My Senior year of High School, I worked for about three months at Meijer. One day, one of my coworkers—a self-described "pagan"—went around asking people whether they believed all demons were evil. Most of the self-described Christians, agnostics, and atheists who worked there gave a tepid "I guess" or "I don't know." She smugly pointed out that they hypocritically condemned what they did not understand and did not understand what they believed. When she asked me, I did not know yet that she had asked my coworkers for their thoughts, or what answers she had received. Our conversation went a little like this (not word for word—it has been four years):
PAGAN: Do you think all demons are evil?
ME: Yes.
(PAGAN descends into sputtering rage at my certain and confident answer, babbles about being self righteous)
ME: Wait a minute... what do you mean by "demon"?
At this moment, I realized that she and I did not agree on our terms. I took demon to mean fallen angel. It's very definition meant that it was a being which saw God in all His glory and turned against Him. She did not have the same definition, as her answer demonstrated:
PAGAN: Any kind of demon!
ME: No, I mean...
PAGAN: Take a succubus for example. It has drains the life out of humans by having sex with them. Is it evil?
ME: If such a thing really exists; yes.
PAGAN: How can you say that?!? It's only doing it to survive! That's like denying a person the right to eat!
Here, again, we were hitting a wall in our conversation. One from which it did not recover, as I was called away shortly thereafter to do my actual job. However, I know how I would have responded: Angels, fallen or otherwise, are eternal beings. They don't die. Demons, therefore, do not need to feed to survive, whether on libidos or Fritos. It would be ludicrous for a Christian to respond any other way to her questions.
I suppose I'm thinking of this because I've been watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer lately. (I just finished Season 6, and haven't seen it before, so please no one who reads this ruin Season 7 for me.) It's gotten me thinking a lot about different things: occult, demonic, magic, and mythic. I've done a lot of considering lately. Most of my thoughts are unimportant, and I will keep them to myself for now. I may have follow-up posts, however, wherein I discuss individual ideas in greater depth.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Enemies
This could be a lot better, but it was more or less a stream of consciousness. Ironically, this kept me from actually talking about the event that triggered this post.
I make a lot of enemies. As a Christian, I struggled with this fact for some time. I spent a lot of time trying not to have enemies - even to be friends with everyone. I was motivated partly out of a desire to be nice, and partly out of fear. I was bullied a good bit growing up, and have no desire to ever return to that miserable state. Worse yet, I may become one (I come too close for my own comfort with certain friends as it is, but that is a whole other topic).
I will skip over the various ways I tried to stop making enemies for the sake of brevity and interest. Suffice it to say, every attempt failed. A little while ago, I came to a realization that put my mind at ease. We are not commanded by God to have no enemies. We are called to love our enemies. I need not like everyone or even want to spend time with them. I need to love my enemies.
This drastically shifted my means of approaching life. For one thing, I no longer feel guilty or like something is wrong with me when I love someone the wrong way (or when they have that effect on me). I need keep two things in mind when I am among my enemies: I must treat them as I would a friend and neighbor, and I must strive to want this. Ultimately, I hope that I will love my enemies by nature - to truly love all of humanity. Right now, I stick with what is reachable: to manifest love towards those I would call enemies.
I may be blowing my own horn here at the moment, but I think I have better definitions of "friend" and "enemy" than the rest of the culture with which I interact. I do, sadly, call some people friends who I do not consider to be real friends. By cultural standards, they are: we hang out, share our thoughts, and even have fun together. But for me, that is not a friend. A friend involves love, trust, and connection. There are many people with whom I spend my time simply by coincidence - on my own, I would never contact them or seek them out. I would not confide in them anything beyond my surface thoughts, I feel no connection, except by geography, and I cannot say I love them in any meaningful way (though I still try, as with enemies, to love them as neighbors).
True friends, in my mind, are peers in every way. Someone you can respect, through differences in interest and ability alike. Someone who respects you in turn. Someone from whom, at least when you are alone together, you would not withhold any secrets of your own. Indeed, keeping any secrets between friends should pain both you and them, because you would want to share. And most importantly, there should be a real, unmistakable connection, such that you could not stop being friends if you wanted to.
Enemies are opposed to these in some ways, but very similar in others. The most notable similarity is that you have no choice - this person who is your enemy will be your enemy whether you like it or not. The greatest difference is trust - you will not want to share anything with this person, and may resent them when they try to earn a share of anything in which you are invested. That is why it is so great a challenge to love your enemies. You must pain yourself, give of yourself to the one you feel certain must hurt you. And you must accept it when he does, and trust him again. This does not mean you must actually help him hurt you or those you care about, but we, as Christians cannot let fear of being hurt stop us. We must love those who may hate us, and do our best to endure the repercussions.
I make a lot of enemies. As a Christian, I struggled with this fact for some time. I spent a lot of time trying not to have enemies - even to be friends with everyone. I was motivated partly out of a desire to be nice, and partly out of fear. I was bullied a good bit growing up, and have no desire to ever return to that miserable state. Worse yet, I may become one (I come too close for my own comfort with certain friends as it is, but that is a whole other topic).
I will skip over the various ways I tried to stop making enemies for the sake of brevity and interest. Suffice it to say, every attempt failed. A little while ago, I came to a realization that put my mind at ease. We are not commanded by God to have no enemies. We are called to love our enemies. I need not like everyone or even want to spend time with them. I need to love my enemies.
This drastically shifted my means of approaching life. For one thing, I no longer feel guilty or like something is wrong with me when I love someone the wrong way (or when they have that effect on me). I need keep two things in mind when I am among my enemies: I must treat them as I would a friend and neighbor, and I must strive to want this. Ultimately, I hope that I will love my enemies by nature - to truly love all of humanity. Right now, I stick with what is reachable: to manifest love towards those I would call enemies.
I may be blowing my own horn here at the moment, but I think I have better definitions of "friend" and "enemy" than the rest of the culture with which I interact. I do, sadly, call some people friends who I do not consider to be real friends. By cultural standards, they are: we hang out, share our thoughts, and even have fun together. But for me, that is not a friend. A friend involves love, trust, and connection. There are many people with whom I spend my time simply by coincidence - on my own, I would never contact them or seek them out. I would not confide in them anything beyond my surface thoughts, I feel no connection, except by geography, and I cannot say I love them in any meaningful way (though I still try, as with enemies, to love them as neighbors).
True friends, in my mind, are peers in every way. Someone you can respect, through differences in interest and ability alike. Someone who respects you in turn. Someone from whom, at least when you are alone together, you would not withhold any secrets of your own. Indeed, keeping any secrets between friends should pain both you and them, because you would want to share. And most importantly, there should be a real, unmistakable connection, such that you could not stop being friends if you wanted to.
Enemies are opposed to these in some ways, but very similar in others. The most notable similarity is that you have no choice - this person who is your enemy will be your enemy whether you like it or not. The greatest difference is trust - you will not want to share anything with this person, and may resent them when they try to earn a share of anything in which you are invested. That is why it is so great a challenge to love your enemies. You must pain yourself, give of yourself to the one you feel certain must hurt you. And you must accept it when he does, and trust him again. This does not mean you must actually help him hurt you or those you care about, but we, as Christians cannot let fear of being hurt stop us. We must love those who may hate us, and do our best to endure the repercussions.
Friday, July 11, 2008
A Christian Defense of the Death Penalty
A couple years ago, my former roommate (Nate) had a blog where he posted his opinions, most often about politics. Among his posts was a condemnation of the death penalty, which prompted me to respond, point by point, to his original post. Unfortunately, he has since deleted that blog, so I no longer have it as a point of reference, but I still have my original article. I have decided to reedit this article and post it here, both to make it stand on its own without Nate's article and to account for my increased understanding in the past years. Feel free to refute any of my claims if you wish to do so and can provide proper backing. I will refuse to acknowledge any comments that just call my opinion stupid without really arguing any points. Some people might call this defensive, I call it housekeeping. Then again, it may well be unnecessary as this blog still doesn't have anywhere near the readership of its predecessor yet. Normal comments are still welcome. Oh, and one last point: This is written from an entirely Christian perspective, and does not address humanist arguments. It is not intended to.
Let's take this whole thing step by step. "Eye for an eye" is one of the most widely misused quotes in the bible. It has been used as an argument for personal revenge for thousands of years, and Jesus' response to it from Matthew 5:38-39 has been used as an argument against the death penalty (and war) for at least as long as I've been alive. It originally (in this context) comes from Exodus 21:24, in a section that begins in verse 22. The fuller context reads: "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no other injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Emphasis added by me). In context, this seems obviously to be a punishment being named for a specific crime, that is: causing injury or death along with premature birth or miscarriage (incidentally, this is also an argument of equality for unborn children). Jews in the time of Christ, like most people now, misused this quote, saying they could repay people as they were mistreated. This is what inspired Christ to say "turn the other cheek" in Matthew 5:39. The difference is, of course, that Christ is addressing individuals while the quote in Exodus was referring to punishment by governing authority.
Moving on: I grew up in a Christian household, so I've always been aware of “The wages of sin is death,” a quote from Romans 6:23. This is utterly true. We all deserve death. And (barring the rapture) we will all get death sooner or later. Just because we don’t get a needle in our arm, doesn’t mean we won’t pay the penalty for our sin. The very fact that we die at all is a direct result of sin. Had Adam not sinned, we would not live in a fallen world, and there would be no death, or for that matter, thorns, carnivores, allergies, hunger, or essentially anything that is unpleasant. (Another side note, the pain of childbirth was only “greatly multiplied,” not created new with the fall, so pain is not in every way a negative). We didn’t even need to “toil by the sweat of [our] brow[s]” before the fall. But I digress…
Another common “argument” against the death penalty is to ask, “Who are we to decide what crimes deserve death?” My response is to say “Well, what do you mean 'we'?” As individuals, we have no right. But in Romans 13:4, we are told “…if you do what is evil be afraid for it[the governing authority] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Tell me honestly if this doesn’t sound like it’s referring to the death penalty. Tell me it’s not saying that the government has the right to execute people who commit crimes. And offer a real alternative interpretation that makes as much or more sense. Yes, in our system, individuals serve as a jury, but a jury is an agent of the government. And jury screening assures that jurors will have justice in mind, and won’t be biased or acting for vengeance.
The next point my former roommate brought up was the sanctity of life, which I acknowledge was quite valid. We do concern ourselves with sanctity of life. It is very important, therefore, that we do not execute without discrimination. We ought to provide ourselves with a standard, and stick to it. God does love us all equally, and is equally just with all of us as well. However, we are not the ones who make a distinction between guilty and innocent. The criminals made that distinction when they sinned, including, but not limited to, the crime they committed. To compare the death penalty with abortion is atrocious: an unborn child has yet to commit personal sin, and so is, as much as any human apart from Christ can be, innocent. The death penalty is only used for the most severe crimes, such as murder.
These cases (the death penalty and abortion) are further differentiated in that the death penalty serves three purposes: to deter crime, to punish a convicted criminal, and to take a dangerous criminal element out of the world. Admittedly, the last of these three is less often used, but it is a real situation. My former roommate advocated removing the death penalty from our system entirely, but this is a dangerous decision, as there are some criminals we simply can’t risk escaping. And no matter how many precautions we take, it remains a possibility, especially since so many interest groups want “humane” treatment of our convicts, which generally amounts to better living conditions in prison than many murderers had before hand. But again, I digress. The death penalty is, quite simply, sometimes the only punishment adequate for the crimes committed. Enough said on that topic. Next point: the claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent. This could be true, today. But this is because people have foolishly moved executions further and further from the public eye. Murders were far less prevalent when public hangings took place in town squares. It showed the world the gruesome consequences of these crime. Now, it takes place in a sealed room, in a locked prison, surrounded by fences, where it is seen only by those who were directly affected by the criminal’s actions. It has no effect on the general populous, and so criminals don’t think about it.
Next, my roommate claimed that the death penalty is “handed down in a grossly unfair way.” First, just saying this admits that there is a fair way, but I'll grant him that this may have been an oversight in semantics, and won't press the point. Second, he’s right. The death penalty should apply equally to everyone, and that is unjust. But that doesn’t mean capital punishment should be done away with entirely. It means that sentencing is flawed in our justice system and ought to be renovated. By Nate's logic, we should stop sentencing criminals since the system is flawed. Does this make sense to anyone? I thought not. We must endeavor to improve the system, but doing away with it is not the right answer.
Nate’s last point is that sometimes a person can be proven innocent after they’ve been executed, and that this punishment can never be undone. This is true. But, suppose someone serves a life sentence, dies, then is proven innocent. Well, that punishment can’t be undone either, they’ve already served it. I guess we should get rid of life sentences, too. But you know… if someone serves all of a 25 year sentence, but is proven innocent after they’re released, they can’t undo that punishment either… Do you begin to see my point? There is a time limit to how long you have to prove someone innocent of any crime before they’ve served the entire punishment; the only difference with the death penalty is that the time from beginning the punishment to the end is much shorter. (Incidentally, it is possible to revive a prisoner within a few minutes after they’ve been executed via lethal injection, it just rarely happens.)
I believe in the death penalty for these reasons, and others, but if I can be shown that I am wrong in this, I will repent and turn away from these arguments, even decrying the death penalty myself. But no one has ever managed to do it, and I doubt they will
Let's take this whole thing step by step. "Eye for an eye" is one of the most widely misused quotes in the bible. It has been used as an argument for personal revenge for thousands of years, and Jesus' response to it from Matthew 5:38-39 has been used as an argument against the death penalty (and war) for at least as long as I've been alive. It originally (in this context) comes from Exodus 21:24, in a section that begins in verse 22. The fuller context reads: "If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no other injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." (Emphasis added by me). In context, this seems obviously to be a punishment being named for a specific crime, that is: causing injury or death along with premature birth or miscarriage (incidentally, this is also an argument of equality for unborn children). Jews in the time of Christ, like most people now, misused this quote, saying they could repay people as they were mistreated. This is what inspired Christ to say "turn the other cheek" in Matthew 5:39. The difference is, of course, that Christ is addressing individuals while the quote in Exodus was referring to punishment by governing authority.
Moving on: I grew up in a Christian household, so I've always been aware of “The wages of sin is death,” a quote from Romans 6:23. This is utterly true. We all deserve death. And (barring the rapture) we will all get death sooner or later. Just because we don’t get a needle in our arm, doesn’t mean we won’t pay the penalty for our sin. The very fact that we die at all is a direct result of sin. Had Adam not sinned, we would not live in a fallen world, and there would be no death, or for that matter, thorns, carnivores, allergies, hunger, or essentially anything that is unpleasant. (Another side note, the pain of childbirth was only “greatly multiplied,” not created new with the fall, so pain is not in every way a negative). We didn’t even need to “toil by the sweat of [our] brow[s]” before the fall. But I digress…
Another common “argument” against the death penalty is to ask, “Who are we to decide what crimes deserve death?” My response is to say “Well, what do you mean 'we'?” As individuals, we have no right. But in Romans 13:4, we are told “…if you do what is evil be afraid for it[the governing authority] does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil.” Tell me honestly if this doesn’t sound like it’s referring to the death penalty. Tell me it’s not saying that the government has the right to execute people who commit crimes. And offer a real alternative interpretation that makes as much or more sense. Yes, in our system, individuals serve as a jury, but a jury is an agent of the government. And jury screening assures that jurors will have justice in mind, and won’t be biased or acting for vengeance.
The next point my former roommate brought up was the sanctity of life, which I acknowledge was quite valid. We do concern ourselves with sanctity of life. It is very important, therefore, that we do not execute without discrimination. We ought to provide ourselves with a standard, and stick to it. God does love us all equally, and is equally just with all of us as well. However, we are not the ones who make a distinction between guilty and innocent. The criminals made that distinction when they sinned, including, but not limited to, the crime they committed. To compare the death penalty with abortion is atrocious: an unborn child has yet to commit personal sin, and so is, as much as any human apart from Christ can be, innocent. The death penalty is only used for the most severe crimes, such as murder.
These cases (the death penalty and abortion) are further differentiated in that the death penalty serves three purposes: to deter crime, to punish a convicted criminal, and to take a dangerous criminal element out of the world. Admittedly, the last of these three is less often used, but it is a real situation. My former roommate advocated removing the death penalty from our system entirely, but this is a dangerous decision, as there are some criminals we simply can’t risk escaping. And no matter how many precautions we take, it remains a possibility, especially since so many interest groups want “humane” treatment of our convicts, which generally amounts to better living conditions in prison than many murderers had before hand. But again, I digress. The death penalty is, quite simply, sometimes the only punishment adequate for the crimes committed. Enough said on that topic. Next point: the claim that the death penalty is not a deterrent. This could be true, today. But this is because people have foolishly moved executions further and further from the public eye. Murders were far less prevalent when public hangings took place in town squares. It showed the world the gruesome consequences of these crime. Now, it takes place in a sealed room, in a locked prison, surrounded by fences, where it is seen only by those who were directly affected by the criminal’s actions. It has no effect on the general populous, and so criminals don’t think about it.
Next, my roommate claimed that the death penalty is “handed down in a grossly unfair way.” First, just saying this admits that there is a fair way, but I'll grant him that this may have been an oversight in semantics, and won't press the point. Second, he’s right. The death penalty should apply equally to everyone, and that is unjust. But that doesn’t mean capital punishment should be done away with entirely. It means that sentencing is flawed in our justice system and ought to be renovated. By Nate's logic, we should stop sentencing criminals since the system is flawed. Does this make sense to anyone? I thought not. We must endeavor to improve the system, but doing away with it is not the right answer.
Nate’s last point is that sometimes a person can be proven innocent after they’ve been executed, and that this punishment can never be undone. This is true. But, suppose someone serves a life sentence, dies, then is proven innocent. Well, that punishment can’t be undone either, they’ve already served it. I guess we should get rid of life sentences, too. But you know… if someone serves all of a 25 year sentence, but is proven innocent after they’re released, they can’t undo that punishment either… Do you begin to see my point? There is a time limit to how long you have to prove someone innocent of any crime before they’ve served the entire punishment; the only difference with the death penalty is that the time from beginning the punishment to the end is much shorter. (Incidentally, it is possible to revive a prisoner within a few minutes after they’ve been executed via lethal injection, it just rarely happens.)
I believe in the death penalty for these reasons, and others, but if I can be shown that I am wrong in this, I will repent and turn away from these arguments, even decrying the death penalty myself. But no one has ever managed to do it, and I doubt they will
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)