I'm following the trial of Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian man who massacred 79 people, mostly teenagers, last July. One of my favorite pastimes is browsing reader comments on Seattle Times articles. This is what some people said about Breivik:
"...if someone this evil were to fall under my jurisdiction, I would use the honey down the throat while staked over an anthill method of sentence and feel a deep satisfaction watching this animal die."
" He deserve nothing less that a good old hanging and his soul (if he even has one) to burn in the flames for all time."
"We should find the slowest most painful way not to kill him, and do it over and over and over, until he begged us to kill him...."
"I want to hear his teeth breaking off , his jaw breaking and his bloodcurdling scream. I'd poke him with a stick to keep him conscious until he bled out, after putting his open mouth on a curb and stomping on the back of his head."
My question is, how bad do you have to be to warrant this kind of judgement?
The commenters say that Breivik deserves a slow death. This implies that they, the commenters, do not deserve a slow death - because they did not murder 79 people. So I want to know, how bad do you have to be to deserve a slow death?
What if he just killed 49 people? Would that be bad enough to deserve a slow death? How about 1? What is the smallest number of people he can kill before he "deserves" a slow death and just deserves "death?" The point is, we can't all agree where the standard is for "deserves slow death," "deserves death," "deserves life in prison," etc.
What Breivik did makes me sick. He deserves to die a slow death and go to hell because he broke God's law - and I say that because human laws are always going to be shifting, making exceptions, making different rulings.
Which begs the question: How many of God's laws can you break before you deserve to die a slow death and go to hell?
I have the answer. It's 1. James 2:10 - For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
Human laws change. It used to be legal to drive without a seat belt; now, if you drive without a seat belt, you have broken the law. Consequences for human laws change too. Breaking some laws will get you fined; breaking other laws will land you in jail. And it's never straightforward; there are lawyers who get prison sentences shortened or punishments increased.
God's law doesn't change. There is only one punishment for breaking any of it: a slow death and going to hell. Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death." We all agree Breivik broke God's law and deserves to suffer for it. But once we start examining where the standard is, we find differing opinions everywhere except God's word.
It's not a nice standard. It's not like, "As long as you don't hurt other people, you'll be fine." It's like "If you look at someone with the teeniest hint of lust, even if you're barely aware of it, poof! You've broken God's law." Or "If you feel at all jealous of someone, poof! You've broken God's law." Clearly the point is that we are ALL lawbreakers and therefore we ALL deserve a slow death and hell.
As difficult as this is to swallow, it's even more difficult to know that when Jesus died a slow death and experienced hell so we, the lawbreakers, wouldn't have to, he even did it for Breivik. He did it for the people who maim and torture, who hurt animals and children, who rape and manipulate, who destroy lives.
If this seems wrong, just ask yourself - where is the standard? What if someone just thinks about exploiting children for pornography, but never acts on it? What punishment do you think he deserves (if any?) Would your neighbor agree with you? Who is right?
We all agree that there is a standard for moral behavior, but we don't agree on where that standard is - which shows that we must not be very good judges.
(For more information, see the first chapter of C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.)
"...if someone this evil were to fall under my jurisdiction, I would use the honey down the throat while staked over an anthill method of sentence and feel a deep satisfaction watching this animal die."
" He deserve nothing less that a good old hanging and his soul (if he even has one) to burn in the flames for all time."
"We should find the slowest most painful way not to kill him, and do it over and over and over, until he begged us to kill him...."
"I want to hear his teeth breaking off , his jaw breaking and his bloodcurdling scream. I'd poke him with a stick to keep him conscious until he bled out, after putting his open mouth on a curb and stomping on the back of his head."
My question is, how bad do you have to be to warrant this kind of judgement?
The commenters say that Breivik deserves a slow death. This implies that they, the commenters, do not deserve a slow death - because they did not murder 79 people. So I want to know, how bad do you have to be to deserve a slow death?
What if he just killed 49 people? Would that be bad enough to deserve a slow death? How about 1? What is the smallest number of people he can kill before he "deserves" a slow death and just deserves "death?" The point is, we can't all agree where the standard is for "deserves slow death," "deserves death," "deserves life in prison," etc.
What Breivik did makes me sick. He deserves to die a slow death and go to hell because he broke God's law - and I say that because human laws are always going to be shifting, making exceptions, making different rulings.
Which begs the question: How many of God's laws can you break before you deserve to die a slow death and go to hell?
I have the answer. It's 1. James 2:10 - For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it."
Human laws change. It used to be legal to drive without a seat belt; now, if you drive without a seat belt, you have broken the law. Consequences for human laws change too. Breaking some laws will get you fined; breaking other laws will land you in jail. And it's never straightforward; there are lawyers who get prison sentences shortened or punishments increased.
God's law doesn't change. There is only one punishment for breaking any of it: a slow death and going to hell. Romans 6:23 - "For the wages of sin is death." We all agree Breivik broke God's law and deserves to suffer for it. But once we start examining where the standard is, we find differing opinions everywhere except God's word.
It's not a nice standard. It's not like, "As long as you don't hurt other people, you'll be fine." It's like "If you look at someone with the teeniest hint of lust, even if you're barely aware of it, poof! You've broken God's law." Or "If you feel at all jealous of someone, poof! You've broken God's law." Clearly the point is that we are ALL lawbreakers and therefore we ALL deserve a slow death and hell.
As difficult as this is to swallow, it's even more difficult to know that when Jesus died a slow death and experienced hell so we, the lawbreakers, wouldn't have to, he even did it for Breivik. He did it for the people who maim and torture, who hurt animals and children, who rape and manipulate, who destroy lives.
If this seems wrong, just ask yourself - where is the standard? What if someone just thinks about exploiting children for pornography, but never acts on it? What punishment do you think he deserves (if any?) Would your neighbor agree with you? Who is right?
We all agree that there is a standard for moral behavior, but we don't agree on where that standard is - which shows that we must not be very good judges.
(For more information, see the first chapter of C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity.)
Comments
Post a Comment