“JohnD–
What on earth is a “supernatural friend”? ”

I’ll take it from the MerriamWebster dictionary, although you may refer to others.

Supernatural

Pronunciation: “sü-p&r-’na-ch&-r&l, -’nach-r&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin supernaturalis, from Latin super- + natura nature

1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil.

Which just leaves us with:

Friend

Pronunciation: ‘frend
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English frend, from Old English frEond; akin to Old High German friunt friend, Old English frEon to love, frEo free
1 a : one attached to another by affection or esteem b : ACQUAINTANCE
2 a : one that is not hostile b : one that is of the same nation, party, or group
3 : one that favors or promotes something (as a charity)
4 : a favored companion
5 capitalized : a member of a Christian sect that stresses Inner Light, rejects sacraments and an ordained ministry, and opposes war — called also Quaker

Pursuit of this is off topic (I’d be pleased to discuss elsewhere) but please refrain from calling people ”dumb, such talk promotes neither civility or your argument.

Put another way, what passes for status quo ain’t cutting it, what with all these repeat offenders getting off.

Yet just let anyone try to seduce my daughter while in my household and they’d be begging for mercy as well.

There was a reason why some States had the age of consent going as low as 13 or 14. And there’s a reason why we had shotgun weddings for those who don’t restrain themselves.

All the same, I take a dim view of the future prospects of anyone prematurely considering marriage over financial security. It’s one thing if an OT shepherd boy gets married at age 14, it’s quite another thing to start a family in the US before, like say age 25 or 30.

Question: For those who agree that pedophiles should receive the death penalty, in light of the recent upsurge of female teacher/student scandals, does the notion of capital punishment apply to female pedophiles who “rape” underage boys or girls? What if the accused is pretty?

To answer Lashawn’s questions:

1) What are your views on the death penalty in general? I agree with the death penalty when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is in fact guilty, and understand it as a duty for the state to carry out on behalf of the people, for the safety of society in general.

2) What are your views on the death penalty for child rapists, whether or not they murder the children? I agree, child rapists should get the death penalty, once again, when it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the accused is in fact guilty. Having children myself, I would have no mercy for such an individual.

Another question I must ask is are we referring to forcible rape or does this include both forced and statutory rape?

To all–
Don’t assume this is a clearly left-right issue. In the cases I cited, it was a “liberal” prosecuter who pressed the matter, while the so-called “conservatives” defended the accused.

I support capital punishment not for deterrence but for retribution. Retributive justice, baby.

Does black girl speak with forked tounge?

Pro – I do not beleive we can kill someone, all we can do is send him (or her?) to meet his maker.

Con – Its awfully hard to say you are sorry.

Ask the criminals – Actual quote – “you don’t want to do that in texas, they kill people in texas”

1) What are your views on the death penalty in general?

In theory, I’m for it. In practice, as The Innocence Project is showing, mistakes and sometimes “rogue” prosecutions are taking place. I can’t support the death penalty as it currently stands.

2) What are your views on the death penalty for child rapists, whether or not they murder the children?

If I supported the death penalty, I’d say kill them.

Comment by DarkStar

That is quite good sir. I don’t quite agree but admire the mind that can express itself so concisely. I will not consider the death penality (indeed, the entire justice system) properly administered until the same punishment is given to those that frame someone.

Of course “lock em up forever” just takes a few years longer till they are free to prey upon others. Severe punishment, yes. But “cruel and unusual punishment” bans are to protect you and I, not the criminal.

Sorry for the hijack — carry on.

I realize that the crime of sexual abuse is insidously perpetual in that one doesn’t get over it as we would with a stolen easy-bake oven and that previously innocent victims now view the world in a sexual context.

I’m mindful of
Mat 18:6 But whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believes in Me, it would be better for him that an ass’s millstone were hung around his neck, and he be sunk in the depth of the sea.
Mat 18:7 Woe to the world because of offenses! For it is necessary that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense comes!
Mat 18:8 And if your hand or your foot causes you to offend, cut them off and throw them from you. It is better for you to enter into life lame or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire.
Mat 18:9 And if your eye offends you, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire.
Mat 18:10 Take heed that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I say to you that in Heaven their angels always behold the face of My Father in Heaven.

By substituting out hand/foot, I’m making the case that castration is actually an act of Christian compassion and second chances. Particularly since Judhaic law proscribes death for rapists. On the other hand, enunchs have a history of tending to be non-violent, a true girly-man. But if, IF, in spite of the physical castration, not chemical, the offender strikes again, then off with his head — permanently. A lifetime imprisonment is still a burden to society. This solution takes care of the question of ‘reversal’ of punishment in that a life was spared on strike one, however there shouldn’t be any 3rd chances for anyone.

By failing to protect the little ones in a misguided attempt to show PC-inspired compassion and multi-kulti diversity/appreciation for Namblas and perverts, we subject unknowable number of potential victims to the same perp. Not to mention there are some mightily po’d guardian angels.

And the seculars call that justice? Yeah, it’s par for course to call evil good & compassionate and to call righteousness narrow-minded and mean-spirited. Fact is, these bleeding hearts are so open-minded, their brains all leaked out .

You’re absolutely right and I hope to address that here below. Nor does that make sense to the God who inspired all scriptures in the first place.

I concur with Jan’s assessment that the modern Christian has swung too far on the subject of forgiveness. In fact the common notions of forgiveness has been tainted by pop culture because we have drifted from the strict ‘constitutionalists’ interpretations of the Bible in an attempt to be hip.

Hey, Jude, where does this nonsense come from? I say it comes from Satan the Deceiving Angel of Light (Jude 1:3-25)!!!

Sort of the same way that pop culture elevates no talents, we’re afflicted by our share of pop Christianity. Unfortunately, using the parable of the sower (Matt 13:18-22), it is the unrooted who gets prime time. I apologize on behalf of all who have diluted and/or misconstrued the message of forgiveness, NOT.

Nowhere in the NT is there an imperative that we must forgive at all costs, regardless of the offender’s attitude.

The onus is on the offender to seek forgiveness and has always remained so. To wit:
1) When Jesus said “Father forgive them for they know not what they do“. This is not to say we should write a blank check of forgiveness for every wrong. Take a closer look at the scene of the crime. They really didn’t know what they were doing.
a) The Jews, stirred up by the priests, truly believed that they had condemned a heretic and for which the law justly proscribed death.
b) The Romans didn’t really believe that Jesus intended to usurp Ceasar, but since the Jews were in a “holy” rage, it was convenient for Pilate to nifong Jesus in order to placate the local community. Likewise, had the insurrection threat been real, Pilate would never have allowed “King of Jews” to be slapped up on the cross. (Matt 2:2, Matt 27)
c) Jesus forgave the one thief who acknowledged him as Son of God and not the other who mocked him. Furthermore, only Jesus has the power to forgive and remove the mark of sin that prevents sinners from entering heaven. We don’t.

2) So how does “I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven fit in? Here again, Jesus did not usurp the law, rather he embraced and extended upon it. Somehow, we’ve conflated ‘ever-forgiving’ with ‘all-forgiving’. Again, look at the context. Jesus was asked how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus then illustrates that as we are forgiven, so should we compassionately forgive WHEN asked, NOT carte blanche! (Matt 18). It is also key to note that the non-forgiving wicked servant was seized and given over to his tormenters until his debt to society was paid.

3) As you have pointed out, that forgiveness can only be granted by a living victim. A relative cannot step in on behalf of the dead victim and grant forgiveness.

Repentance is the 1st party act. Forgiveness is 2nd party. And the Bible emphatically warns us against taking offense as a by-standing 3rd party.

4) That brings me to another peeve. That we’ve confused ‘granting’ forgiveness with ‘offering’ forgiveness. I can not find one example in the whole Bible where anyone offers another forgiveness. Can anyone? Otherwise, who are we to offer it?

Moving on from forgiveness to punishment.

5) By the same token, there are always some who roll out the “vengeance is mine, saith the Lord” as an excuse for not imposing harsh or even capital punishments. Well, the truth is a double-edge sword and those who think that retributive justice via government is immoral are ignoring the other side of the equation. As agents of the Lord, governments are empowered to extract that vengeance , both on behalf of the victim & the Lord (Roms 13).

Furthermore, there is a heaping dose of God’s wrath for those in authority who abuse justice. And for us Christians, even when Kings abuse us, the Lord is with us (Acts 12).

6) Finally, some assume that we should just turn our cheeks or just roll over. Nonsense. Only when it is applicable. Jesus turned his cheek as it were because he was on a mission. On the flip side, Paul was just as adept in using logic & the legal system to play off both sides, those who would kill/punish him (Acts 17, 18 & 23).

Why? Because he too was on a mission, and just rolling over would have only given victory to his enemies and cut his apostleship short. Not that God couldn’t have sent a multitude of angels to save him. In fact, God did on occasion step in to rescue Paul, but only after all options were exhausted.

Tangential to this, the often repeated notion in some Christian circles that an occupation of a people by a foreign govt is somehow immoral is laughable — tell that to the Children of Israel who time and time again were subjected to the will of their enemies on account of sin. In fact, might makes right (Matt 20:25, 1Tim 2:2-3).

Or that as Believers, we can be selective about who we obey because we’re only passing thru this life is also silly (1Pet 2:11-23) The only two things that God really requires on the rule of law is we obey and that rulers be consistent & even.

It is perfectly normal to disagree over any of the points, but it helps if we’re either talking from the same point of reference or comparing it with others. Even better, when buttressed with cross-references. Sorry, “My Church…yadi, yada”, doesn’t cut it. This is how half-truths and misconceptions get out into the public square and take on a layer of conventional wisdom.

For God’s your sakes, people, read your Bible and seek understanding from God (Eph 6)! The church can’t form your worldview. In other words, be like the Bereans (Acts 17:10-12) and go to the source code, it’s all there in black and white waiting to be read all over again and again.

http://dopejam.multiply.com/video/item/6

As for the death penalty, it has been interesting reading the comments here and many are thought provoking. I have always been “pro,” but I do find that as I get older, I have more conflicted thoughts and emotions about it. I recently realized that I wouldn’t engage in revenge fantasies so much IF our justice system were more concerned with victims and less concerned with criminals. Liberals, many of whom are opposed to the death penalty, ironically give rise to vigilante sentiments and calls for the death penalty simply because they promote lenience in the penal system and that frustrates the rest of us. It feeds the appetite for justice, and I admit, that can get out of hand. I only wish that more liberals could understand this dynamic, and stop being so lenient and apologists for criminals.

Revenge as a motivation does not particularly disturb me. I am not sure why revenge is such a bad thing, but, let’s pretend like it is for a moment. There are other reasons why capital punishment is useful: it saves taxpayer money (assuming long and costly appeals are no longer allowed); it absolutely prevents repeat offenders; it sends a message to society that certain behaviors will not be tolerated; it affirms the worth and value of the victim’s life; most importantly, it rids the world of an evil spirit and energy. I’m sorry if that sounds too “woo woo” but I really believe it. G-d repeatedly tells us to excise evil from our midst. That’s important to think about. However, yes, I DO get concerned about raging mobs, about innocent people being convicted wrongly, and I really don’t want to see heads on posts in public squares, etc. But surely we can do better than we are currently doing.

You make the assumption that these people can be “cured”. That assumption is one that attributes wrongful action to disease, rather than choice. In other words, there is no responsibility because there is no ability to choose. These people, therefore, do not have free will.

I think you’re wrong. I think they _do_ have free will, and are capable of making a decision to commit wrongful acts or not. If that’s the case, there are no medications that will change them.

James (comment #39) put it best – the method of execution should match the way in which the crime was committed. I don’t care whether it’s public or not, just so it’s swiftly executed. These servants of satan deserve nothing less.