which bits of the bible are universally true for all time, and which bits were written for a particular place, culture and time. Then there’s those bits I just plain don’t understand because of idioms, cultural practices, or language.
I’m wondering whether what you’re trying to do is make the distinction between the laws of the land and the principles by which Jesus followers seek to live?
To some extent I agree that the “turn the other cheek” and the “whoever is without sin cast the first stone” should not be taken to mean society should have no laws, and no penalties for laws broken. In that sense, I agree with some of what you’re saying… that would unleash anarchy. We actually need a legal system and a police force to keep us reasonably safe!
But then the fact we are living in a modern democracy and not an ancient Theocracy start to complicate the issue. (as stated, one of my “problems” with the bible) I don’t believe that laws should be written in Australia that say people should be stoned to death for disobedience to parents, even though that’s within the Old Testament Law.
So it’s a complex issue in my opinion that can’t be solved with proof texts from a different time, place and culture… I’ve stated my basic reasons for opposing the death penalty.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Capital punishment is advocated just after the Flood ie to the coming generation to tell them of the fit and proper punishment for murder.
This is well before the imposition of the ten commandments and the law.
1 Cor 5 shows we do not live under those punishments any longer however like Halieus suggestion it is irrelevant. Theocracy is not being put forward
I might add we all must accept punishment for sinning against God.
For the elect Jesus has already taken it.
January 8th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Circumcision, tithing, forbidding of eating meat with blood, etc. operated before the Law too… I’m not convinced that just because a command is “pre-law” it must be universally binding.
Do you insist on properly slaughtered meat with blood drained out of it? It’s in the same paragraph as the capital punishment one. You can find this at an Halal butcher shop if this is a sticking point for you.
This is what I mean about my difficulty with the bible… interpretation isn’t always as straightforward as it might seem.
January 8th, 2007 at 9:31 am
you are not reading what is part of the covenant and what is not.
I haven’t made such a covenant with God so no I don’t.
You might care to wonder on why God did that. It isn’t all that different to why he gave the Israelites the law
January 8th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
The life is in the blood Homer. Convenient for you to ignore that but Janet’s question is valid. “But flesh with the life of it, the blood of it, you shall not eat.” Your position on capital punishment is not Christian. Christianity is not about a cold application of law. You prefer to ignore Jesus, the NT and the record of the early church in favour of making sure murderers pay with their life. Show me why encouraging, supporting or participating in the death penalty is a Christian attitude.
“I have been quite explicit about why Halieus’s statement was quite silly…”
Which Statement? “He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone at her.”? Twice you’ve made up things that I didn’t say and called them silly. Can you show me where I said:
“a sinful person cannot judge another.”
The statement is true enough but you’ve equivocated with the word “judge” since the context is carrying out a death penalty. I’ve only been talking about ‘condemning to death’. In any case I never made that statement.
“you are saying no person can judge another for any crime. This is an incredibly silly statement.”
Show me where I said that. I didn’t. This is your way of reducing the words of Jesus to “not applicable” so you can happily ignore them.
Homer said:
“IF a christian wantonly and wilfully murders another human being I have no problem in believing he should be put to death given what his offence has said about God let alone his fellow people born in God’s image in society.”
So you read wantonly and wilfully into gen9:6 when it speaks only of life for life. Murderers often believe in Jesus while in prison and truly are remorseful and regret their terrible crimes. You have no problem with putting them to death when pleading for mercy, and you think that’s Christian? What about your own children? Your own mother? Your best friend? Still put them to death?
Homer said:
“The adulterous woman has no bearing on the punishment for cold hearted murder.”
So it’s cold hearted murder now? Wanton and wilful? I didn’t read that in Gen9. It says Whoever sheds man’s blood. Look in the law and you’ll see even accidentally killing someone is punishable by death, life for life but Jesus brought a radical new way for people in the Kingdom of God that requires ‘agape’ love toward others.
Homer said:
“First you have to realise Israel was no longer at the time a ‘holy’ nation and thus the law pertaining to it did not apply. We are seeing the starting of the church.”
The laws pertaining to stoning didn’t apply? The laws pertaining to adultery didn’t apply? Jesus said nothing at that time about laws not applying. His statement stands as true, applicable and universal.
Homer said:
“We also have the reasons why the men brought the woman. Was it justice?”
Was the Law of Moses just?
Homer said:
“Then we have the crime itself. She was caught in the act yet no male is present.”
Interesting little titbit. Did you know that there are 30 or more insect parts in 10 grams of allspice. Fascinating. This doesn’t help you in explaining away the profound statement of Jesus.
Homer said:
“I could go on but it has application to the church not to society as a whole.”
The words of Christ are applicable to Christians and by extension any society that they have influence in, as much as they live and reflect his teaching, and have a say in the way society is run, but a country can’t be run solely on Christian ideas. A Christian community, yes, but when Christians try to rule society they inevitably end up with the teachings of Jesus crushed under their jackboots. Look at history.
Homer said:
“No-one yet has shown why Genesis 9:6 was bad, revenge or even murder and we have had tow episodes taken completely from context to assert this no longer applies.’
Killing people doesn’t apply to us because the people of the new covenant have been shown a better way than Noah. Because merciful is God’s character.
Because mercy means:
In the negative: not getting what you deserve
In the positive: getting more than you deserve
Killing people doesn’t apply to us because the NT calls for a radical new community based on the revelation of Jesus Christ. Because Jesus said, “He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone” in the context of the death penalty. Because Jesus said: “As you would like people to do to you, do exactly so to them.” meaning as you would like people to do to you, do exactly so to them. Because Jesus said: “But love your enemies, and do good… and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, Even as your Father is also merciful.”
Homer said:
“I also notice Halieus seems to be backtracking form his let on those without sin judge and so he should.”
No, Jesus didn’t say that, it’s more like, “let he who is without sin start the killing, lead the mob in collective violence leading to death.” You can take it metaphorically but that’s not the root meaning of the text. It was a real situation with real rocks and real death. You have to distort the argument because Jesus, the NT and the early church can’t help you.
The Pharisees said: “Moses commanded us to stone”
Jesus said: “He who is without sin among you, let him throw the first stone”
Christianity is about redemption, love, mercy, grace and forgiveness. Christ died in place of a murderer and we’re the ones who are supposed to be showing the light in a dark world. Christians bring shame on the church when they disregard the one they are called to follow.
You’ve presented not one single NT reference in support of the death penalty or Christian involvement and encouragement. Instead you want to interpret Christianity through Gen9:6 so you can nod in approval as states put people to death. Most death penalty advocates have at least one NT passage to try to support their political position. You offer nothing. Your confused about what a Christian’s input is into society and what our priorities are. Christians are defaming Christ with their un-christian attitudes. Christ died for sinners and even murderers can be redeemed. If Christians make laws they are laws that show clemency and an interest in the welfare of others, even of offenders.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
first since people are clearly not thinking.
God well knew that murder, first committed by Cain, would happen again.
Now he prescribes capital punishment not as a deterrent , it isn’t even discussed same with revenge, but as a signal that murder is in a class by itself in that it kills a human born in God’s image.
The person without sin should tie the noose, fire the gun, wield the sword, flick the switch, turn on the gas, carry out the execution is what you said.
This is both very silly and taken completely out of context.
Accidental killing is not murder!
I am sorry but you clearly have little idea of what I said with regard to the adulterous.
try thinking about why they were imposed. by the way 1 Cor 5 tells us it was only applied to the unrepentant!
On the contrary Halieus I do not have to provide any evidence to support a proposition it is up to you to show it is different and all you have is a verse taken completely out of context and whats more a verse you clearly do nor understand.
January 8th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
You are wrong Homer - have you yet looked at the cartoon?
Why do you resist looking at the cartoon and posting your reflecti on what is says regarding our discussion on this thread? Are you scared? Please look at cartoon and tell me what you think.
http://www.signposts.org.au/2007/01/03/saddam-hussein-the-cartoon/
January 8th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Actually you did have a look sorry - didn;t notice that till just now.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Genesis 9: 4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
Homer, how can you be so certain about which bits are covenant and which bits are not? The whole passage is the covenant with Noah and his sons… why would the bit in the middle NOT be part of the covenant with Noah?
You may have a different opinion than I about this, but what this is is an opinion… not proof.
Great post Halieus.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Janet it seems to me that God is allowing man to eat meat.
What is certainly a fresh development is the law on blood which is theologically far reaching.
It at once limited man’s rights over God’s creatures since their life is was his.
The Mosaic law reaffirms this.
I don’t know about you but this part seems to me redundant!
.
I have already answered why this is unique.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
I think we live under a new and better covenant.
I might need you to explain the fresh development about the law on blood.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
it was fresh at the time Janet and I have explained it.
January 8th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
If you explained it, I’ve missed it or didn’t understand it.
How exactly is the law about removing blood from meat redundant while the law about capital punishment is binding for all time? The two are linked in the same passage. What tools of biblical interpretation are you using to say one is redundant and the other stands for all time?
For the viewers playing at home, here’s the whole Noahic covenant:
Genesis 9: 1 Then God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth. 2 The fear and dread of you will fall upon all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air, upon every creature that moves along the ground, and upon all the fish of the sea; they are given into your hands. 3 Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.
4 “But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood still in it. 5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man.
6 “Whoever sheds the blood of man,
by man shall his blood be shed;
for in the image of God
has God made man.
7 As for you, be fruitful and increase in number; multiply on the earth and increase upon it.”
8 Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him: 9 “I now establish my covenant with you and with your descendants after you 10 and with every living creature that was with you—the birds, the livestock and all the wild animals, all those that came out of the ark with you—every living creature on earth. 11 I establish my covenant with you: Never again will all life be cut off by the waters of a flood; never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth.”
12 And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all generations to come: 13 I have set my rainbow in the clouds, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and the earth. 14 Whenever I bring clouds over the earth and the rainbow appears in the clouds, 15 I will remember my covenant between me and you and all living creatures of every kind. Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life. 16 Whenever the rainbow appears in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and all living creatures of every kind on the earth.”
17 So God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant I have established between me and all life on the earth.”
January 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
err Janet because we already have blood shed for us
January 8th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Well, if using that argument, didn’t He who shed blood for us also die in our place?