Christianity and capital punishment

[EdithSimcox]

Another dinner table argument. Basic internet research indicates we are both right. But that seems so wrong...

So, DP's view is that yet another reason why it makes no sense to be Christian is that Christians believe in things like capital punishment - citing a kind of US bible belt enthusiasm for the death penalty as being based on biblical authority ("an eye for an eye" etc) and modern secular human rights standards as the counter to that. But to me, and I admit I'm no biblical scholar (or scholar of any kind come to that), the very concept of capital punishment is inherently un-Christian. A religion which promotes loving your enemy, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, and God's infinite mercy cannot possibly be one which should also approve - in this day and age - of the death penalty. I also think that it is inevitable that the Bible is full of apparent acceptance of things we find abhorrent or irrelevant because it was written in different times. So it is not surprising that in those days the death penalty was more accepted. But now we have other ways of protecting the public, and rehabilitation and so on so there's no excuse.

So, in the 21st century, is continued support for capital punishment compatible with Christianity? Is it common amongst MOTR Christians?

[capsium]

Bolognese it is interesting you talk about confirmation bias, yes, I have heard the term before, because I believe it cannot be truly eliminated. There is always interpretation of data, on every level, from our sensory organs that receive the information, our brains that interpret that initial data, our reflections that draw conclusions from data sets, even the decision to focus on an area to study. Prior assumptions drawn from previous experiences cannot be eliminated either.

This seems rather apt here:

"7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:" (Matthew7:7 KJV)

Not being prepared to wait for missing information, is a bias in itself. There is no time limit regarding when new information might be found. Added to this point, I was generally talking about missing information bridging the gap between two polarised positions.

That said, I don't find there is a contradiction between my life experiences and Christianity because I find Christianity (from my perspective) to harmonious with my experiences - it is relevant to me (particularly the teachings of Christ). I am not particularly unusual in this, either, how my experience of faith affects me, considering the Christian posters who have posted on this thread and other Christian bodies speaking out against the death penalty. As a group we cannot be ignored either.

[Bolognese]

Sorry its ... Britain!

[Bolognese]

capsium I agree confirmation bias cannot be eliminated. But we have developed ways to account for and minimise it to negligible levels, aka the scientific method. It is so successful that we have used it to visit every planet in our solar system & beyond. It works.

"Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; ...." - ok for arguments sake lets say this is a divinely inspired quote. How does one objectively decide what it means? On the face of it, it implies god will grant you your wildest dreams! But you don't see that happening to many christians, so I dont get its relevance?

Most atheists (including myself), scientists and educated people are willing to wait for 'missing information'. We just won't sit around doing nothing while we wait for it, in the meantime we file it in the box marked, faeries, monsters, ufo's, etc and move on to other theses, hopefully with more fruitful results.

"I find Christianity (from my perspective) to harmonious with my experiences" That is exactly what I was talking about in a previous post, you are referring to a personal religion, lets call it christpsium. Christianity as a global religion is very different, and all the evidence seems to fit in fine with corporal punishment. Confirmation bias?

This seems rather apt here: acts 12:23 (KJV) new testament
"And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."

[ApricotSorbet99]

Capsium

Science exists to eliminate confirmation bias. It seeks always to provide objectivity by basing any conclusions on verifiable, testable amd repeatable data and evidence.

There are, of course, always individual scientists with their biases...their pet theories and so on....but when the scientific method is properly folowed, this is corrected for.

Your continual insistence (over several years now) that science can't really be trusted because different people see different things is as bogus as it always has been and displays a very basic ignorance about how science works.

Science works to eliminate confirmation bias....religion continues to exist because of it.

And, by the way, I find the notion that Christianity is "incompatible" with the death sentence frankly laughable. Christianity is founded on capital punishment! God in his infinite (non-existent) "wisdom" deliberately planned for his beloved son to be put to death (aka capital punishment) because he couldn't come up with a better way to pretend to forgive us all for sins he planned we'd commit.

The worldwide symbol for this ludicrous, self-serving and illogical philiosophy is in fact replica of an instrument used for capital punishment.

Dear me.

[capsium]

Bolognese I referred to the Bible quote there in relation to confirmation bias, as in you will only find something when you look for it or are at least prepared to see.

When you are talking about Christianity, as a global religion, there are many believers who have similar views on capital punishment to me and some who don't. This does not necessarily mean the Christian Faith is not informing either of these views, we live different lives in different societies.

By way of explanation, I view God as correctly dealing with His people, according to their individual circumstances, which are unique. God remains the same, He is always good according to my belief but because circumstances differ and people respond differently to God and their circumstances, they require different actions from God. So you get people in different circumstances having different experiences of faith with their beliefs growing and developing differently and their expression of their faith is different. This is why when reading the Bible, I believe, it would be foolish to divorce it from it's context or show no consideration of how the writers might differently express their experiences of their relationship with God.

[capsium]

Apricot it is not very scientific not to rigorously question science is it?

Although it seeks to eliminate confirmation bias it cannot completely as human beings always have to interpret what has been observed. Conclusions are continually being refined and developed, so science moves on and is not complete yet.

I regard science but always in the knowledge it is not complete and there are continually new developments.

[capsium]

Bolognese, headinhands Apiricot And how you are attempting to eliminate confirmation bias in your own examination of other people's attitudes in relation to their religion, I am not clear.

If you do not let them self define their religion, you risk your own confirmation biases affecting your interpretation of how their religion affects their attitude, since you are at liberty to select the religion (or lack of it) you feel most fits their attitude.

[Bolognese]

capsium Your bible quote makes even less sense now. Are you saying because of confirmation bias when you go looking for a unicorn you will only find it if you are prepared to see it?

I agree the 'christian faith' informs both those who support the death penalty and those who dont, irrelevant of what society they live in.

Your last paragraph is very obtuse, could you use an example. Are you saying two thousand years ago god said it was ok to have a slave but not its not because its a different context? So there are no morale absolutes? Who gets to decide the context?

capsium, I mean this genuinely and quite happy to explain but you really dont seem to understand what the scientific method works. Its not the same as bible study!

Why do you thing god kills in the new testament?
"And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost."

[capsium]

If you refuse accept people's attitudes as an expression of their faith, when they claim it as such, then you are at liberty to decide which attitudes can be attributed to the faith in question.

How is all this eliminating confirmation bias?

[ApricotSorbet99]

I didn't say anything at all about not rigorously questioning science.

Far, far from it. The scientific method is ALL ABOUT questioning, challenging and repeating. If it wasn't, science would stop. It would produce nothing new....just like religion.

And every scientist who has ever existed is well aware that conclusions are only as good as the latest data...that everything could/might change if the next experiment produces a different or unexpected result.

Science changes it's mind with the evidence, it's greatest strength.

You have always seen this a some kind of failing. You don't want to give science the credit it deserves because you're a bit put out that it does not, and will not, give any validation to your beliefs. In fact, it proves your beliefs wrong.

Rather than honestly acknowledge this your attitude remains, "Well, science doesn't know everything...it's all about individual interpretation" which is a very black and white view and, as I said, does display some ignorance.

Religion will never be validated by science because science only concerns itself with what is true...something religion manifestly is not.

[Bolognese]

capsium (without raising this to a professional level) I minimise confirmation bias by refusing to accept any claims without verifiable proof. I dont have any beliefs about the world that dont have verifiable proof.

How do you deal with your bias?

[ApricotSorbet99]

*Self-define their religion"

Eh?

Are your beliefs grounded in fact or not?

Is God actually up there? Did he really send his son down to be murdered? Does he really listen to your prayers and occassionally rouse himself to answer them?

I don't think you understand what confirmation bias means at all.

Basically, it's counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

I pray to God for a sunny day on.....

Monday. It rains
Tuesday. It rains
Wednesday. It rains
Thursday. It's sunny.........YAY! God exists...he answered my prayer.

That's confirmation bias.

And if you're self-defining your religion (aka making it up as you go along) then you are, as a matter of fact, living your life as one big exercise in CB.

[capsium]

Bolognese I believe God is the moral absolute, however, according to my understanding there can be no moral absolutes within a linear timeframe because every context is different. I am not someone who sees in absolutes although I understand we need to make generalisations and have rules / be subject to laws.

Regarding a unicorn, yes, you would have to be prepared, to some extent, to see it, otherwise your brain would not recognise it as a unicorn - or simply not process it as such. You would have to know what a unicorn is to recognise it. Not that I expect to encounter a unicorn in real life any time soon!

I don't have a full explanation of why the Bible account you quoted described God killing Herod.

[ApricotSorbet99]

So. God (the moral absolute) has precisely no relevance within this universe which has a "linear timeframe"? 1 quite agree, God is useless.

And what's the point of a "moral absolute" - or even morals full stop - oitside of a linear timeframe? Any act is immoral because of it's consequences. A consequence FOLLOWS an action....and "follows" is a meaningless word without time.

Morality can only exist in a linear timeframe.

So, God (the moral absolute) obviously does not exist.

Yup.

[capsium]

When I talk about self defining religion, it is in preference to having someone else define your religion for you (especially by someone who lies outside your religion). Yes, you have your own biases but who can possibly know the nature of your beliefs and faith, what goes on in your head, how you experience faith better than yourself?

Self definition, in terms of religious faith, is the best we have available, short of having divine powers to know those people on the most intimate level.

[capsium]

Sorbet God interacts with His people within their unique individual circumstances, within the linear timeframe they inhabit which is why human beings cannot reliably predict God. So He is relevant.

Without a linear time frame, what is good (moral) is a quality rather than set of actions. God can exist in a linear time frame, as He did in Jesus and through (interacting with) people who believe in Him.

[DaisyFranceLynch]

My impression is that the support of US social conservatives for the death penalty isn't specifically a Christian thing - it's part of a package of conservative Republican beliefs, some of which are influenced by traditional Christianity (e.g. views on abortion and gay marriage) some of which aren't (e.g. views on gun control). I find it strange that people who describe themselves as "pro-life" can be in favour of the death penalty but perhaps it isn't so dissonant in the US where these stances have over time become accepted as part of the same platform?

[DaisyFranceLynch]

I say "conservative Republican beliefs" - have just looked up a recent poll by Gallup and apparently 61pc of US adults support the death penalty. I still think it's a cultural rather than religious thing though.

[ApricotSorbet99]

You didn't define Christianity, did you!

Perhaps you mean beliefs rather than religion.

Of course you've defined your own beliefs....but they are launched from "facts" that you had no part in gathering.

The facts don't belong to you so you have no right to ask anyone not to discuss or refute them.

As someone once memorably put it....you are entitled to your own beliefs but you are not entitled to your own facts.

And.....

God interacts with His people......etc. Ha!

Do you understand what you are doing? You are making excuses for God's apparent inaction and failure to respond to 99.99% of prayers by saying, "Well, basically he responds differently to different people based on their different needs and contexts".

Which, honestly, is a risibly transparent excuse.

And when have you experienced a non-linear timeframe? Presumably you must have done in order to decide how morals work within one!

There is no such thing as a moral absolute. Anyone who thinks there is simply does not understand morality. And shovelling the whole problem into a fictitious supernatural realm does not assist your argument one iota. It's nothing more than intellectual running away when you can't answer unanswerable questions.

[capsium]

^Sorbet ah, sorry, I see how I expressed myself badly - no moral absolutes in this timeframe. Hmm there is a real difficulty expressing what I mean.

God had to come as Jesus to be in this linear time frame or otherwise communicate with ordinary people (as well as they could receive Him) - Jesus shows what God (absolutely moral) looks like within a linear time frame.

[capsium]

Sorbet I cannot answer unanswerable questions, intellectually or otherwise, can I? And I am not running away when I respond by continuing to post. All I can do is talk about my beliefs - which you do not appear to be much satisfied with.

As you were.

[capsium]

capsium (without raising this to a professional level) I minimise confirmation bias by refusing to accept any claims without verifiable proof. I dont have any beliefs about the world that dont have verifiable proof.

Bolognese

So what makes you disregard the evidence of Christians who do not support the death penalty, in compatability with their faith, with regards to the OP's question.

How do you deal with your bias?

I accept it.

[OutwiththeOutCrowd]

Edith, you introduced an interesting topic and I’ve been inspired to dig a little deeper and find a few statistics on the declared position of believers and non-believers on the death penalty issue here in the UK and in the USA. (I think the comparison between the two countries is illuminating.)

Some information on the opinions of religious/non-religious groups in the USA is available here:

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php%3Fdid%3D2249

Some related results for the UK are given here:

www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2015/03/26/yes-to-the-death-penalty-think-most-anglicans-and-non-religious

In the USA, support for the death penalty runs at 71% amongst Protestants, 66% amongst Catholics and 57% amongst those with no religion. (Gallop Poll 2004 – sorry a bit out of date).

In the UK, over the period 2000 - 2012, Anglicans were consistently the most in favour of the death penalty at around 60 – 65%, Catholics the least at around 50 – 55% with the ‘no religion’ group falling somewhere in between.

It is only very recently that the populace as a whole has come out marginally against the death penalty at 48% support (as mentioned by Bolognese).

It has become socially acceptable not to identify as a Christian in the UK. No religion - or even atheism - has become the populist choice rather than being the preserve of the liberal elite as is still the case in the USA. I think this accounts for the switch in positions of the Catholics and the ‘no religion’ cohort in moving from the States data to the UK data.

In general, though, there is not much difference amongst the Anglicans, Catholics and ‘no religion’ group in the UK when it comes to attitude towards the death penalty.

Looking at the evolution of opinion on the death penalty in the UK as a function of time over a longer period, it is evident that support is gradually ebbing away.

speakingofresearch.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/uk-death-penalty-support.jpg

(Hooray!)

Over the same time period as the decrease in support for the death penalty, there has been a shift in the UK towards a more secular society, so the decrease can’t be due to people deciding to pay more attention to the Sermon on the Mount. The reason for the decline in support must be sought elsewhere.

Personally, I think it comes down at least in part to imaginative empathy. The ability and inclination of the community at large to put themselves in the shoes of the poor, the marginalised and the dispossessed is surely key, for these are the people who are most at risk of finding themselves on trial for the most heinous of crimes.

Life in the UK is stable compared to other parts of the world and indeed to life in the UK in earlier times. People, for the most part, aren’t struggling merely to survive and in an environment that is less harsh, it is easier to cultivate attitudes that are less harsh. People are better informed now too about difficulties in the lives of others and about the potential for miscarriages of justice – or at least the information is more readily available. All this leads to a more enlightened and compassionate society that is less inclined to endorse capital punishment.

[headinhands]

Jesus shows what God (absolutely moral) looks like within a linear time frame.

Why would a loving, gentle, emphatic being allow themselves to be portrayed for 4000 years as a petty, racist, sexist psychopath? How insulting that it assumed, even relied on humans being able to sweep aside the first two thirds of their message in order to accept it.

[OutwiththeOutCrowd]

Does the Bible support capital punishment or not?

From my perspective as an outsider I would say it does and it doesn’t! Those who are of a forgiving disposition and don’t back capital punishment will find passages in the Bible to shore up their position. Those who are more judgemental and back capital punishment will likewise find passages to shore up theirs.

It is rare to find a person who will say that everything in their heart tells them capital punishment is right/wrong but they feel compelled to adopt the opposite view because it is in the Bible.

I think most people are aware of passages showing Jesus as a progressive who is forgiving of sin, but Jesus is also depicted as a traditionalist upholding the OT laws.

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled

St Augustine wrote:

Therefore, it is in no way contrary to the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill' to wage war at God's bidding, or for the representatives of public authority to put criminals to death, according to the law, that is, the will of the most just reason.

The Christian establishment has, for most of its history, adhered to this sentiment.

The Church of England and the Catholic Church are both now against the death penalty but neither can boast of a long and noble struggle campaigning for its abolition. In fact, as recently as the late 1940s, the bishops in the House of Lords helped to stymie a bill calling for the abolition (suspension) of the death penalty that had already been passed by the House of Commons. The bishops went on to change their mind on the issue some ten years later, lagging behind liberal political reformers in their viewpoint yet still ahead of the curve with respect to the general population who remained strongly in favour of the death penalty at that time.

It’s interesting to note that Quakers have been consistently against the death penalty, as have Unitarians. (The Unitarian stance might not be surprising given that there was a time in the UK when it was possible to be put to death for not believing in the trinity.)