9 year old girl stabs "friend"?!!?

What in the world!?!?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/01/nyregion/01girl.html?ei=5065&en=4787bc0f9660fa6d&ex=1118289600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print

What moral constraints must a 9 year old breach to STAB another little girl in the heart?!!?

Where is the father? What role does the hip hop culture (emphasizing violence and glorifying subordination of women) and her engrainment in it have on her mental faculties?

Why is there no fear of consequence from society, mother, family, God in this little girl?

I am dumbfounded that STABBING another little girl in the chest is even an option?! Can any of you imagine being nine and thinking that stabbing a playmate is an appropriate way to get your way?

At some point, the guardians/parent(s)/etc. share some blame! This is satanic madness.

So you've already ruled out the possibility of a mental or emotional illness/defect?

Anyone who kills has a mental and emotional "illness/defect". It's called SIN NATURE. What does it matter? A little girl is dead, found lying face down in a pool of her own blood with a steak knife sticking out because she wanted a ball. I don't care why. I just know that all the ingredients were there for a "brush fire". No dad, hip hop culture, earlier outbursts, no fear of consequences.

Death penalty for the murderer, IMO. Publicly executing her will help fill other children with an appropriate fear of the law.

what on earth does hip hop culture have to do with anything? I think thats a bit of a knee jerk reaction personally. Bad parenting, yes, but hip hops fault, no.

----"Anyone who kills has a mental and emotional "illness/defect". It's called SIN NATURE. What does it matter? A little girl is dead, found lying face down in a pool of her own blood with a steak knife sticking out because she wanted a ball. I don't care why. I just know that all the ingredients were there for a "brush fire". No dad, hip hop culture, earlier outbursts, no fear of consequences.
"---

Hmmm. You seem to first ascribe the act to some sort of internal defect, SIN, but then explain the conditions that promoted that little girl's act.

It seems to me that once you explain the conditions that lead to someone being able to kill, the "sin" part is superfluous.

Prof.

IBI, I agree.

Josh, the hip hop community elevates violence, sex, worliness etc. Not healthy for children.

Prof, both the act and the nature, and the lifestyle all show the depravity of man...sin and the sin nature.

"Death penalty for the murderer, IMO. Publicly executing her will help fill other children with an appropriate fear of the law. "

Indeed it only creates more fear and anger... It does not educate neither prevent other crimes.

Parents are to be blamed, for sure.

You don´t know in what kind of domestic violence this child lives at.

Donna, I agree.

Put the fear of the law in their hearts? The next generation will just find a smarter way not to get caught. Overly harsh laws do not eliminate the evil; they just push it a little deeper.

With adults harsh penalties may not necessarily act as a deterrent (though I don't think that's entirely true - the average criminal tends to avoid murder because of the heavy sentence it carries), but with children it's different.

Children are very impressionable, and can be filled with fear quite easily - fear which they will often subconsciously carry throughout their lives. If you hit your kid every time he saw a blue object, he would always associate the colour blue with unpleasantness and pain - and therefore want to avoid it. Likewise, if he sees kids being brutally executed for their crimes, then he will be afraid of committing crimes.

And even if that fails, every execution gets rid of a dangerous criminal. It's a win-win situation.

agreed

"Likewise, if he sees kids being brutally executed for their crimes, then he will be afraid of committing crimes. "

A child will more likely end up in a psych word with post tramatic stress syndrome, or at the very least have a life filled with personal problems.

"And even if that fails, every execution gets rid of a dangerous criminal. It's a win-win situation."

Unless the person executed was innocent.

John 8:7

Jhn 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.

The old law is fulfilled. A new law has come.

John 8:7

The Covenant God made with Noah is still in effect. The "Law" refers to ritual law (temple worship etc.) unless you would argue that the morality of the Law is no longer in force.

Gen 9:12 And God said, This [is] the token of the covenant which I make between me and you and every living creature that [is] with you, for perpetual generations:

Gen 9:13 I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

John 8:7 could be used for anarchy and no consequence for murder, rape, etc. You are missing the entire point of John 8:7.

Verse 6. Tempting him. Trying him, or laying a plan that they might have occasion to accuse him. If he decided the case, they expected to be able to bring an accusation against him; for if he decided that she ought to die, they might accuse him of claiming power which belonged to the Romans--the power of life and death. They might allege that it was not the giving an opinion about an abstract case, but that she was formally before him, that he decided her case judicially, and that without authority or form of trial. If he decided otherwise, they would have alleged that he denied the authority of the law, and that it was his intention to abrogate it. They had had a controversy with him about the authority of the Sabbath, and they perhaps supposed that he would decide this case as he did that--against them. It may be farther added that they knew that Jesus admitted publicans and sinners to eat with him; that one of their charges was that he was friendly to sinners (see Luke 15:2); and they wished, doubtless, to make it appear that he was gluttonous, and a wine-bibber, and a friend of sinners, and disposed to relax all the laws of morality, even in the case of adultery. Seldom was there a plan more artfully laid, and never was more wisdom and knowledge of human nature displayed than in the manner in which it was met.

Wrote on the ground. This took place in the temple. The "ground," here, means the pavement, or the dust on the pavement. By this Jesus showed them clearly that he was not solicitous to pronounce an opinion in the case, and that it was not his wish or intention to intermeddle with the civil affairs of the nation.

As though he heard them not. This is added by the translators. It is not in the original, and should not have been added. There is no intimation in the original, as it seems to be implied by this addition, that the object was to convey the impression that he did not hear them. What was his object is unknown, and conjecture is useless. The most probable reason seems to be that he did not wish to intermeddle; that he designed to show no solicitude to decide the case; and that he did not mean to decide it unless he was constrained to.

Verse 7. They continued asking him. They pressed the question upon him. They were determined to extort an answer from him, and showed a perseverance in evil which has been unhappily often imitated.

Is without sin. That is, without this particular sin; he who has not himself been guilty of this very crime--for in this place the connection evidently demands this meaning.

Let him first cast a stone at her. In the punishment by death, one of the witnesses threw the culprit from the scaffold, and the other threw the first stone, or rolled down a stone to crush him. See Deuteronomy 17:6,7. This was in order that the witness might feel his responsibility in giving evidence, as he was also to be the executioner. Jesus therefore put them to the test. Without pronouncing on her case, he directed them, if any of them were innocent, to perform the office of executioner. This was said, evidently, well knowing their guilt, and well knowing that no one would dare to do it.

Go, and sin no more. You have sinned. You have been detected and accused. The sin is great. But I do not claim power to condemn you to die, and, as your accusers have left you, my direction to you is that you sin no more. This passage therefore teaches us,

1st. That Jesus claimed no civil authority.

2nd. That he regarded the action of which they accused her as sin.

3rd. That he knew the hearts and lives of men.

4th. That men are often very zealous in accusing others of that of which they themselves are guilty. And,

5th. That Jesus was endowed with wonderful wisdom in meeting the devices of his enemies, and eluding their deep-laid plans to involve him in ruin.

Oh, good. I must have missed the point of turn the other cheek, do good to those that despise you, and pray for your enemy, too. And definitely that whole part of forgive your neighbor was misinterpreted.

I'm wrong, you're right. Hate IS stronger than love and definitely makes for a better world.

Do you hate victims? Do you hate justice? Do you hate society?

You are misinterpreting individual attidues vs. societal responsibilities. That's why Israel had a codified law of ethics FROM GOD for dealing with societal sin. Jesus is now shifting from what makes a nation good, to what makes individuals good.

If someone kills a little girl knowing the punishment is death, they choose death. I have an obligation to fulfill God's commandment. I dont' have to hate them, I can individually forgive them.

If you can take a teaching about offering forgiveness and not condemning a sinner to death, and come out of that convinced that it's somehow okay to execute a 9 year-old girl with obvious family problems and probable mental/emotional problems, then all I can say is I'm glad I'm not you.