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 16th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Homer is fixated by Genesis 9:6 in the Noahic covenant arguing that it precedes the Mosaic covenant… although he thinks the blood draining bit of the covenant doesn’t apply because of the shed blood of Jesus (how the death of Jesus doesn’t satisfy the “death for death” requirements of this covenant if the blood of Jesus does satisfy the blood part of the covenant is quite beyond me). He hasn’t answered the question of the Rev of the even earlier precendent (if we are to argue from “what comes first is the most basic”) as to why God mercifully protected Cain even though he had committed murder.
Emblazoned gave the most honest answer I think… that the death penalty appeals to his sense of justice. I asked my husband about this, and he said he felt that paedophiles should be put to death because it is such an appalling crime. I think the “life for life” appeals to a primal sense of justice in us… it’s a gut level thing.
But Homer… let’s not pretend you have a strong biblical argument and the rest of us… along with the early church fathers… simply don’t understand Jesus and don’t understand the bible.
If it’s the way you feel, fine… you are perfectly entitled to your opinion… but don’t try to imply it’s what Jesus taught and that everyone else is wrong.
January 16th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Homer, the scripture you quoted said we are all guilty, but does not say that we are all to be killed. You willfully ignore the testimony of the early church fathers, and all of the teaching and example of Jesus. The new testement is just that, a new testimony, the revealed will of God, the new covenant. The direct descendents of Jesus understood it, everyone else understands it, you just do not. Why? Because you are really a Jew, you have attached Jesus to your Jewishness, but you live by the old testement not by following Jesus. What a disgraceful shame.
rev
January 17th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Janet,
your problem is you cannot find any scripture to back up your case.
You tried with the sermon on the mount but as I showed Jesus was talking about something completely different.
rev, why am Ii not surprised you would not address the issue bot go out on another tangent.
The two criminals were receiving their JUST reward for their crimes!!!
I could say rev one can only understnd the O/T if one understands the N/T and you can only understand either with the holy spirit!
You like Janet can only offer vague generalizations of what Jesus really meant.
since I am no fan of John Henry Newman I only pay attention to early church tradition if it coicides with the bible
January 17th, 2007 at 10:47 am
Once again Homer shows no evidence to support his view. Homer, one scripture that shows capital punishment is still supported from the new testement, or early church fathers, just one?
The fact is I showed many many scriptures. Love your enemies. Pray for those that abuse you. Forgive forever. Those that live by the sword shall die by it. The meek will inherit the earth. The merciful will receive mercy. Ect.
You have stated correctly that you cannot understand the Old Testement without the new, and that you cannot understand either without the Holy Spirit. That is why you are so ignorant of Jesus, because you do not have the Spirit of Christ, but the spirit of religion.
rev
January 17th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
oh rev, not only do you show you have not understood the theology of Genesis 9:6 you do not understand arguments.
God says yeah to capital punishment for murder in Genesis 9:6.
It is up to you to show this has been replaced.
You haven’t as yet apart from things that have no relationship which even a bonehead can show. it is masterful if you wish to confuse but poor if you wish to educate.
perhaps you show ask yourself if you understand or not
January 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
You still haven’t explained how Jesus death revokes verses 4 and 5a but not 5b and 6.
Did Jesus shed His blood to take the penalty of sin or not?
January 17th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
And… why didn’t the Lord take the life of the first murderer Cain if this law is as immutable as you suggest?
January 17th, 2007 at 5:13 pm
I’ve searched the bible high and low, read every philosopher I cold get my hands on, devined the depth of te early church fathers and all are ain aggreement - you Homer are a bone head!
January 17th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
And… why do you think a regulation of the Noahic covenant that is restated in the New Testament for Christians (Acts 15:29) DOESN’T apply to Christians… while a regulation of the Noahic covenant that is NEVER restated in the New Testament does still apply?
This is inconsistent.
And… is it your practice to defend something based on ONE Old Testament verse?
January 17th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
On the positive side of the Homerian ledger:
He isn’t susceptible to peer pressure.
If consistency is a great virture, then he’d have to be a great saint. He’s never yet (publicly at least) changed his mind.
January 17th, 2007 at 6:33 pm
“as I showed Jesus was talking about something completely different.”
By the way Homer… you did not show anything of the kind. I asked you to elaborate on the parallel passages of Matthew and Luke to explain what Jesus is really saying. I posted these for you so you could explain how they do not actually mean what they appear to mean. You have not yet done so. Here they are again in case you had forgotten:
Matthew 6
38″You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Luke 6
27″But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32″If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ lend to ’sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
January 17th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
The reasons those verses don’t change anything Janet is actually quite simple, Homer says so. That is his standard and it will never change. The people that actually lived with Jesus understood, their disciples understood, there disciples understood and so on for 300 years, but Homer reckons they were all wrong.
Homer, listen very carefully, Jesus changed it all. By his life, death and resurection he changed the rules. He is allowed to because He is God. Now you say some rules changed but others did not. Can you show me the verse in the bible that says that?
And perhaps you can tell me that if you worship and do no work at all and Saturday? Oh Yeah Jesus changed that rule.
And do you sacrifice animals? Oh right Jesus changed that rule
And do you eat pork? Oh yeah that one was changed also
And do you stone homosexuals and adulterers to death? No he changed that one too.
Why did he only change those rules but not the captial punishment for murder?
And while you are at it, explain why Cain was not killed, and not only was he not killed but God put a sign on cain so that nobody who saw him would kill him?
Again, you are exhibiting your stiff necked religiousity.
rev
January 18th, 2007 at 10:52 am
I’m sorry but this has gone on too long.
I alluded to this with Jesus but now go and read Romans 13 which in fact backs up Genesis 6 .Paul in speaks of judges as Gods ministers in using the sword that is to say in putting to death those who deserve death!
Remarkable !
Rev seems to have either passed it by or is ignorant of it, even more remarkable given he is an evangelical !
January 18th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
I would like to add for the uninformed a person was NOT automatically stoned to death for adultery according to levitical law.
The N/T makes this abundantly clear, guess where?
Only a pharisee argues thus ironically enough because they do NOT understnd the N/T because?
January 18th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Finally Homer, you’re using Romans 13 to erroneously back the CP argument.
Roman 13 has nothing to do with the death penalty. It is the instruction to obey civil authorities. It tells us that God has ordained order not chaos. It is the authority itself that is provided for an orderly society.
The context of the passage is the Christian’s passive and longsuffering approach to wrongdoing against him as shown in the preceding verses.
“…17 Repay no one evil for evil. Respect what is honorable in the sight of all men.
If it is possible, as much as it is up to you, be at peace with all men.
Don’t seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God’s wrath. For it is written, “Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord.”
Therefore “If your enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is thirsty, give him a drink. For in doing so, you will heap coals of fire on his head.”
Don’t be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.”
Romans 12:17-21
The instruction to Christians is to obey the law, pay taxes and respect authority.
The sword is not symbolic of the death penalty but of authority and vengeance, something Jesus, Paul and the entire NT has already ruled out for Christians. So it’s not Christians carrying out vengeance but obeying the authorities.
To read this passage otherwise, other than a general instruction to obey civil authorities ordained by God is to suggest that the most cruel and despicable methods of the Romans where condoned.
We know that first century Christians didn’t participate in the stoning of people. Who could believe that Christians participated in the death penalties of the empire? That a Christian of the NT church would drive in the nails to crucify someone?
This passage doesn’t stipulate what system of law or penalties secular authorities should use in their pursuit of civil order but is a message to Christians to obey secular authorities.
The sword was a symbol of fear and power for obvious reasons. But authorities who carried swords didn’t meter out the death penalty. The sword was not used by Rome for executing murderers or for executions generally (with exceptions)which carried a different punishment depending on status and type of murder/crime.
For instance according to John Laurence,( A History of Capital Punishment (N.Y.: The Citadel Press, 1960), 1-3.) “The Romans had a curious punishment for parricides (murder of a parent): the condemned was submersed in water in a sack, which also contained a dog, a rooster, a viper and an ape.”
A particularly vicious and vile execution for a murderer. You don’t suppose that Paul is justifying this punishment in Romans 13 do you? Since this is what CP meant at the time.
Other slow and painful execution methods employed by the Romans included crucifixion of course, and surely no one will suggest that NT Christians advocated and supported the use of crucifixion? Would they? Impalement of various types, a favourite of Nero an anti-Christ, and a hideous and painful death. Is this what the sword means? Impalement? Should Christians nod in approval and lend a hand? Burial alive or being torn apart by wild animals where also common.
Now which of these methods would we personally participate in as a righteous act and pious duty with the conviction of Romans 13 and Gen 9 if we feel that Paul is justifying in some way these methods of cruelty, well known to one and all at the time?
If the message to the Roman Christians was support for unspeakable cruelty then it would contravene the rest of the new testament that does not advocate in any way such brutality, the tenor of which is clemency, mercy and love.
The message is that civil authority should be feared and obeyed and exist for our and the common good by way of common laws and magistrates but doesn’t support the death penalty.
January 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Homer said earlier in the discussion:
“He is NOT arguing against a tooth for a tooth but saying Jewish tradition got it wrong about what it meant.”
You’re saying that,
“eye for eye and tooth for tooth”
REALLY meant,
“If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” and “Do not resist an evil person.”
Christ was obviously introducing Orwellian doublethink to his followers. How one teases out a truth as obscure as this I’ll never know!
January 18th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Halieus, I will put this as bluntly as I can.
An Eye for an Eye.. is about proportionate retribution ( which is NOT revenge) moreover the law was given to the Jewish nation ie it was to be discharged by magistrates!
In this passage Jesus is talking about litigation!
It is highly ironic how liberals become sooo literal!
Like many liberals you mistake revenge with punishment of the crime.
Of course Christians didn’t stone anyone. Read 1 Corinthians 5 again!
we are talking about the judiciary handing out just punishment for crimes.
in other words to repeat yet again what punishment does a murderer deserve.
I got to hand it to you. A judge holding a sword to execute justice can be a metaphor for everything except the obvious.
Think about this. The cruelest act a person can do is to murder someone!
Concentrate on the act
January 18th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Homer, you haven’t answered any of my questions above.
But I agree with you on this… it’s gone on too long. I’ll agree to differ. It’s a theoretical argument in the end as Australia doesn’t practice capital punishment and we don’t have voting rights anywhere else!
I would be interested in exploring the use of force by governments however… we posted the rather extreme scenarios of a country overrun by violence… eg Rwanda… where a timely international force may have saved the lives of many. Might Christians support governments sending troops in one of those scenarios where it appears the lesser of two evils?
January 18th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
Janet - it may be an intellectual excersise for us - but certainly not for any of the Bali 9 set to be excecuted. Australians have always expected our government to fight the death penalty on behalf of it’s citizens - our government has no moral authority to do so when it doesn;t fight te death penalty on behalf of everybody - John Howared agred wit the penalty set for Saddam and now has no right to say anything when te Bali 9 go before the hangman.
We however have to take the fight to Indonesia on their behalf.
Homer - shuold the Bali 9 die (aside from the arguemtn that they knew the penalty and the obvious ‘well it’s the law of Indonesia’ Does Indonesia have a moral stading point to hand down te death penalty on drug couriors?
January 18th, 2007 at 9:31 pm
Well Homer once again you completely miss everything in favour of your ridiculous love for the old testement in favour of Jesus. Jesus absolutly made it clear that the kingdom of God changes everything, but you refuse to understand it. I am not talking about the government but Christians killing people. In a democracy, a CHristian is the government, and therefore must not sanction killing. Your stupid little line about taking things literal is not only old, its stupid. You pharisaical assholes love to keep literal when we are talking about killing people, and what you do with your penis, but then you conveniently set literal translations aside when it comes to picking up your cross, letting God rule your wallet, and the focus on peace, mercy and forgiveness. We are to follow Jesus example exept when it gets in the way of our conservative agenda. It is pure bullshit, and your rhetoric will not make it any less so. Jesus does not condone the death penalty or war, and only an idiot would say He does.
rev
January 19th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
I know you’re right Greg… but Homer won’t answer my questions and won’t change his mind… and he’s the only voice promoting the death penalty… so it does seem a bit pointless.
I do think it’s perhaps more productive to explore whether there is ever a case for force… even lethal force… to minimize suffering in an evil world. It’s a morally dangerous course… but in a fallen world we wrestle with shades of grey all the time.
January 20th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Janet,
I answered your question way back when you introduced the Sermon on the mount as your defence obviously not realising what Jesus was talking about.
Greg,
my understanding is none of them murdered anyone so the punishment fitting the crime is not capital punishment.
good old rev who of course is an evangelical and accusses people of being a pharisee but doesn’t know what a pharisee is despite Jesus being quite forensic is his critique ( take a read of Matt 15 !).
He thinks levitical law means automatic stoning of an adulteress.
oh dear, the holy spirit does seem to be missing.
Do you notice when rev’s ‘biblical evidence’ is shown to be cobblers he simply moves on to another topic. Just like Lance
January 20th, 2007 at 5:08 pm
Homer it is impossible to run a decent debate with you as you don’t follow a complete stream of thought all the way through - you write sentences such as oh dear, the holy spirit does seem to be missing. but don;t say why you think this or even what bearing it has on your argument (or rev’s apparent lack of biblical ability - wish I was as biblically iliterate as rev!)
People have been telling you for ages (and I’m certain this is not the only forum where people don;t understand you) that your sentence structure does not make sense yet you continue to write crap and bollocks - people move on to different subjects because they get frustrated at trying to continue on with you.
I on the other hand am patient, meek and mild - I will travel with you until you call the death sentence what it is - state sanctioned murder
January 20th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Gaah!!!!
A one line assertion is not an explanation. Let me explain what I mean by “answering my questions”.
1 I have posted the parallel teaching passages in Matthew and Luke. Please explain what these two passages mean in detail. Compare and contrast. If you are convinced that Matthew is really a narrow interpretation of Jewish law in a legal setting only, name and reference the biblical scholars that support this view. Then explain what Jesus REALLY means in Luke. Name and reference the scholars that support this view.
Matthew 6
38″You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[g] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if someone wants to sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
43″You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Luke 6
27″But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32″If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even ’sinners’ lend to ’sinners,’ expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
2. Explain in some detail why you think a regulation of the Noahic covenant that is restated in the New Testament for Christians (Acts 15:29) DOESN’T apply to Christians… while a regulation of the Noahic covenant that is NEVER restated in the New Testament does still apply? (ie explain precisely how Jesus death revokes verses 4 and 5a but not 5b and 6.) Name and reference the biblical scholars that support this view.
3. Why didn’t the Lord take the life of the first murderer Cain? What are the implications of this in the most primitive and foundational chapters of the bible? Reference the biblical scholars who support this view.
A one line assertion is not an explanation.
Actually, I don’t expect you will answer, but this is what I am asking for… not a vague throwaway line.
January 20th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Not one scripture I posted was adequately refuted, and not one scripture was offerred by you that even comes vaguely close to defending your claims. You don’t talk a good game and you fail to deliver also. You are quite the loser.
rev
January 21st, 2007 at 10:12 am
Homer…
“An Eye for an Eye.. is about proportionate retribution ( which is NOT revenge) moreover the law was given to the Jewish nation ie it was to be discharged by magistrates!
In this passage Jesus is talking about litigation!”
I have no idea what you’re talking about, and since you made reference to me being a lawyer earlier in this thread, I’ll remind you of that fact.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:45 pm
rev,
in your dreams. one only has to post the relevant part of scripture to refute you anytime. It gets somewhat embarrassing when scripture says the totally opposite thing you think it does which I suspect is the reason why you swear so much.
Janet,
gimme a break. I have no time nor desire to do that but off the top of my head I would sat to a look at the tyndale commentary and Don Carson’s book on the Sermon on the Mount. Mathew Henry’s commentary also
Greg,
if people think the sermon on the mount is refutation of Genesis 9:6 then they have little idea of what Jesus is saying, I would have thought the examples were a strong enough hint, then ipso facto the holy spirit must be missing.
Bec,
I am not surprised you have no idea but you are in good company. Surprising for such a simple passage
January 21st, 2007 at 7:00 pm
OK… I suppose I was over the top… but you give a view that is fairly unique without any supporting evidence. Most commentators would suggest that the parallel passages I’ve posted in Luke and Matthew were from an original “sayings” document called “Q” that really didn’t have a particular context… it was simply a record of the sayings of Jesus. To say that Jesus is explaining how Jewish civil laws should be implemented is a statement of your opinion, but it’s not a fact, and you’ve given no supporting evidence to back it up. This is why I’m despairing of discussing this issue with you.
I think the “plain sense” reading… that Jesus is explaining how his followers are to treat others… is accepted by everyone else posting here. If you want your alternative view to be accepted you will need to defend it and explain it far more clearly.
Rev… maybe it’s time to love your enemies, starting with Homer!!!!!
January 21st, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Ummmm…no Homer, it’s not the passage I don’t understand, it’s you. Your writing doesn’t make any sense.
January 22nd, 2007 at 7:47 am
“the law was given to the Jewish nation ie it was to be discharged by magistrates!”
Bec, I think I’ve worked out what Homer is trying to say… and it may in fact be the view of the rather archaic Matthew Henry Commentary (although I don’t have one lying around to check.)
He’s suggesting the sermon on the mount an interpretation of the Mosaic law under the rule of Jesus, the Messiah of the Jews…. the civil law for Kingdom of Heaven in Israel under Jesus’ reign.
Is that your understanding Homer? Just trying to work out what you mean.