43
Saddam To Hang
As all of you most likely know by now Saddam is to hang within the next 30 days. I have mixed emotions on this. I know that he deserves this but I don’t know if I should be glad he is going to be hung. He has done unthinkable things that deserve no less than being hung, just take a look at this report, please be warned there are some graphic images. So I do believe he should be hung, there is no question about that, but a part of me is glad that he is going to die. That is the problem I am facing, is it ok that I am glad.
If this page looks a little weird that means you're using IE, why not download Firefox or Opera? You'll be glad you did.
I don’t think that you are glad that he is being hung….I think that you are glad as I am because justice is finally being served. For all the injustices done in this world, it is nice to see for a change that the system actually does work sometimes and that this abomination of a man is finally going to get what he deserves.
I am tracking with ya. I have that problem too with being happy about tragedy. Not so much that Sadaam’s death is a tragedy from the view of justice,but that it’s a tragedy because of the reason he is going to die. Those stories on that link are excruciating. Those guys pulling the triggers are all as evil as Sadaam, I think. And it’s that ultimate fact of evil that runs wild in the world that is the ultimate tragedy and is the real reason Sadaam will die. I guess the legacy of Sadaam, all the death we see in the Middle East, in Africa, in Detroit, in Amish villages, etc., is a by-product of the sin released so long ago. So do I save my joy for the eradication of evil and wait for the defeat of satan, the author of sin? Or is it ok to let joy come through when a by-product of our sinful world is eradicated? Maybe a more appropriate attitude for myself should be sorrow. Sorrow that I even have to be in this quandary. Sorrow b/c it reminds me afresh what kind of world I live in, and to my shame, what kind of world I sometimes embrace. Jeez, it’s only 8:50am! I need Frosted Flakes…
PK I know what you mean, maybe I should be feeling sad that this has to happen. It’s just hard for me.
I agree that it is sad that it has to happen. It’s not hard for me though because I realize that this world has both good and bad in it for better or worse. But one cannot exist without the other and we would not be able to appreciate all the good in this world without the bad. The bad things can bring out the best in people in the worst of situations. There will always be bad people sadly, but I have no problem with the fact that sometimes in order to do the right thing (like saving people from a sadistic, tyranical dictator), you have do the wrong thing (killing). In this case even though killing is wrong, taking out Saddam is justified and is the right thing to do. I am not happy that someone is dying, I am happy that so many will be saved because he is gone.
There is no doubt that this is the right and just thing to do, but the fact that we have to do this is sad. Sometimes I wish I could invent a time machine and smack Eve upside the head.
Is it right though? Is killing another person bringing justice into the world? Who gave us, human beings, the right to kill another person? I don’t agree with the death penalty ina fair court, let alone in the one Saddam was in, lets face he was going to die from the moment the “trial” began. At the end of the day I don’t think we have the right to judge someone to the extent of saying they should die. There is only one person who has the power to make those kind of decisions.
First, Saddam was hanged, not hung ;). Sorry, I’m a grammar Nazi.
Phil: Biblically God has given governments to authority to do this. Hence why people in the Old Testament had no problem stoning people to death for certain crimes.
Quite correct it’s justifiable by the Old Testament… but this is called “New Testament Christianity” for a reason. The Old Testament is the history of a covenant between God and Israel - only Israel. Forget for a moment that it isn’t now, nor ever was, applicable to Gentiles - and you still face a problem… You can’t take parts of it… it’s all or nothing. Maybe you’d like to find the next person that takes God’s name in vein and stone them, too? Are you all caught up on your sacrifices for this year? Thought not.
This is a classic example of picking and choosing parts of the Bible to support a point - and it’s really not on. Maybe try being picky about Biblical context and truth before you correct people on grammar?
You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. (Matthew 5:38-39, NRSV)
Jesus speaking… so it makes a bit of sense to listen, I think. Also examine the case of the woman to be stoned… once again, we find Jesus opposed to revenge or so-called “justice” to evildoers: “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.” What does Jesus follow this up with? “Neither do I condemn you.”
Now, under Old Testament law, that would have been a perfectly valid stoning - it was deserved, it was “justice”. Jesus is having none of it, though. Why? Quite simple, He came to promote the New Covenant - one of grace, not of legalism. Legalism says “we judge you, you must pay.”; grace says “I shan’t be moved to violence, God will repay.”
Ask yourself this… would Jesus have hanged Saddam? No, I thought not.
The woman didn’t kill hundreds of thousands of people, she stole some food because she was hungry. You think Jesus would actually consider the sin on the same level, or forgive Saddam? Of course not. Not that I believe in Jesus or the bible anyways, so that is moot, but I think simple logic would say that the situation is definitely different.
No, the woman was a harlot. And if we’re going to take Ben’s references back to the OT, then we can see the punishment for murder, and the punishment for being a harlot were both death by stoning… so they obviously were equated to be deserving of a punishment of the same severity (i.e. death).
Besides, I don’t see a clause in Jesus saying “do not resist an evildoer” or in negating “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. Correct me if I’m wrong, but there wasn’t any small-print that said anything along the lines of “excludes mass-murderers.”
The Old Testament doesn’t apply to Christians? At all? 10 commandments, but a joke? Genesis, a farce?
Hooray for taking things out of context. At no point did I dispute the authority, or indeed the accuracy, of God’s Word - so don’t try and make it out that I did. The point here is context.
If you’ll care to notice, the Old Testament revolves around three main points:
1) Creation and establishment of the nation of Israel
2) The history of God’s covenant with Israel
3) Prophecy about the Messiah, to Israel
With the exception of those who became accepted into Israel’s community, such as through marriage or servanthood, the old covenant doesn’t even apply to non-Israelites.
The new covenant is called the new covenant for a reason… it replaces the old one. In that context, the 10 commandments are no longer enough (not ‘wrong’, just ‘not enough’). Under the new covenant, anger is considered as murder. Lust is considered adultery. The list goes on, so as we can’t even escape the fact that our evil thoughts are sin as well. But what of punishment? I don’t see God striking people down anymore, I don’t see us taking every believer who uses God’s name in vein and stoning them. Why not? A very good reason - it’s not relevant to those living under the new covenant. And Gentiles never were under the old covenant at all.
For the New Testament Christian, the Old Testament serves to provide context to the new covenant. Because you can’t understand what’s different, if you don’t know how it was.
Quit being a jerk James. I’m just trying to have a nice discussion with you. There’s absolutely no need to get ugly.
The Old Testament does more than just provide context for the New. It gives real insight into the character of God. It shows how He dealt with his chosen people. How He lead them, disciplined them, and blessed them.
I agree with your three main points in the Old Testament. I would also point out that there are different kinds of laws in the Old Testament as well. Some laws were given to Israel for health reasons. Unclean and clean animals fall into this category. Other laws are timeless and apply to Christians as much as they did the Jews, such as the 10 commandments. That’s not to say that we’re saved by obeying the 10 commandments, but that it is an accurate outline for how God wants His children to live.
My point is that the Old Testament provides more than just a context for the New, it accurately communicates the very character of God. The loving, gracious, gentle God we see in the New Testament is the same God who in the Old Testament was jealous and just. He killed Lot’s wife, He hated Esau, He wiped out everyone on earth except for Noah.
OK, that’s all off topic from the original discussion regarding Capital Punishment. The verse you quoted, “turn the other cheek” refers to individuals, not governments.
James, this is a warning. I like having your input but you are getting personal and making things a little more ugly than need be. Those involved in this conversation are not here to attack or hurt anyone involved so lets play nice. :)
I wasn’t attempting to be a jerk, so apologies if it came across as such.
I don’t disagree with what you’re saying about the points of the Old Testament - what I’m saying is that the laws that were established with Israel, are not the same laws and principles Christ demands we live by. And is insight into the character of God not placing the person of God into context by defining His characteristics?
I’m interested to see how you deduce that the 10 commandments “apply” in a direct sense to Christians - considering God made those commandments to govern Israel. As I said before, the commandments we are called to live by are: “Love the Lord your God, and love your neighbour as you love yourself.” We’re called to a higher standard than the Jews ever were. We’re also called to a greater punishment than the Jews ever were - spiritual punishment. For the Jews, sacrificing and just doing what the 10 commandments said kept them in good stead with God. Punishments were based on the physical. Stonings, excommunication, etc.
However, for the Christian, no longer are physical punishments laid out (hence why we, as Christians, don’t believe in stoning those who commit adultery anymore, for example) but spiritual consequences. That’s not to say there aren’t physical, natural consequences to our actions - you can expect to be jailed for rape, for example. But the real punishment comes from the fact that sin separates us from God. Angry thoughts distance us from the heart of God, etc, etc.
The point is, the Jews were governed by strict law and sacrifice - with physical punishments. We, as Christians, are called to live by a stricter law - with spiritual consequences.
Let’s not speculate about what the Bible says, but go on what it actually has written. I’m sorry but I really don’t see where the Bible says “Christians, don’t worry about unclean animals anymore, but still keep the 10 commandments.” Of course, we’re called to a higher standard - to be angry with your brother is to commit murder and to lust is to commit adultery. Under your premise of execution being valid, maybe we should start executing angry people?
It is times like this I recieved the Greek/Hebrew to English dictionary :).
The term “Slaps” or “strikes” most likely refers more to and insult rather than physical violence. And he is most likely referring to keeping it out of the courts, it is better to be insulted twice than to take the matter to court.
If we look at this entire story, the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus in order to have a basis for accusing him. The Romans did not allow Jews to carry out death sentences, so if Jesus had said to stone her, he could be in conflict with the Romans. If he said not to stone her, he could have been accused of of being unsupportive of the law. But instead he said He without sin cast the first stone.
That’s a pretty weak argument, from my point of view. Jesus didn’t play politics - He spoke truth. Besides, the Romans often allowed the Jews to carry out death sentences, provided they could show sufficient grounds within Jewish law for doing so.
I am quoting from Biblical Historians here, and Theologians, so this is not just my argument, this is many of the historians view. So you are denying thousands of years of study by saying “Jesus didn’t play politics”.
And how else could it have been a trap then?
also: This quote from the OLD TESTAMENT is not lumped in there with all the other laws, you say do not matter anymore, this is showing Gods seriousness about life.
Genesis 9:4-6 (New International Version)
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.
No worries, James ;). It’s a subject that both you and I get passionate about. And rightly so. I won’t hold a grudge.
Some laws in the Old Testament are timeless, they’re not social laws or sacrificial laws, they’re moral laws. And hermeneutics demands that they be treated differently. The 10 commandments point out that God demands perfection from his children; indeed, God cannot tolerate sin. But, since we have a sin nature, this perfection is impossible. That’s why Christ died, so that His righteousness would be imparted to us, all who believe and trust in Him.
The Jews most definitely had spiritual consequences. Heaven (Abraham’s bossom) and Hell (Lake of fire &/or destruction) existed in the Old Testament. Old Testament Jews, and indeed, modern Jews, weren’t saved through their works (sacrifices, etc.) Their works were supposed to reflect the faith they had in God, see Hebrews 11. By faith Moses was saved, by faith Noah was saved, by faith we are saved. By faith alone: this has been the mantra throughout the Bible. That man can do nothing to save himself; not the Jews, no one. Unfortunately the Jews didn’t catch on to the fact that the works were supposed to reflect their faith. That God doesn’t desire sacrifices, but obedience.
All that said, I think you make a very valid point about the fact that God never commands us in the New Testament to execute mass murderers. This discussion has made me question a lot of what I think about capital punishment. I’m not as sure now as I was before. I do thank you for challenging me :D. Truly.
And herein lies the problem. How about we take what God said in His Word (which, I might add, He didn’t make confusing) and let historians and theologians debate and discuss any hidden meaning. You’ll find theologians who have opposing views on many parts of the Bible - and often, the answer is right there, in literal, plain text in God’s Word.
I would say I’d like to know how you concluded that that particular law is somehow one of the few you say carry over to Christianity?
But, alas, this is turning into a very circular argument - and I don’t really have any intention to fall out with anyone over the matter, either.
That reasoning is fundamentally flawed. The experts are such because they have studied the related materials more than I have. Thus, their views hold more weight than mine, until I can prove them wrong. What seems to be ‘right there in black and white’ can easily be misconstrued.
Moral laws in the Old Testament carry over to the New.
LOL! This is ridiculous! You Christians can’t even decide amongst yourselves what to believe. If I asked every Christian I could find what Heaven is like I would get a different answer every time. Ben, I do commend you for taking a second look at your beliefs on Capital Punishment. It takes a lot of character to reevaluate what you believe. I’m going to have to disagree, though, where you say James’ reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Its true that the experts (historians/theologians) have studied the related materials more than any of us, but what James is saying is that for every expert that supports your view, he can find another that debunks it. Even the scholars can’t agree. In the end, we can never know exactly what is true because we will always be missing crucial information and so much is open to interpretation. You can only go with what you beleive; pointing to references of other people who believe what you believe as though they are evidence that proves your point does nothing. The other side will always have supporters too with their own reasons for it. Also, I challenge you both to take a good long look at this comment section and others as well, I’ve noticed a pattern where as soon as the discussion gets heated (not mean or angry, just heated) you will ignore what was said and just call the commenter a jerk, or tell him to ‘play nice’. I can’t find a single thing James said that was in poor taste. He clearly has a strong view point and his language shows this, but he doesn’t make fun of you or call you names. I just think it doesn’t serve you to halt the discussion like that, many times it makes you look like you just don’t have an answer so you ignore what the commentator says. And really who cares if you get off topic? Great discussions aren’t stagnant, they are a journey where you never know where you will end up. Otherwise, I’ve really enjoyed this very provacative topic.
You’re probably right.
I agree, but not everything is open to interpretation. Just some things, as you mention.
@ James: I do apologize for being … abrupt in calling you a jerk. You weren’t a jerk, and I was wrong. I’ve recently been through some real mud slinging on some other sites where people were saying very nasty things about me so I’m a little gun shy. It’s not an excuse, it’s an explanation of context. I shouldn’t have called you a jerk because, well, you’re not one. We just disagree. ;)
Don’t worry about it, Ben - people get tense in arguments and say things… it’s what happens. I’m certainly holding no grudges.
Difference of opinion doesn’t automatically make people enemies :)
No. And the interesting thing is, as you and I interact more on the Net that we’ll more likely than not find more that we have in common than we disagree on. Thanks for the forgiveness.
Aww geeze way to go Ryan, now I have to say sorry too. I think one major problem about this is that we doing this via Internet, we can’t see each other so we can make false assumptions. When I first read James comment it was in the heat of it all so now as I look at it again, I see differently. Sorry James. And Ryan stop being a jerk :).
Ben: Of course, the fact that we’re arguing over the same book is a good start ;)
Nick: As I said above in response to Ben, people get tense, whatever… nature of arguments. I’ve probably, too, been a bit patronising in my discussion - so apologies for any condescending remarks… they were unintentional!
Ryan: Cheers for that comment, it made me stop and think a bit, too. I often end up thinking about how Jesus came to unite his believers, not to division them. Yet somehow, we always find a way to create new divisions through everyone leaning on their own understanding of Scripture. I think it’s one of the saddest realities of Christianity today - the complete lack of unity.
From what I can see, there may be a complete lack of unity among Christians, but it’s with the stuff that doesn’t matter a whit regarding salvation. When it comes down to the nitty gritty, Christians all believe that Jesus is our only hope of salvation. Whether we agree about an old earth or a young one, or how important the ten commandments are, or if capital punishment is wrong, none of those beliefs will save us in the end. Putting our trust is Jesus is the only way, and in that belief we are all united.
So I was talking with Nick about this last night, and my comment is, aside from all the debate over whether or not capital punishment is Biblically sound, what is capital punishment supposed to do? I mean, is it supposed to be a deterant? It’s got about zero effectiveness for that purpose. It’s certainly not rehabilitative. Is it supposed to punish the people being exicuted? If so, is it really more effective to kill them than to keep them in prison for the rest of their lives? Is it catharsis for the people who were wronged to begin with? If so, does it really help with their grieving and recovery, or do we just want to say that it does so that we feel better as a society? Is it just to save money because it’s cheaper to kill a man than to house, feed, and clothe him for 20 odd years? Honestly, what’s the purpose of capital punishment? Because, IMHO, if we’re going to do something so controversial, we should know WHY we’re doing it.
@ bobbie: Good point.
@ Tricia: I disagree, I do think it’s a good deterrent.
@Bobbie: I agree with you entirely. But we’re all reading from the same book, inspired by the same God - my point is that it’s somewhat disturbing/disappointing that so many aspects of our beliefs differ. Aside from that, we have groups of so-called “Christians” who don’t even agree on the fundamentals of salvation. It’s a tragedy.
@ Ben: It’s a good deterant based on what evidence?
Common sense. People don’t want to die.
OK, I’ll give you that people don’t want to die. However, the problem with common sense arguments is that quite frequently they doen’t play out in research (for fun and entertaining examples from the world of economics, I’d direct you to the book Freakonomics, but I digress). Psychology research over the past century says that the greater the seperation between a cause and an effect, the less likely people are to associate the effect with the cause. (i.e. If I slap your hand 2 seconds after you take the cookie, that’s more effective than if I wait 2 minutes, which is more effective than if I wait 2 hours, etc.) So while people don’t want to die, the long seperation between the action of murder and the consequence of the death penalty decreases the connection between the two in the average person’s mind. Also, quite obviously, there are a lot of people who kill other people, which means that the deterant factor of punishment is less motivating to many people than the intrinsic reward of doing the murdering. (Especially when you are, say, a dictator who runs the entire country with no ballance of power and have a reasonable expectation that you will never be charged with, let alone convicted of, your henious crimes.)
So you are saying it would be a better deterrent if the punishment were immediate? I can agree with that. But unfortunately we have a very slow system, and for now that is not likely.
Tricia: I can see your point. And I agree to a very large extent. It’s similar to HIV and promiscuous sex. People know that AIDS is a very real thing, and that it’s possible to get it by having sex with someone who has AIDS. Still, people sleep around, sometimes with people they don’t know, knowing all the while that the act may kill them. Maybe you’re right, maybe threat of death really isn’t a good deterrent. BTW, that’s not sarcasm, I’m being serious.
I would agree with that. It would be nice if we had a system to where if a set of certain criteria was met and the proof is sufficient, then we could do away with the long drawn out process of the court case and then the appeals…etc. and go straight to the punishment. That’ll never happen though because the whole court system is too screwy. That’s why sometimes people take the law into their own hands…especially here in the US.
When the sentence for a crime is not quickly carried out, the hearts of the people are filled with schemes to do wrong. – Ecclesiastes 8:11 I think that this is so true, and hey! It’s God talking! He sometimes comes up with some good wisdom. This verse, I believe , is the key to effective capital punishment. Or any punishment. Just like Trish said. Sad that our system is so broken, so unrepairable, that one of the biggest deterrents of a fallen world is rendered useless and even harmful by us. I cannot get behind the U.S. system of capital punishment. Maybe the only good thing about it is that it brings some of the families of the murdered some solace.
It is sad, and there is no other “deterrent” that would work as well as that would if it were carried out as it should be.
I have to say, that I could not agree with you in 100% regarding Saddam To Hang, but it’s just my opinion, which could be wrong :)