Thread: Bible in Court

First off, the "christian" that supposedly brought out the verse "an eye for an eye" should spend more time actually reading the Bible. If she actually read it, she would know that Jesus says: "When someone slaps you in the face, turn the other cheek" Jesus means that any wrong-doing that someone does to you, you should forgive them. (but not neccesarily withold punishment)

Also, The Bible tells to love our enemys and to forgive them-and basically that the old law (ie: the ten commandments) will not or ever get us into heaven. Only Jesus' grace and forgiveness of our sins can get us there. So doing "the right thing" doesn't get us in "good graces" with God.

So given that, why say "an eye for an eye"? If anything, the person should at least be allowed to live, even though its in a state of detention for the rest of his life. Who is to say, "you will die for what you've done!" That makes the jurors just as bad as the criminal himself. It says that in the end-times, Jesus will ultimately judge the world himself.

So now you know that I dislike the death penalty. Also, to add a point, I know of people who have recieved life-in-prison sentences, and through prison ministries recieved Jesus. They say that if it weren't for their life that they still had they would have never been truly happy. Hearing their story impacts me, and hearing that even though they were in prison for the rest of their life, but still happy, was astounding.

Life is precious, and no person should shorten it of his/her own free will. the only thing that determines how short your life should be is God, or yourself.

Originally Posted by youth_anime_fan

First off, the "christian" that supposedly brought out the verse "an eye for an eye" should spend more time actually reading the Bible. If she actually read it, she would know that Jesus says: "When someone slaps you in the face, turn the other cheek" Jesus means that any wrong-doing that someone does to you, you should forgive them. (but not neccesarily withold punishment)

Also, The Bible tells to love our enemys and to forgive them-and basically that the old law (ie: the ten commandments) will not or ever get us into heaven. Only Jesus' grace and forgiveness of our sins can get us there. So doing "the right thing" doesn't get us in "good graces" with God.

So given that, why say "an eye for an eye"? If anything, the person should at least be allowed to live, even though its in a state of detention for the rest of his life. Who is to say, "you will die for what you've done!" That makes the jurors just as bad as the criminal himself. It says that in the end-times, Jesus will ultimately judge the world himself.

Well, the Bible says both, unfortunately. The first half of it (Old Testament) was written by one group of people, namely the Jews, whereas the other half was written by the Christians hundreds or thousands of years later. Beliefs change over time and when you've got a document that covers such a span of time written by two different groups of people, internal contradictions are bound to be there. Now, before anyone gets uppity, I think the Bible has good things to say about morality but I think people need to be realistic about its origins.

Originally Posted by KnightofNi

I believe that the bible should not be consulted during a jury deliberation because certain passages could influence people's decisions, jury's decide verdicts based on the facts of the case that were presented to them. The bible attempts to undermine these facts by introducing a moral question. Since everybody goes to jury selection you may have a person who believes in the bible very much. If this is the case, then by consulting the bible during the deliberation he will make a decision based on his spiritual beliefs not by the facts. Though most laws may have been made by the bible, the founders of our country knew that the bible has no place in the court of government which is why we have separation of church and state, also jury's make verdicts based on fact not on faith. Also the reason why the judge threw it out is because if he allowed it to continue he would set a precedent, the courts are very careful about their decisions that way they don't allow precedents to happen.

It sounds to me like the jury wasn't actually deciding guilt or innocence at this point, but rather his sentence. He's already been determined guilty, what more do you need to know about the facts of the case? To me, deciding the punishment would be less based on the facts of the case, since they've already decided that he killed that poor waitress, and more on the personal beliefs of the jury. It's either that or going by the precedence of other cases, or more likely, some combination of the two. Proper punishment for a crime is inherently a moral issue. And, even if they did base their sentence on legal precedence, somebody somewhere was the first to decide to lay down the death sentence on this sort of crime. And they did that based on morals, so you can't even get away from morality that way.

Originally Posted by Lord Katsuhito

I think living a life in jail for someone that has remorce for what he did and is really rethinking his dissions in life knowing he won't get out of jail is painful enough on a person

people can find happiness in almost any situation. I'd rather not pay to support convicted rapist/murderers for the rest of their natural lives. However, atm it takes forever for the punishment to be carried out (20+ years sometimes), so it almost costs as much.

Im curious... how much of the bible is derived from god and how much of it is derived from a persons opinion, How come the bibles version of creation of life differs from science, ever since the victorian age scientists (paleontologists), evidence that lay before them contradicts the bible, and how long ago was the bible written, and how long ago was it people believed in witch's, and killed anyone who was believed to be a witch.

People new very little back in those days, and dont forget the little concept of story telling, how it gets change as it is told from one person to the next, humans do missinterpret.

But regarding science vs religion, look at the change in the world from science, science has discovered and created so many things that have change the way we live, tv, electricity, vaccines, etc, Folowing the bible doesnt doesnt make you immune from plague, poverty, etc but its just moral guidlines derived from personal experince, Weve passed so many laws to protect people, if the bible was sufficient why did we pass these laws ?.

Does the bible allow for the complexities of modern society, where in the bible does it say, you should not use contraception, to my knowledge some religions a against contraception but did this come from god or jesus ?, or did it come from a person(back to personal opininon), where in the bible does it say you should not clone humans, abortions, animal testing, etc.

And just becouse youre gods ccreation doesnt mean god loves you, how do you know that god doesnt take leasure in in seeing its creation destroy ?.

Reagarding morality that the bible is, morality is right or wrong, but how do you decide morality ?, the limitations, whats right for the person, the nation, the religion, the group, the ideals, the beliefs, the heart or mind. Anyone one who can pass an opinion can decide morality, from a genocidel manic, a serial killer, a polition, the average joe, a priest, a child.

And how come religions and its content only apply to humans and the human world, how many elaphants and penquins do you see nipping down to the local pentocostle church ?. The bible only adddresses human problems, if god exists or a subject of god how come you dont see other living entities folowing a set of values that are predefined (excluding the genetic code).

Theres too much contradiction regarding religions and there content, and much of the contradiction comes from science that has the greatest influence on modern day society.

How much of the law derived from religon has been created by an opinion of morality ?.

Well-thought post, but totally off topic. Most of your questions can be answered with a minimal amount of reading about biblical history and basic theology.

Topic is redarding the bible used in court, my questions relate the laws derived from the bible which are used for influence in court or the foundation. If the bible contains flaws and laws are derived from the bible, isnt the flaw inherented ?. but yeah youre right I did go far from the topic.

Originally Posted by Animal4890

people can find happiness in almost any situation. I'd rather not pay to support convicted rapist/murderers for the rest of their natural lives. However, atm it takes forever for the punishment to be carried out (20+ years sometimes), so it almost costs as much.

True I think Most states are trying to get rid of the deth penilty becasue its basicly the easy way out. We do have jail overcrowding because of the death penilty taking so long to be put into action against someone.

But that has nothing to do with the topic I mean seriusly People going to judge by the bible it leaves it open for other religions to rip something out of their "holy book" to covict someone