One of the issues that is almost always lost with Christian Fundamentalists/conservatives is the issue of mental illness and it's implications for people who commit crimes while under the influence of an illness.
After discussing things like this for years, I get one of several answers from religious conservatives:
(1) People who have mental illnesses are actually possessed by the devil, and as such, made a choice somewhere that allowed Satan to take control, so they're really responsible for crimes committed while under his influence. IN other words, "mental illness" is not real; it's just an excuse for unbelievers to use to explain why people sin, or something like that...
(2) People who are mentally ill are still responsible for what they do, because even though they have less control, they usually know it, and they just need to try harder to fight it.
(3) Mental Illness is just an excuse for crimes, end of discussion.
(4) It is very difficult to determine if a person actually has a mental illness, and if they're just making it all up. I say we have to presume guilt before innocence, and have doctors determine whether they're really ill before releasing them.
In my opinion, far too many people tend to discount the concept of mental illness to the extent that they are willing to execute mentally retarded people (such as a man with severe brain damage who had the mind of a 4-year-old), and people with a documented history of treatment for mental illness.
Many people in our country are given psychiatric medication by doctors, and while under the influence of an incorrect dosage or after quitting without telling their doctor, they have an episode, and someone gets killed. Though we can trace the course of what clearly are "premaeditated" crimes, like the purchase of guns and amo, and the writing of notes or hit-lists, the over-riding factor is that these premeditations are done by people who are not in their right mind, because of their medications. These drugs alter the ability of people to think straight and make rational decisions, and far too many people are unwilling to consider the details when a horrific crime is committed under the influence of these drugs, which in many cases are legally prescribed by licensed doctors -- and they punish the people who commit crimes as though mental illness simply didn't exist, and as though the drugs mean nothing.
Which brings me to a question.
When people commit crimes under the influence of psychiatric drugs, or because they are mentally retarded or mentally ill (and thus incapable of making rational choices and decisions), should they be held responsible, just as much as a non-mentally ill person?
What about people who sin, and are mentally ill, under the influence of prescription medication, or retarded. Are they responsible according to the Bible, or do people who are incapable of understanding get forgiven?
I'd be interested in knowing what believers think about this.
(posted to Ray Comfort's Blog)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
David,
Just wanted to post my response from Ray's blog just so any of your readers could see it as well coming from a Christian. I only added the part in parentheses from my original post on Ray's blog. Thanks,
I have not heard any of those arguments from Christians concerning those with mental illness as it relates to eternal life (not denying that you have not heard it). What I have heard, is that God is just. He will be just with these folks. He cannot be anything but just with them. It is His very nature. While, we as humans, may not be able to figure out how to fully be just with all of these individuals in our human court system and fully understand their depth of mental illness, I do know that as far as eternal life is concerned, God can and does know these individuals in their entirety and He will be just with them. I would be crazy to tell you that I know exactly what God will do with each of them, but I rest comfortably knowing that God will treat them with justice.
I know that you (or others possibly) will probably go ahead and try to say that you can speak for God and what He will do in their cases and try to use that as an argument making God mean and hateful. But, just a note, you aren't able to do that. You (and I) are not just, therefore, we are merely limited to our finite judgement. But you can rest knowing that God will be just. It is His nature.
Savedbygrace,
I think what I was asking was more about how we humans should respond to crimes that are committed by people who are mentally ill, mentally retarded, lacking the understanding of why things are wrong, and so on.
You know that a lot of people say we need to execute people for certain crimes, "because the Bible says so", and what I was trying to say was that that attitude (that we should execute murderers, punish people who commit crimes, because the Bibel sets out clear punishments for them) doesn't account for certain realities, like mental illness, retardation, or psychiatric drugs.
You and others may not hold the same opinions that others expressed, and may not hold the opinions that I used as examples, but your answer was thoughtful and honest. Unlike so many, you admitted that you didn't really know for sure, and that's just fine, because as I pointed out in a different message, far too many people like Ray are afraid to just flat out admit that they don't have all of the answers.
Too many people offer answers to questions that they dont' really have answers for, and too many people trust their opinions because they speak or write as though they know the answers. That you flat out admitted that you didnt' know was an answer I didn't expect to get, and it was an answer I'd like to see more often from people in general.
Thanks. I think that those on both sides of the issue should admit this more freely. There are certainly folks that "fill the gaps" if you will on both sides of issues. Again, I think that you probably know where I stand and why I stand there on issues such as evolution, Christianity (true Biblical Christianity, that is), Jesus Christ, creation, etc. I stand there because of my experience with Jesus and what He has done in my life. I stand there because of the instructions and guidance that I have been given in the Bible and through spiritual discernment that I have gained from the Holy Spirit (which God gives us when we truly accept Jesus). I have not seen or read anything that changes that. Again, I have read the Bible and sought to find out what it says about God's very nature and understand the various things that are recorded and how they related to God's nature. With that viewpoint and with that understanding, I have come to realize that God is holy, just, all knowing and all-powerful among many other traits. I have come to realize that He always has been, is right now and always will be all of those things at the same time for eternity. While I can know God, the creator of everything, I cannot understand every thing about Him. He truly is greater than I am and His ways are not like my ways.
Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with trying to suppress people. That would be called religion. And yes, religion (meaning the ritualistic, regimented, based only on traditions) has been used to oppress and suppress people in times past and in the present (and even some of them have claimed Christianity or have been portrayed as being Christian). Christianity is about the Creator of all giving humans an opportunity to come back in a relationship with Him. Christianity is about realizing that our standard is perfection and that we can't do it on our own. We need help. Jesus Christ is that help.
I realize that you may not agree with that. You have come to your own conclusions. But, I do challenge you (not in a one on one way, but rather asking you) to take on the task of disproving Christianity. I mean, take the Bible, read through it looking at historical facts in the Bible, archaelogical facts in the Bible and other aspects of the Bible. Understand, study and discuss with experts, the perceived difficulties (or inconsistencies) in the Bible. Seek to understand the meaning of what the Bible states and its purpose.
You will note that I have not said anything concerning evolution with respect to the above (i.e., I am not trying to disprove evo). Just asking that you take on the task of disproving Christianity. Once you have understood the purpose of the Bible and why it was given, then take that and apply it over those "religions" that have used Christianity as an excuse for atrocities. You will see that they are not consistent with Scripture at all.
Anyway, just some thoughts. I always enjoy good conversation about the most important thing in my life -- my relationship with Jesus Christ.
Appreciate the conversation. Take care. For the record, I do appreciate Ray's ministry; however, everything that Ray says must be held captive to Scripture and should be supported by Scripture. If you asked him, Ray would admit the same. I think that He is very careful to say when he is stating his opinion on something and when he is sharing specifically what the Bible says on certain topics.
Why would anyone want to execute a retard? That's very sick if someone thinks that's a-okay.
Savedbygrace wrote:
"Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with trying to suppress people. That would be called religion. And yes, religion (meaning the ritualistic, regimented, based only on traditions) has been used to oppress and suppress people in times past and in the present (and even some of them have claimed Christianity or have been portrayed as being Christian). Christianity is about the Creator of all giving humans an opportunity to come back in a relationship with Him. Christianity is about realizing that our standard is perfection and that we can't do it on our own. We need help. Jesus Christ is that help."
I would argue that pretty much every group that has called itself "the true Christians", to the exclusion of all other sects, are usually the ones who engage in supression of others. The Puritans who founded New England did it. Baptists did it, and it still happens in many places in America that are labeled "Evangelical". I believe that the act of supressing others is about majority versus minority, and has not much to do with being religious -- it's all about who has control.
Savedbygrace wrote:
"I realize that you may not agree with that. You have come to your own conclusions. But, I do challenge you (not in a one on one way, but rather asking you) to take on the task of disproving Christianity. I mean, take the Bible, read through it looking at historical facts in the Bible, archaelogical facts in the Bible and other aspects of the Bible. Understand, study and discuss with experts, the perceived difficulties (or inconsistencies) in the Bible. Seek to understand the meaning of what the Bible states and its purpose."
I have read the Bible several times, and have even been recognized by Christians for having better knowledge than most believers do (I credit Bible search software with part of that...).
There is a big difference between a documented historical fact and a book which makes allusions to historical places, people, and events. For example, we know that various cities, tribes, and documented events are mentioned in the Bible. IN that sense, the Bible contains a lot of corroborative information that archaeolgists recognize as valuable. But he Bible also contains a lot of mistakes. For example, in the New Testament, it mentions the alleged massacre of children by King Herod. Several other Roman and Jewish (PLiny and Josephus, for example) historians wrote biographies of Herod, and made it clear that they were not choosing his side. No other mention of the alleged massacre appears anywhere in history -- such an event could not simply go unnoticed. Also, many of the events in the Gospel are absurd, and were not recorded by anyone else. One of the apostles said that when Jesus was resurrected, all the long dead saints of old came out of their graves and walked around in public. I think that someone outside of the Gospels would have mentioned something so unusual happening, but we only see it in one gospel.
Interestingly, Flavius Josephus, a bonafide historian from the times, wrote a few things that are mentioned in the Gospels. One account mentions that Judas Iscariot was killed when he tried to stage a revolt against Rome, and that he was crucified for it. He was referred to as the leadcer of a tribe of Christians. Also, the execution of Barrabas is mentioned, and he was not a thief, accordign to Josephus. Josephus said that he was another leader who staged a revolt against the Romans. As you know, Barrabus was put on the cross next to Jesus, and Jesus spoke to him, then the Gospels said that Jesus died, and there was a storm and an earthquake. Josephus mentions this story, but there was no Jesus in it -- 3 men executed on the eve of the passover, on or around 33AD one was Barrabus, but the other two were not important enough to mention, and no mention of a storm or earthquake.
In fact, Josephus mentions the execution of Jesus, and how Jesus's Brother, James, petitioned the Pharasees for what he thought was a wrongful execution.
In my honest opinion, the Gospels are not literal history. They are religious books written by followers to promote their messiah figure, and are full of glowing opinions and miracle accounts. It was not unusual to see this in ancient literature. Read the following article on the gullibility of people in those times:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/kooks.html
It doesn't prove anything, but it does give a good perspective of the times and the people, and what passed for a miracle.
Savedbygrace wrote:
"You will note that I have not said anything concerning evolution with respect to the above (i.e., I am not trying to disprove evo). Just asking that you take on the task of disproving Christianity. Once you have understood the purpose of the Bible and why it was given, then take that and apply it over those "religions" that have used Christianity as an excuse for atrocities. You will see that they are not consistent with Scripture at all."
That depends on the scriptures. I can (and have) found plenty of scriptures to justify various things, and an equal amount that condemns the same things.
For example, the Bible say a few things about drinking wine. One says that it makes the soul merry, and speaks positively of it, and the other mentions that it's bad. Compare and contrast these:
Good things about alcohol: Ecclesiastes 9:7 instructs “drink wine with a merry heart.” Psalm 104:14-15 states that God gives wine “that makes glad the heart of men.” Amos 9:14 discusses drinking wine from your own vineyard as a sign of God’s blessing. Isaiah 55:11 encourages “yes, come buy wine and milk…”
Bad things about alcohol: Leviticus 10:9; Numbers 6:3; Deuteronomy 29:6; Judges 13:4,7,14; 1 Samuel 1:15; Proverbs 20:1; 31:4,6; Isaiah 5:11,22; 24:9; 28:7; 29:9; 56:12; Micah 2:11; Luke 1:15)
There are lot of places where completely different things are said about the same act or object. When dealing with Christians who are on an anti-alcohol crusade, they seem to think that the Bible only condemns alcohol.
Savedbygrace wrote:
"Anyway, just some thoughts. I always enjoy good conversation about the most important thing in my life -- my relationship with Jesus Christ.
Appreciate the conversation. Take care. For the record, I do appreciate Ray's ministry; however, everything that Ray says must be held captive to Scripture and should be supported by Scripture. If you asked him, Ray would admit the same. I think that He is very careful to say when he is stating his opinion on something and when he is sharing specifically what the Bible says on certain topics."
I disagree -- Ray is very clumbsy with scriptures, and occaisionally posts things like "Science Confirms the Bible", which I easily pointed out was full of inaccuracies that were found merely by reading passages that he never bothered to read.
Ray has also been caught several times contradicting himself, not being quite truthful about a few things. I won't go into detail, but my interest started with the televised debate he had, where he completely failed to do what he claimed he would -- prove the existence of God without making reference to the Bible. He later claimed that he never agreed to do that, but his emails and public statements prior to the event prove otherwise.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion.
The state of Texas did it while George W. Bush was governor.
James Lee Clark was a murderer, sent to prison for killing a high school girl. While in prison, though, he was beaten almost to death by another inmate, suffering so much brain damage that he could only function at a 4-year-old level. He spent several years in that condition, and doctors reported that he didn't even know what the concept of prison meant. He was declared mentally retarded and mentally incompetent.
He didn't even have any idea of what was going on when they were about to execute him. he just smiled said "howdy" to the witnesses.
Is that the guy in Texas who asked for ice cream after the execution was done?
Yes, that's the guy. He asked "Can we have ice cream afterwards?", to the guard on his way to the execution chamber. It's pretty sad. What's funny is there is a movie called "Don't ask, Don't tell", which is an old 1950's movie about alien invaders that has a new soundtrack added with jokes. They have an appearance by a guy in a jet fighter who really looks like George Bush, and there's a bit of dialog about when he lands, they're going to Texas to watch an execution. The dialog from the guy who looks like GW says "Yeee-haw! Fire up old sparky, boys! We're gonna fry us up some retards!"
I almost shit my pants laughing at it...
Post a Comment