PDA

View Full Version : Information The Death Penalty



always
Oct 31st 2008, 02:11 AM
COST


Murder is cheaper than life in prison:

No. It costs a great deal more.
"Elimination of the death penalty would result in a net savings to the state of at least tens of millions of dollars annually, and a net savings to local governments in the millions to tens of millions of dollars on a statewide basis." (Joint Legislative Budget Committee of the California Legislature, 09/9/99)
Total cost of death penalty is 38% greater than total cost of life without parole sentences. (Indiana Criminal Law Study Commission, January 10, 2002)
Since its return to New York in 1995, $160 million has been spent. The [I]New York Daily News estimates that before the first execution takes place, $238 million will be spent.
In addition to the funds required to try death penalty cases, the New York Department of Correctional Services spent $1.3 million to construct New York's 12-inmate death row and pays nearly $300,000 per year to guard the unit. (New York Law Journal, April 30, 2002)
The Innocent being murdered


Over 123 people have been found innocent of the crime they were sentenced to death for.
False confessions, mistaken eyewitness accounts, incompetent counsel and jailhouse snitches are often the cause of an innocent person's conviction. While DNA has saved many innocent lives, most crimes do not have DNA that can be tested.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican, has reiterated his opposition to capital punishment. Bloomberg noted, "The death penalty I've always had a problem with, because too many times in the past you've seen innocent people incarcerated and, tragically, every once in a while they've been executed. And until you can show me that the process never would ever convict somebody that later on we find out was innocent of a crime, murder is murder no matter who does it, and I think we as a society can afford to incarcerate people." (The New York Times, July 31, 2003).
In New York, the five men convicted in the Central Park Jogger rape case (http://innocenceproject.org/causes/falseconfessions.php) were found innocent, although they confessed to the crime. At the time of the crime Donald Trump took out a full-page ad to say that he wished New York had the death penalty for these men.



The Race Factor

Almost all people accused of death-eligible crimes are impoverished and must rely on court-appointed lawyers to defend them at trial. Minority defendants may be represented by lawyers who are not only incompetent but also openly bigoted. At a minimum, a lack of cultural sensitivity to other ethnic groups may affect their ability to prepare adequately for the case.
The case of Wilburn Dobbs is one of at least five in Georgia where defense attorneys referred to their own clients during the trial by racial slurs, including "nigger."
Melvin Wade was sentenced to death in California after being represented by an attorney who used defamatory language against African Americans, including Wade, and who asked that his own client be sentenced to death during the penalty phase of the trial.
African Americans account for 42 per cent of the USA's current 3,500 death row inmates and about 34 per cent of prisoners executed since 1977. However, the identity of the murder victim that provides the clearest indication that race remains an ingredient of capital sentencing.
Since 1976, blacks have been six to seven times more likely to be murdered than whites, with the result that blacks and whites are the victims of murder in about equal numbers. Yet, 80 per cent of the more than 1000 people put to death in the USA since 1976 were convicted of crimes involving white victims, compared to the 14 per cent who were convicted of killing blacks.(Death Penalty Information Center.)
Using data supplied by the New York capital defenders, the Center for Law and Justice reviewed the race of each victim in all first degree murder cases in New York from 1995 to 2001. The center compared the race of the victims in all potentially capital murder cases to the race of the victims in cases where a prosecutor filed a notice of intention to seek the death penalty.
Although only 32% of first degree murder cases from 1995 to 2001 involved a white victim, 60% of the cases in which a prosecutor sought the death penalty involved a white victim. In contrast, while 43% of the first degree murder cases involved a black victim, only 36% of the cases in which a prosecutor sought the death penalty involved a black victim. And 24% of cases involved a hispanic victim, yet only 14% of the cases where the death penalty was sought involved a hispanic victim.


The Poor Factor

How does poverty affect a capital case?


Ninety-five percent of defendants charged with capital crimes are indigent and cannot afford their own attorney to represent them. They are forced to use inexperienced, underpaid court-appointed attorneys.
US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said she has "never seen a death penalty case on appeal before this court in which the defendant was well represented at trial."
Some defendants in capital cases have been represented by attorneys who were drunk or sleeping during the trial. George McFarland, sentenced to death in 1992, was represented by an attorney who admitted sleeping during parts of the trial: "I'm 72 years old. I customarily take a short nap in the afternoon." The trial judge commented that: "The Constitution says everyone's entitled to the attorney of their choice. The Constitution does not say the lawyer has to be awake." (Excerpted from Amnesty International)
Deterrence


Based on numerous studies, former Attorney General Janet Reno and the American Society of Criminologists agree that the death penalty has no deterrence value.
Janet Reno stated at a Justice Department news briefing in January 2000 that: "I have inquired for most of my adult life about studies that might show that the death penalty is a deterrent, and I have not seen any research that would substantiate that point

th1bill
Oct 31st 2008, 05:58 AM
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (ASV)

So what we need to know is why does man choose to rebel against God and to disobey Him?

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(ASV)

always
Oct 31st 2008, 01:50 PM
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man. (ASV)

So what we need to know is why does man choose to rebel against God and to disobey Him?

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;
Rom 1:19 because that which is known of God is manifest in them; for God manifested it unto them.
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse:
Rom 1:21 because that, knowing God, they glorified him not as God, neither gave thanks; but became vain in their reasonings, and their senseless heart was darkened.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
Rom 1:25 for that they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
(ASV)


Where in all of that(NT) does it state that Man is to take it into his own hands to pass judgment as in murder ?

Matt. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

Fenris
Oct 31st 2008, 01:59 PM
Matt. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
This is on an individual level, not a societal level. If we truly could not resist evil, then Hitler would be running the world right now.

David Taylor
Oct 31st 2008, 02:19 PM
Remember the guy Michael Fay, who vandalized a car in Singapore, and was severely whiped with a bambo cane as punishment?

Never heard of him re-committing car-vandalism again in Singapore.

If the Punishment system fit the crimes, then punishment might be a deterrant.

Thugs and Hooligans and malicious repeat offenders getting back out on the streets time and time again; with repeat opportunities to continue their crimes against civilized society just shows the horrible failing in the justice system where the criminal gets the pass; and the victims suffer unjustly.

David Taylor
Oct 31st 2008, 02:22 PM
COST


Murder is cheaper than life in prison:

No. It costs a great deal more.



Governments don't murder; individuals murder.
Governments execute laws to protect and preserve their societies.

If the Death Penalty were done correctly and simply; it wouldn't cost very much at all. With all of the stays, and appeals, and extended involvement of the justice system; it costs way more than it should to execute the death penalty upon the guilty.

always
Oct 31st 2008, 02:35 PM
Remember the guy Michael Fay, who vandalized a car in Singapore, and was severely whiped with a bambo cane as punishment?

Never heard of him re-committing car-vandalism again in Singapore.

If the Punishment system fit the crimes, then punishment might be a deterrant.

Thugs and Hooligans and malicious repeat offenders getting back out on the streets time and time again; with repeat opportunities to continue their crimes against civilized society just shows the horrible failing in the justice system where the criminal gets the pass; and the victims suffer unjustly.


No, if probation and parole were eradicated, and ones knew that if they were sentenced to everyday of 5 years for robbing a store, crime would go down, nothing as heinous as a beating with a bambo cane would be necessary:rolleyes:

serial killers, and killers because of emotional situations or not deterred by the death penalty. They need (serial killers) to be locked up for life.

Murder is Murder, done by individuals that make of the government, or individuals period.

thepenitent
Oct 31st 2008, 02:36 PM
Romans 13 clearly justifies the death penalty Biblicaly. Further, anyone who sufferes the ultimate penalty is permanently deterred from killing again. Also, I'm not buying much of the statistics posted. And for the record, I am personally against the death penalty in that I could never sentence a person to death.

always
Oct 31st 2008, 02:48 PM
Romans 13 clearly justifies the death penalty Biblicaly. Further, anyone who sufferes the ultimate penalty is permanently deterred from killing again. Also, I'm not buying much of the statistics posted. And for the record, I am personally against the death penalty in that I could never sentence a person to death.


You don't have to buy them, that doesn't make them not an accurate asessment.

Romans 13

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

keywords "ordained of God"

th1bill
Nov 1st 2008, 05:34 PM
You don't have to buy them, that doesn't make them not an accurate asessment.

Romans 13

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

keywords "ordained of God"
Rom 13:1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same:
Rom 13:4 for he is a 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 a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.
Rom 13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake.

Please not the red and particularly the blue highlighted portions. You are of course correct about placing emphases on ordained by God but by the same token you cannot place a popular spin on the Word of God. As for this New Testament, Old Testament argument you appear to be falling into, forget it. There is only one God and that same God wrote both Testaments. The New Testament does not change one single thing and is in fact, largely, a commentary on the Old Testament. It is impossible to understand the New Testament without reading the Old.

The major change that people incorrectly clamor about is the change from salvation by the Law and salvation by Grace. No one, not one single man has been saved by the Law, not even Abraham. The Law is and always has been the model that we are to pursue and when we find out just how sorry we are then Grace can save us.

Now, folks have been making foolish arguments in an attempt to abolish the death penalty for much longer than I have been alive and the truth has never changed and will never change no matter how many millions get behind the movement. Truth is the Word of God and all else is relativism and that is, in every form, sin against God.

Ashley274
Nov 2nd 2008, 05:27 AM
There are crimes so heinous putting a person to death is something I would support.
I would rather see all the money to jail them and money that goes to appeal after appeal be spent on teaching people to avoid sex and helping those who didn't and who had the child....helping them place it in HOME rather than a utility closet to die...To quote Rev Huckabee "There's a real difference between the process of adjudication, where a person is deemed guilty after a thorough judicial process and is put to death by all of us, as citizens, under a law, as opposed to an individual making a decision to terminate a life that has never been deemed guilty because the life never was given a chance to even exist… That’s the fundamental difference" I think the same principle some use ..you know the one....the child is God's so it will be with God so let abortion be a choice....can be applied to the people who kill and end up on death row...if they are innocent they will be with the Lord ..if they are His they will repent (The Holy Spirit can beat a time set for execution) before they are executed. So render unto Caesar

I never heard God say he was agaist the death penalty but He did say one should not shed innocent blood....In fact He was innocent and died a death penalty so we could live eternally.....We all die at some point some kill and rape and they get caught.....and are put to death..

Oh well enough on that I care about innocent blood not all the evil lawless people ..like those serial killers and such..THOUGH I pray they repent

Butch5
Nov 2nd 2008, 01:54 PM
This is on an individual level, not a societal level. If we truly could not resist evil, then Hitler would be running the world right now.

If something is a sin on the individual level, is it not also a sin at a societal level? Can we say that adultery is a sin at the individual level, and yet then say that if Society legalizes adultery it is no longer a sin? What about robbery? It is a sin for an individual to steal, is it no a sin for the government to steal money from the people?

Oma
Nov 2nd 2008, 06:49 PM
It really doesn't matter what the American Society of Criminologists or anyone else has to say about this matter. What's important here is what does God say? Whether the death penalty deters or not doesn't matter - the issue is justice must be done - if I deprive someone of his life, I forfeit my own.

If a person is put to death for a crime he confesses to, but did not commit - remember what David did to the man who claimed to have killed Saul.
2Sa 1:15, 16 And David called one of the young men, and said, Go near, and fall upon him. And he smote him that he died.
And David said unto him, Thy blood be upon thy head; for thy mouth hath testified against thee, saying, I have slain the LORD'S anointed.

*Hope*
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:12 AM
Ugh, this is what happens when people "google" to research something.....


Unfortunately, the majority of the information listed in the OP is false or misleading. But that's what happens when go to to websites, particularly ones that are biased against the death penalty. You'll get skewed information.

The death penalty is a biblical concept. Thus, the "factors" listed in the initial post are irrelevant.

Slug1
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:21 AM
It can be solved quite easily, those that are sentenced to death... kill them, immediately. Move on to the next one sentenced to death and the next and the next and before long two things are gonna happen;

1. All the criminals deserving of death will be dead.

2. Then there will be a deterrent in our society cause criminals will face the reality that crime kills.... them.

God has authorized us to kill the evil doer, why be afraid to be obedient to the will of God?

It's because we are afraid of being obedient to God is why criminals have no fear of us.

holyrokker
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:28 AM
I don't have sufficient confidence in our judicial system to support the death penalty.

Some people who have actually committed crimes go free, while some are convicted of crimes they haven't actually committed.

I'm not willing to send a person to death for a crime they "probably" committed.

*Hope*
Nov 3rd 2008, 04:56 AM
I'll have to add more to this topic tomorrow, but I did want to clear up the misconception that there are multitudes of innocent people being put to death for crimes they didn't commit. There have been roughly 1000 executions since 1976, the year the Supreme Court revised the death penalty, and only one proven case of someone innocent being executed. It is FAR more likely that someone guilty will go free, than someone innocent being convicted (much less executed).

Especially now that we have advances in DNA technology, the likelihood of someone innocent being convicted and subsequently executed for a crime they didn't commit is very slim.

th1bill
Nov 3rd 2008, 06:30 AM
The long and the short of it is that God has commanded that when a man murders a man we are to kill him for the sin committed against God. To do less is to be disobedient and to sin against God ourselves. If we are led to sin against God we are being led by Satan.

Luke34
Nov 3rd 2008, 09:27 AM
Do you people seriously not think it matters whether the death penalty is cost-effective or, you know, works? I'd tend to think "being effective" is kind of the point of a potential crime-deterrent.

dan
Nov 3rd 2008, 11:30 AM
LK 11:21 When a strong man ARMED keepeth his court, those things are in peace which he possesseth.

MT 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.

REV 13:9 If any man have an ear, let him hear:
REV 13:10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.

NUM 35:31 You shall not take money of him that is guilty of blood, but he shall die forthwith.
NUM 35:32 The banished and fugitives before the death of the high priest may by no means return into their own cities.
NUM 35:33 Defile not the land of your habitation, which is stained with the blood of the innocent: neither can it otherwise be expiated, but by his blood that hath shed the blood of another.
NUM 35:34 And thus shall your possession he cleansed, myself abiding with you. For I am the Lord that dwell among the children of Israel.

IS 65:12 Therefore will I number you to the sword, and ye shall all bow down to the slaughter: because when I called, ye did not answer; when I spake, ye did not hear; but did evil before mine eyes, and did choose that wherein I delighted not.

AMOS 9:10 All the sinners of my people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us.

ROM 3:8 Let us not, "do evil so that good may come", a statement which we are falsely said by some to have made, because such behaviour will have its right punishment. (Bible In Basic English)

AngelAuthor
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:14 PM
Do you people seriously not think it matters whether the death penalty is cost-effective or, you know, works? I'd tend to think "being effective" is kind of the point of a potential crime-deterrent.
The Death Penalty is 100% effective as a deterrent against those whom it is used.

As far as all the people quoting scripture here to prove their point, I know you mean well but don't waste your breath. Some people have a penchant for ignoring scripture that clearly contradicts their worldview.

Fenris
Nov 3rd 2008, 08:32 PM
If something is a sin on the individual level, is it not also a sin at a societal level?
Don't use 'sin' in the abstract.

Were we wrong when we fought Japan and Germany in world war 2?

Luke34
Nov 3rd 2008, 09:46 PM
The Death Penalty is 100% effective as a deterrent against those whom it is used. So's life w/o parole. And I said crime deterrent, meaning crime in general, or crime rates. There's no evidence that it affects that.

th1bill
Nov 3rd 2008, 10:27 PM
Once again, just the simple truth. This past month Texas put to death a man that raped and murdered a female child. Did it bring back the little girl? Can the parents ever forget? Will the offender ever be released to kill another Child?

The young girl will never rise before the return of my LORD, the parents will only, ever, see the child if they are saved and have confessed Jesus with their mouths and then, only on the other side of Eternity. But this animal, in the form of a man will not ever again rape and murder any female person, his next appearance before anyone will be at the Great White Throne of Judgment, where God will commend him into Hell for eternity.

Did the extermination of him deter him from committing the crime again? Yes, it did! Do I feel sorry for him? No, that might have been one of my grandchildren that he tortured and murdered.

always
Nov 4th 2008, 12:26 AM
I'll have to add more to this topic tomorrow, but I did want to clear up the misconception that there are multitudes of innocent people being put to death for crimes they didn't commit. There have been roughly 1000 executions since 1976, the year the Supreme Court revised the death penalty, and only one proven case of someone innocent being executed. It is FAR more likely that someone guilty will go free, than someone innocent being convicted (much less executed).

Especially now that we have advances in DNA technology, the likelihood of someone innocent being convicted and subsequently executed for a crime they didn't commit is very slim.

There have been 23 innocent people excuted in the U.S.A, and many more than that sentenced

I don't know where you got that statistic from, here in latter times because of DNA evidence more deathrow inmates are being found innocent before they can be murdered.

Just think of how many were murdered before this type of evidence was available that we don't know of.

always
Nov 4th 2008, 12:28 AM
The Death Penalty is 100% effective as a deterrent against those whom it is used.



It has the same effectiveness that the law had, it works wrath. Did you understand that scripture?

always
Nov 4th 2008, 12:32 AM
quote from Bud Welch

"I was opposed to the death penalty all my life until my daughter Julie Marie was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing ... For many months after the bombing I could have killed Timothy McVeigh myself. But after time, I was able to examine my conscience, and I realized that if McVeigh is put to death, it won’t help me in the healing process."

http://www.journeyofhope.org/old_site/images/pictures/bud_small.jpg http://www.journeyofhope.org/old_site/People/Bud_Julie_small.jpg (http://www.journeyofhope.org/old_site/People/Bud%20Julie.jpg)

Fenris
Nov 4th 2008, 12:49 AM
quote from Bud Welch

He isn't the victim, and has no right to ask for a waiving of the death penalty.

Slug1
Nov 4th 2008, 01:24 AM
quote from Bud Welch

"I was opposed to the death penalty all my life until my daughter Julie Marie was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing ... For many months after the bombing I could have killed Timothy McVeigh myself. But after time, I was able to examine my conscience, and I realized that if McVeigh is put to death, it won’t help me in the healing process."

Putting McVeigh to death isn't supposed to help his healing process... forgiving McVeigh is supposed to help his healing process.

However, this does not free McVeigh from God's wrath and His vengeance. This wrath and vengeance is executed by God through the government as a consequence for being an evil doer and this is to put McVeigh's mortal body to death so he can never do evil again. His eternal sentence of death will be given to Him by God during His judgment... if he never accepted Christ and repented of his evil act of murder before God used man to kill him.

God's been using man to kill since sin entered the world and God has to use His righteous use of putting man, women, children, and animals to death to further His will. That way satan doesn't murder us all with those sided and listening to him. God use's those sided and listening to Him to keep those sided and listening to satan under control and that means killing them when needed. It'll be like this till Jesus returns and then He can do all the killing Himself as He won't need to use man to do it any longer.

*Hope*
Nov 4th 2008, 01:55 AM
There have been 23 innocent people excuted in the U.S.A, and many more than that sentenced

Your source?


I don't know where you got that statistic from

Well I didn't get them from googling. I've grown up around the criminal justice system (raised by a prosecutor). My information comes from legal studies, journals, cases, and research done by those involved in the criminal justice system. I might be able to find some sources online, but the majority of it comes from lawyers and judges that I know personally.


here in latter times because of DNA evidence more deathrow inmates are being found innocent before they can be murdered.


....which makes the case for the death penalty even stronger. If people can be proven innocent or guilty with the DNA technology that we have (and they are routinely), then the chances of putting someone innocent to death is slim to none.

By the way, calling these people "innocent" is a misnomer. While some of them might not have been guilty of committing a specific crime, the majority of people accused are guilty of at least assisting in those crimes (or others). To suggest that perfectly innocent, law abiding citizens can somehow find themselves on death row accused of a capital offense is absurd.

AngelAuthor
Nov 4th 2008, 02:07 AM
So's life w/o parole.
That would be wrong. People in prison still commit crimes against other prisoners.

Want to try again?

AngelAuthor
Nov 4th 2008, 02:13 AM
It has the same effectiveness that the law had, it works wrath. Did you understand that scripture?
I know you ain't talkin' to me about understanding scripture...:rofl:ye who bears the standard for one that supports murder, homosexuality, AND thinks Christ isn't necessary to get to heaven.

*Hope*
Nov 4th 2008, 02:20 AM
So's life w/o parole. And I said crime deterrent, meaning crime in general, or crime rates. There's no evidence that it affects that.

Sorry, but this isn't true. Some of the most recent studies are showing that it is a deterrent. If it's true that the death penalty is a deterrent and that it does prevent crime, then it could be considered morally wrong not to support it. Otherwise we are knowingly endangering lives. On the flip side, even if it is not a deterrent...so what? If it deters crime, great we've saved lives. If it doesn't, then we've rid the world of a violent criminal. It's a win/win.

I think too many people in this thread are relying on "sources" like deathpenaltyinfo.org and other anti-death penalty sites instead of genuine research and trusted resources.

always
Nov 4th 2008, 06:09 PM
I know you ain't talkin' to me about understanding scripture...:rofl:ye who bears the standard for one that supports murder, homosexuality, AND thinks Christ isn't necessary to get to heaven.

Just so no one gets confused, he is stating that of Obama, even though that's not what Obama states, and neither I beleive

AngelAuthor
Nov 4th 2008, 10:42 PM
Obama, even though that's not what Obama states,
Oh...really?

http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/barack-obama-is-not-a-christian/

“I’m rooted in the Christian tradition,” said Obama, who has declared himself a Christian. But then he adds something that most Christians will see as universalism: “I believe there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.”Looks like he believes it to me...Christ was a fool to come down here and die on the Cross when there are "many paths" to get where He wanted to take us.


Falsani correctly brings up John 14:6 (and how many journalists would know such a verse, much less ask a question based on it?) in which Jesus says of Himself, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” That sounds pretty exclusive, but Obama says it depends on how this verse is heard. Big ooops. Heretic.

Butch5
Nov 9th 2008, 12:51 AM
Don't use 'sin' in the abstract.

Were we wrong when we fought Japan and Germany in world war 2?

Was who wrong? The we that Christians, or the We that are Americans?


John 18:36 ( KJV ) 36Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

Christ wouldn't let His servants fight to save His life, why should we think we should fight to save anyone else's life? Who is more important than Jesus???


Matthew 5:38-39 ( KJV ) 38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: 39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


Matthew 5:43-48 ( KJV ) 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? 48Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

51And, behold, one of them which were with Jesus stretched out his hand, and drew his sword, and struck a servant of the high priest’s, and smote off his ear. 52Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.53Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?


2 Corinthians 10:3-4 ( KJV ) 3For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4(For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;)

This is also the way the early church understood Jesus and the apostles teachings, they would die themselves before they would kill another. I can could give many quotes from the early church on this.

AngelAuthor
Nov 9th 2008, 02:39 AM
Christ wouldn't let His servants fight to save His life, why should we think we should fight to save anyone else's life? Who is more important than Jesus???

Witness the dangers of lifting verses out of context and Spiritual understanding.

WHY didn't Christ let his people fight to save His life?

Could it be, perhaps, that if they had...and had won...YOU would be as good as sitting in Hell tonight?

Christ CAME to die...that was His purpose. There was no point in fighting it, your 'connection' is not applicable in the least.

the rest of your verses are the typical mistake of trying to apply the micro (Jesus preaching peace to the individuals) to the MACRO (Jesus commanding wars of justice - like when He told David to pursue and kill those that had raided his men and taken off with their wives and children).


This is also the way the early church understood Jesus and the apostles teachings, they would die themselves before they would kill another.
Were THEY a government? Or a collection of individuals? A church?? God never commanded individuals to kill, or for His church to kill...He DID command rulers to do so, though.

always
Nov 9th 2008, 02:51 AM
Witness the dangers of lifting verses out of context and Spiritual understanding.

WHY didn't Christ let his people fight to save His life?

Could it be, perhaps, that if they had...and had won...YOU would be as good as sitting in Hell tonight?

Christ CAME to die...that was His purpose. There was no point in fighting it, your 'connection' is not applicable in the least.

the rest of your verses are the typical mistake of trying to apply the micro (Jesus preaching peace to the individuals) to the MACRO (Jesus commanding wars of justice - like when He told David to pursue and kill those that had raided his men and taken off with their wives and children).


Were THEY a government? Or a collection of individuals? A church?? God never commanded individuals to kill, or for His church to kill...He DID command rulers to do so, though.
[/color][/size][/font][/color][/font][/color]

show scripture where Jesus did

always
Nov 9th 2008, 02:54 AM
the issue is justice must be done -



if it was we would all be in hell, I prefer grace and mercy

Slug1
Nov 9th 2008, 02:57 AM
if it was we would all be in hell, I prefer grace and mercyWhat grace and mercy did God show Ananias and Sapphira?

All they did was lie to Him.

My point being, God will kill to make a point and when a person is a wrong doer, the point He's gonna make is to use those that are Ministers of God, to kill them.

Slug1
Nov 9th 2008, 03:15 AM
show scripture where Jesus didMost of the OT is all the scripture you need. God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit... all God, the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

When Jesus returns, all these faithful people He uses today to kill the wrong doer, will be out of a job cause Jesus will be doing all the killing Himself.

Rev 19:

11 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. 12 His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2019&multilayout=cols&version1=77&version2=50#fen-HCSB-en-NKJV-31024e)] a name written that no one knew except Himself. 13 He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean,[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2019&multilayout=cols&version1=77&version2=50#fen-HCSB-en-NKJV-31026f)] followed Him on white horses. 15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Rev%2019&multilayout=cols&version1=77&version2=50#fen-HCSB-en-NKJV-31027g)] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

This is the same Jesus who ordered the death of men, women, children, livestock. This is the same God who flooded the earth to wipe out all man kind. This is the same Holy Spirit that killed Ananias and Sapphira.

He kills to bring about His will and continues to do so today and will continue till He returns and can do it Himself.

always
Nov 9th 2008, 03:19 AM
What grace and mercy did God show Ananias and Sapphira?

All they did was lie to Him.

My point being, God will kill to make a point and when a person is a wrong doer, the point He's gonna make is to use those that are Ministers of God, to kill them.



Give me a break, the ones performing the lethal injections "I'll say at least in Texas" are far from "ministers of God"

and as far as Ananias and Sapphira their sin of lying to the Holy Spirit, was brought upon themselves, those scriptures speak nothing of our Father killing them, or a minister of his killing them, in fact it was satan that cause their deaths

A man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife's knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles.

But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the Holy Spirit and retained part of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God."

When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him.


After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?" She said, "Yes, for that amount." Then Peter said to her, "Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?

Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

(Acts 4:32-35; 5:1-11) New American Bible

Slug1
Nov 9th 2008, 03:29 AM
It was God who killed them for following what satan put in their hearts. They fell into satan's temptation and sinned. Just as all wrongdoers do, they all fall into temptation and sin... let's use murder as an example and God uses people to bring about Justice... these people God calls, Ministers of God.

edit... it was God who killed them. Otherwise they'd be fearing satan for killing those two. It was by the Holy Spirit that Peter discerned their lie. You actually think that with the Holy Spirit in control of this situation that satan would be allowed to use power to kill those two? Peter even asked them why test the Holy Spirit... they did, zap... dead!

steelerbabe
Nov 9th 2008, 04:05 AM
I find it interesting the people who support abortion rights that are anti- death penalty. I guess it's okay to murder them in the womb but not if they have commited an unspeakable crime:rolleyes:

th1bill
Nov 9th 2008, 04:54 AM
Always,
... You can jitterbug from now until the cows find a home on Main Street, downtown Houston with 40 acres of grass but the issue will, forever, come down to just one point. Will you obey God, Gen. 9:6 or will you sin against God?

AngelAuthor
Nov 9th 2008, 03:22 PM
show scripture where Jesus did
Jesus commanded death all throughout the Old Testament, and if you don't see it, let me clue you in to the fact that Christ is the God of Abraham (who killed at God's command, Isaac, Jacob, and David (who also killed at God's command), Aaron (the same), etc., etc.

AngelAuthor
Nov 9th 2008, 03:24 PM
I find it interesting the people who support abortion rights that are anti- death penalty. I guess it's okay to murder them in the womb but not if they have commited an unspeakable crime:rolleyes:
It's fascinating, isn't it? Just goes to show how Scripture can be wildly twisted any which way to show anything a person wants to see instead of the truth.

quiet dove
Nov 9th 2008, 07:25 PM
Rom 13:4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Butch5
Nov 9th 2008, 08:14 PM
Witness the dangers of lifting verses out of context and Spiritual understanding.

WHY didn't Christ let his people fight to save His life?

Could it be, perhaps, that if they had...and had won...YOU would be as good as sitting in Hell tonight?

Christ CAME to die...that was His purpose. There was no point in fighting it, your 'connection' is not applicable in the least.

the rest of your verses are the typical mistake of trying to apply the micro (Jesus preaching peace to the individuals) to the MACRO (Jesus commanding wars of justice - like when He told David to pursue and kill those that had raided his men and taken off with their wives and children).


Were THEY a government? Or a collection of individuals? A church?? God never commanded individuals to kill, or for His church to kill...He DID command rulers to do so, though.
[/color][/size][/font][/color][/font][/color]

I notice you did not address "but I say." Jesus changed things. Also you claim that Jesus commanded David to kill. Let me ask you this. Did Jesus tell congress to kill anyone? Do you know of a government that is in existence today, that Jesus has told to kill? What Jesus commanded the Israelites to do, has no bearing on what He tells us to do. If God's word is to be appropreated individually, why is it not to be appropriated nationally? If an individual is not to kill, why is it OK for a group of indiviuals to kill???

AngelAuthor
Nov 9th 2008, 08:41 PM
If an individual is not to kill, why is it OK for a group of indiviuals to kill???
Then it should be okay for me to come to your house, snatch you away and put you behind bars for 20 years because you offended me, right? :rolleyes: Or better yet, I'm imposing a new tax on all people named Butch...my friends will be there to collect from you in a bit. Trying to suggest that what applies to people should apply to governments as well and vice-versa, is patently absurd on its face.

"but I say" doesn't change the fact of WHO Christ was speaking to when He commanded us to Love our Neighbor and not raise our hand against each other. He wasn't talking to a government, He was talking to individuals, and Paul (who you anti-death penalty types want to ignore all the day long), very clearly stated that governments who KILL do so not in vain, that we are to RESPECT their AUTHORITY to do so.

Butch5
Nov 10th 2008, 02:38 AM
Angyl---Then it should be okay for me to come to your house, snatch you away and put you behind bars for 20 years because you offended me, right? :rolleyes: Or better yet, I'm imposing a new tax on all people named Butch...my friends will be there to collect from you in a bit. Trying to suggest that what applies to people should apply to governments as well and vice-versa, is patently absurd on its face.


I don't see your analogy here,


Angyl---"but I say" doesn't change the fact of WHO Christ was speaking to when He commanded us to Love our Neighbor and not raise our hand against each other. He wasn't talking to a government, He was talking to individuals, and Paul (who you anti-death penalty types want to ignore all the day long), very clearly stated that governments who KILL do so not in vain, that we are to RESPECT their AUTHORITY to do so.

Aren't all govenrrments made up of individuals?

Yes, we are to respect authority, however Christians are not supposed to be that authority.

You know, the funny thing is, 2 months ago I would have been arguing for your position instead of against it.

AngelAuthor
Nov 10th 2008, 03:46 AM
Aren't all govenrrments made up of individuals?
Yes, but when the individuals become a government, their responsibility changes. Governments can NOT practically work the way Christ instructed individuals to, else they would NEVER raise a standing army and NEVER defend themselves against their enemies, and NEVER punish criminals (forgiving 70x7, not casting stones, etc.).

Obviously there's a point of difference between individual Christian behavior and GOVERNMENT Christian behavior.


Yes, we are to respect authority, however Christians are not supposed to be that authority.
HUH?? Says who? Where?

*Hope*
Nov 10th 2008, 03:51 AM
I find it interesting the people who support abortion rights that are anti- death penalty. I guess it's okay to murder them in the womb but not if they have commited an unspeakable crime:rolleyes:

Exactly. Ironic isn't it?

*Hope*
Nov 10th 2008, 03:53 AM
Rom 13:4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

This along with Genesis 9:6 about sums it up biblically.

th1bill
Nov 10th 2008, 06:19 AM
Give me a break, the ones performing the lethal injections "I'll say at least in Texas" are far from "ministers of God"
You either believe what God has recorded for the wisdom of the saints or you are, at best, a very carnal Christian.

Rom 13:1 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God.
Rom 13:2 Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment.
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same:
Rom 13:4 for he is a 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 a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil.

Having served under these government employees, Prison Guards, in the Texas Penal System, I know they can try one's moral fortitude when in there but since God is Omnipotent and since God has Ordained them to be His ministers of justice, we are bound to obey them and to lend to them the respect due to all God's Ministers.

and as far as Ananias and Sapphira their sin of lying to the Holy Spirit, was brought upon themselves, those scriptures speak nothing of our Father killing them, or a minister of his killing them, in fact it was satan that cause their deaths
Satan is the Father of all lies but it was the Holy Spirit of God that Killed them for their lies, not Satan.

A man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife's knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles.

But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the Holy Spirit and retained part of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God."

When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him.


After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?" She said, "Yes, for that amount." Then Peter said to her, "Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord?

Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came upon the whole church and upon all who heard of these things.

(Acts 4:32-35; 5:1-11) New American Bible
We serve one God, the Triune God, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Since they are only one God it is not amiss to say that God killed them for their sin and it is not wrong to say that Jesus killed them for their sin. At the same time it is accurate to say that God the Father killed them because they are one in a manor that is a mystery to men.

always
Nov 10th 2008, 05:08 PM
I find it interesting the people who support abortion rights that are anti- death penalty. I guess it's okay to murder them in the womb but not if they have commited an unspeakable crime:rolleyes:


Thank YOU! that is what I've been saying for sooooo long, you can not have it both ways, if you are against abortion, you are against the death penalty.

and for a christian to be against one and not the other is hypocritical.

Thank you for bringing that point up again.

MrAnteater
Nov 10th 2008, 06:16 PM
The death penalty is NOT murder. The person has been found guilty. God fully endorses capital punishment of the guilty for certain offenses and there are many examples in the old and new Testament. To deny this is to deny the truth of scripture.

Abortion, on the other hand, IS murder. It's the taking of an innocent life who has not committed any crime.

If you put aside the liberal bias and actually live the word of God, it's a non-argument. The same liberal theology that makes the argument that abortion is OK and capital punishment is wrong are the same ones that deny the deity of Jesus, deny Jesus is the only way to salvation, and deny hell is real and the wages of sin is death. Liberalism in politics and the church go hand-in-hand and yield the same destructive results and are a perversion of God's truth.

*Hope*
Nov 10th 2008, 06:27 PM
Thank YOU! that is what I've been saying for sooooo long, you can not have it both ways, if you are against abortion, you are against the death penalty.

and for a christian to be against one and not the other is hypocritical.

Thank you for bringing that point up again.

Are you purposefully missing the point, or do you genuinely not see your own contradiction? There is a VAST difference between slaughtering the innocent while inutero versus serving justice by taking the life of someone who is guilty of a vicious crime. If you're going to call us hypocritical, then you must call God hypocritical also. He established the death penalty. It is precisely because we are made in the image of God that He takes such offense to murdering the innocent. And because it is such a high offense (and it is an attack on His very image), that the consequence is set so high.

There is no hypocracy for someone to be pro-life and support the death penalty. In fact, there is no tension between the two because at the core, both place the highest value on the imago dei (the image of God). Murdering someone is the most severe assault on God's image, thus, it warrants the highest consequence.

Also, my previous posts have been ignored. There is shifting advocacy here. First, we're told misinformation and you attempted to persuade us using false, biased statistics. When that didn't work, you simply ignored the counter-arguments and are now trying to claim we are hypocrites. Which argument are you going to stick with?

Butch5
Nov 10th 2008, 09:18 PM
Yes, but when the individuals become a government, their responsibility changes. Governments can NOT practically work the way Christ instructed individuals to, else they would NEVER raise a standing army and NEVER defend themselves against their enemies, and NEVER punish criminals (forgiving 70x7, not casting stones, etc.).

Obviously there's a point of difference between individual Christian behavior and GOVERNMENT Christian behavior.

HUH?? Says who? Where?

Can you show me Scripture that says individual Christian behavior is different than Government Christian behavior.


Angyl---HUH?? Says who? Where?


Well, how can a Christian run the military and follow Jesus command to love your enemies, to bless them who persecute you? How can a Christian be a judge and condemn someone to death when Jesus said, turn the other cheek, What part of government isn't corrupt? Surely a Christian cannot take part in corruption. Do you think it is possible for a person to serve in government and uphold the values of Christ. What if you were the president and you came to the podium and began to pray and started speaking the name of Christ? Think you'd last long? Even our current president who says He is a Christan doesn't you the name of Jesus in public, He says things like, we look to God, well, all religions have a god, or He says things like we put our trust in "Him". Now I"m not knocking the president, I'm just making the point that in government you have to compromise. So for Christians to successfully serve in government they have to compromise, is that what Christ called us to?

*Hope*
Nov 10th 2008, 11:58 PM
Can you show me Scripture that says individual Christian behavior is different than Government Christian behavior.
Can you clarify what you’re trying to say here? Are you denying that God established order and authority, or that He has ordained leaders in roles of authority who are capable of rightly punishing those who are guilty?

Well, how can a Christian run the military and follow Jesus command to love your enemies, to bless them who persecute you? How can a Christian be a judge and condemn someone to death when Jesus said, turn the other cheek, What part of government isn't corrupt? Surely a Christian cannot take part in corruption. Do you think it is possible for a person to serve in government and uphold the values of Christ.

Wow. You are severely distorting Scripture and taking it out of context. Again, are you denying that God established authority? Have you read Romans 13? As for “loving your enemies” and “turning the other cheek”, you are completely misrepresenting the concept. We need to view Scripture in context in order to interpret it accurately. Let’s look at them:

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Historically, in the first century slapping someone on the cheek was considered a severe personal insult, similar to flipping someone off today. This was an assault on someone’s pride. Therefore, Jesus is not advocating pacifism, He is speaking against taking revenge in order to protect one’s own pride. "Eye for an eye" was meant to be used as system of recompense for an injury caused to another person. It was a judgment to be carried out by the magistrates. In other words, if you injure a person, the judge would sentence you to compensate that person for the cost of their medical care and any lost wages as a result of the injury you caused. By the time we arrive at the first century, this commandment had been perverted into a justification for seeking personal revenge. It was that distortion of the commandment that Jesus was trying to correct in the verses above. He certain was NOT saying that upholding laws or punishing criminals is wrong.


These verses should not be used to endorse pacifism. They do NOT apply to protecting one’s self, family, or defending one’s country. To use these verses and apply them in this context is to misuse them completely.



Now I"m not knocking the president, I'm just making the point that in government you have to compromise. So for Christians to successfully serve in government they have to compromise, is that what Christ called us to?

You’re advocating that believers should withdraw from all government positions? So we should staff the highest offices, those that decide and interpret laws, with heathens who have no regard for the dignity of human life or God’s laws? Why do you assert that being in government requires compromise as if other careers do not? So are you saying it is wrong for a Christian to devote their lives to public service, such as law enforcement, to protect life?

AngelAuthor
Nov 11th 2008, 01:03 AM
Can you show me Scripture that says individual Christian behavior is different than Government Christian behavior.

Here's a perfect example and by it you must either admit that God is Schizophrenic or that governments can do what people can not:


Exodus 20

1And God spake all these words, saying,

13Thou shalt not kill.Let's fast-forward a bit to when Aaron was leading Israel...serving as a leader in government:


Joshua 8

1And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear not, neither be thou dismayed: take all the people of war with thee, and arise, go up to Ai: see, I have given into thy hand the king of Ai, and his people, and his city, and his land:
2And thou shalt do to Ai and her king as thou didst unto Jericho and her king: only the spoil thereof, and the cattle thereof, shall ye take for a prey unto yourselves: lay thee an ambush for the city behind it.So...which is it? to kill, or not to kill, because Jesus obviously commanded BOTH...MANY TIMES in the Bible.

The discerning Christian will pay attention to when was what. God commanded death and destruction to government leaders, he PUNISHED people for individual murders...even a head of government, David, when he took a life for his own, personal reasons...this, after David had had songs sung about him killing TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN!

What's the difference?

Government...and individual.

AngelAuthor
Nov 11th 2008, 01:07 AM
Well, how can a Christian run the military and follow Jesus command to love your enemies,
Was David a Christian when he killed Goliath? Was he doing God's will to MURDER that man? Was Gideon doing God's will when he surrounded Israel's enemies, jumped up, shouted, and descended on them and slew them all?

I don't know what God you think you're serving that changes his mind...one day it's okay to murder and the next it's not. My God DOES NOT CHANGE, and I see where He has, by His servants caused the deaths of others, and likewise, where He has caused His servants to go to their deaths without a struggle.

Slug1
Nov 11th 2008, 03:01 AM
Was David a Christian when he killed Goliath? Was he doing God's will to MURDER that man? Was Gideon doing God's will when he surrounded Israel's enemies, jumped up, shouted, and descended on them and slew them all?

I don't know what God you think you're serving that changes his mind...one day it's okay to murder and the next it's not. My God DOES NOT CHANGE, and I see where He has, by His servants caused the deaths of others, and likewise, where He has caused His servants to go to their deaths without a struggle.AMEN, some are chosen to be Ministers of God and some are not as we all serve whatever purpose He has for us as we serve the same God who hasn't changed from the beginning.

Butch5
Nov 11th 2008, 03:11 AM
Here's a perfect example and by it you must either admit that God is Schizophrenic or that governments can do what people can not:

Let's fast-forward a bit to when Aaron was leading Israel...serving as a leader in government:

So...which is it? to kill, or not to kill, because Jesus obviously commanded BOTH...MANY TIMES in the Bible.

The discerning Christian will pay attention to when was what. God commanded death and destruction to government leaders, he PUNISHED people for individual murders...even a head of government, David, when he took a life for his own, personal reasons...this, after David had had songs sung about him killing TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN!

What's the difference?

Government...and individual.

That government was national Israel An earthly kingdom, they were not Christians, yes God gave them commands to kill. However, Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world. He said if it were, my servants would fight. So since Jesus kingdom is not of this world, His servant won't fight. Jesus said you have heard it said, an eye for an eye, "But I say"

Matthew 5

[b]38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:39[B]But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


How are we fulfilling this command if we kill? You keep saying governments, who does the killing? Is it governments, or is it individuals? When someone gets the electric chair, does the government come and pull the switch? What about lethal injection, does the government come and administer it? How about war, does the government go onto the battle field with a a weapon? If God says thou shalt not kill and the government says go ahead pull the switch, is that OK? Aren't we supposed to obey the laws of man only so long as they don't interfere with the laws of God?

Also,back to my other point, what government has God told to kill? Has God said to America to go and kill? I have not read in the news where any government has said that God has commanded them to kill. God gave commands to national Israel to kill, however Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world.

Butch5
Nov 11th 2008, 03:16 AM
Was David a Christian when he killed Goliath? Was he doing God's will to MURDER that man? Was Gideon doing God's will when he surrounded Israel's enemies, jumped up, shouted, and descended on them and slew them all?

I don't know what God you think you're serving that changes his mind...one day it's okay to murder and the next it's not. My God DOES NOT CHANGE, and I see where He has, by His servants caused the deaths of others, and likewise, where He has caused His servants to go to their deaths without a struggle.

No, David was not a Christian and neither was Gideon, Where did god say it was OK to murder? I believe that command was, thou shaltl not murder.

However, you did not answer my question.

How can a Christian run the military and follow Jesus command to love your enemies?

Slug1
Nov 11th 2008, 04:01 AM
How can a Christian run the military and follow Jesus command to love your enemies?So when Paul agreed to the escort of 470 or so troops when he knew his life was threatened, is this showing his enemy any love? Do you think that if that ambush to kill him went down, that he'd stop those troops from doing their job?

If so, them why agree to the escort in the first place?

Butch5
Nov 11th 2008, 05:01 AM
Hope---Wow. You are severely distorting Scripture and taking it out of context. Again, are you denying that God established authority? Have you read Romans 13? As for “loving your enemies” and “turning the other cheek”, you are completely misrepresenting the concept. We need to view Scripture in context in order to interpret it accurately. Let’s look at them:

Mat 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Mat 5:40 And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.
Mat 5:41 And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain.
Mat 5:42 Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Mat 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.
Mat 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Historically, in the first century slapping someone on the cheek was considered a severe personal insult, similar to flipping someone off today. This was an assault on someone’s pride. Therefore, Jesus is not advocating pacifism, He is speaking against taking revenge in order to protect one’s own pride. "Eye for an eye" was meant to be used as system of recompense for an injury caused to another person. It was a judgment to be carried out by the magistrates. In other words, if you injure a person, the judge would sentence you to compensate that person for the cost of their medical care and any lost wages as a result of the injury you caused. By the time we arrive at the first century, this commandment had been perverted into a justification for seeking personal revenge. It was that distortion of the commandment that Jesus was trying to correct in the verses above. He certain was NOT saying that upholding laws or punishing criminals is wrong.


These verses should not be used to endorse pacifism. They do NOT apply to protecting one’s self, family, or defending one’s country. To use these verses and apply them in this context is to misuse them completely.

Hope,

you should check your facts here. The early Christian writers all understood Jesus teachings to mean just as I have said.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1


Justin Martyr 160 AD.
we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies,

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Justin Martyr
and we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage,—and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified;

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2

Tatian 160 AD.
How, then, shall I admit this nativity according to Fate, when I see such managers of Fate? I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich;
I decline military command;

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2


Athenagoras 175 AD.
for we have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak. But, when we have surrendered our property, they plot against our very bodies and souls,5IV-1-5 pouring 130 upon us wholesale charges of crimes of which we are guiltless even in thought, but which belong to these idle praters themselves, and to the whole tribe of those who are like them.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1


Irenaeus 180 AD.
the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight."

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Irenaeus
But if the law of liberty, that is, the word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, [that is], into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer also the other cheek, (Matt. 5:39)


The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2


Clement of Alexandria 195 AD.
For it is not in war, but in peace, that 235 we are trained.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2


Clement of Alexandria
And an enemy must be aided, that he may not continue an enemy. For by help good feeling is compacted, and enmity dissolved.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3


Tertullian 197 AD.
If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands?

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3


Tertullian
the Christian does no harm even to his foe
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3

Tertullian
Nay, He puts His interdict on every sort of man-killing by that one summary precept, "Thou shalt not kill."

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5

Cyprian 250 AD.
Consider the roads blocked up by robbers, the seas beset with pirates, wars scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5

Cyprian
and that by this very fact they are invincible, that they do not fear death; that they do not in turn assail their assailants, since it is not lawful for the innocent even to kill the guilty;

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5

nor, after the Eucharist carried in it, is the hand spotted with the sword and blood.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7


Lactantius 304-313 AD.
For how can a man be just who injures, who hates, who despoils, who puts to death? And they who strive to be serviceable to their country do all these things: for they are ignorant of what this being serviceable is, who think nothing useful, nothing advantageous, but that which can be held by the hand; and this alone cannot be held, because it may be snatched away

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7


Lanctantius
For it is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by a worshipper of God.

AngelAuthor
Nov 11th 2008, 06:11 AM
No, David was not a Christian and neither was Gideon, ?
Well, that ends the death discussion, you are lacking a far more foundational knowledge of Scripture that we should address first.

Please answer the following for me, so we can narrow down what areas we need to work on.

1. Is Jesus God?

2. Was Jesus ALWAYS God?

3. Are the Old Testament Saints (Abraham, David, Deborah, Rahab, Moses, Noah, etc.), in hell because they did not know Christ? If not, how, specifically did they get to heaven?

4. Are morals absolute or relative?

Edit: Are you Catholic??

*Hope*
Nov 11th 2008, 05:17 PM
Hope,

you should check your facts here. The early Christian writers all understood Jesus teachings to mean just as I have said.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1


Justin Martyr 160 AD.
we who formerly used to murder one another do not only now refrain from making war upon our enemies,

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Justin Martyr
and we who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage,—and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified;

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2

Tatian 160 AD.
How, then, shall I admit this nativity according to Fate, when I see such managers of Fate? I do not wish to be a king; I am not anxious to be rich;
I decline military command;

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2


Athenagoras 175 AD.
for we have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak. But, when we have surrendered our property, they plot against our very bodies and souls,5IV-1-5 pouring 130 upon us wholesale charges of crimes of which we are guiltless even in thought, but which belong to these idle praters themselves, and to the whole tribe of those who are like them.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1


Irenaeus 180 AD.
the new covenant which brings back peace, and the law which gives life, has gone forth over the whole earth, as the prophets said: "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem; and He shall rebuke many people; and they shall break down their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks, and they shall no longer learn to fight."

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 1

Irenaeus
But if the law of liberty, that is, the word of God, preached by the apostles (who went forth from Jerusalem) throughout all the earth, caused such a change in the state of things, that these [nations] did form the swords and war-lances into ploughshares, and changed them into pruning-hooks for reaping the corn, [that is], into instruments used for peaceful purposes, and that they are now unaccustomed to fighting, but when smitten, offer also the other cheek, (Matt. 5:39)


The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2


Clement of Alexandria 195 AD.
For it is not in war, but in peace, that 235 we are trained.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 2


Clement of Alexandria
And an enemy must be aided, that he may not continue an enemy. For by help good feeling is compacted, and enmity dissolved.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3


Tertullian 197 AD.
If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate, lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands?

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3


Tertullian
the Christian does no harm even to his foe
The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 3

Tertullian
Nay, He puts His interdict on every sort of man-killing by that one summary precept, "Thou shalt not kill."

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5

Cyprian 250 AD.
Consider the roads blocked up by robbers, the seas beset with pirates, wars scattered all over the earth with the bloody horror of camps. The whole world is wet with mutual blood; and murder, which in the case of an individual is admitted to be a crime, is called a virtue when it is committed wholesale. Impunity is claimed for the wicked deeds, not on the plea that they are guiltless, but because the cruelty is perpetrated on a grand scale.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5

Cyprian
and that by this very fact they are invincible, that they do not fear death; that they do not in turn assail their assailants, since it is not lawful for the innocent even to kill the guilty;

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 5

nor, after the Eucharist carried in it, is the hand spotted with the sword and blood.

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7


Lactantius 304-313 AD.
For how can a man be just who injures, who hates, who despoils, who puts to death? And they who strive to be serviceable to their country do all these things: for they are ignorant of what this being serviceable is, who think nothing useful, nothing advantageous, but that which can be held by the hand; and this alone cannot be held, because it may be snatched away

The Early Church Fathers: Ante-Nicene Fathers Volume 7


Lanctantius
For it is not right that a worshipper of God should be injured by a worshipper of God.

Not surprisingly, these are largely taken out of context ;)

I conferred with someone who is what I consider to be an expert on church history (currently working on his PhD), and this is what he told me:



Most of the early church fathers were against joining the military, not self-defense. The reason they were against joining the military is during the Roman period one had to make a sacrifice to the gods and swear ultimate allegiance to Caesar in order to become a soldier. Thus, when one joined the military, one was devoting oneself to other gods. Plus, you have Paul saying that the pagan leaders have the right to wage war (Romans 13) and Augustine developing the "Just War" theory.


My guess is that he used Tertullian as an example? He probably took Tertullian out of context, because he also says (when writing about Marcus Aurelius):


"We, on the contrary, bring before you an emperor who was their protector. You will see this by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most serious of emperors. For, in his letters, he bears witness that the Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians, who happened to be fighting under him."


That was in his "Apology", 3.22.


Plus, you have Origen arguing that Christians SHOULD engage in just wars.


The early Church was divided on the issue. Some said you couldn't be a Christian and serve while others allowed for it.

The latter part is significant, as he points out the fact that there were Church Fathers on both sides of the issue. Regardless, this is an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. We could go back and forth with "experts" on either side.

Considering the way you have taken both Scripture and your own sources out of context, it doesn't appear that having a logical discussion with you is very possible.

EarlyCall
Nov 11th 2008, 05:29 PM
Where in all of that(NT) does it state that Man is to take it into his own hands to pass judgment as in murder ?

Matt. 5:38 Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

You ask the wrong question here Always. Where in the NT does it do away with the death penalty. I'll need scripture mentioning the death penalty directly please since god mentioned it directly in the OT.

One would expect, and rightly so, that God would not be vague, beat around the bush, coy, or anything but explicit and direct about such an important topic as the death penalty. God was certainly very clear about it in the OT. But here you grab a verse that doesn't even mention the death penalty and claim it speaks to it.

That would be your opinion only. I see no proof in the scripture you provide. I see no mention of the death penalty.

So the question is: can you provide scripture from the NT doing away with the death penalty where the death penalty is mentioned?

As for it costing more to put someone to death that keep them for life - I don't believe that for a minute.

As for the concerns of putting an innocent person to death, yes, I find that a genuine concern and a reasonable argument against the death penalty, but it is not an argument proving God changed His mind on the death penalty.

EarlyCall
Nov 11th 2008, 05:31 PM
Question for those against the death penalty based on their understanding of the NT.

What scripture do you use to support your position?

*Hope*
Nov 11th 2008, 06:18 PM
As for it costing more to put someone to death that keep them for life - I don't believe that for a minute.

As for the concerns of putting an innocent person to death, yes, I find that a genuine concern and a reasonable argument against the death penalty, but it is not an argument proving God changed His mind on the death penalty.

I just wanted to point out that the information she ("always") gave in this topic was not accurate. Not sure what her sources were (she never responded to me or gave me the sources). I suspect it was an anti-death penalty website, as I've seen some of the same "statistics" before.

The chances are very very very slim that an innocent person will be executed. There's only been ONE verified case of this happening, and especially now that DNA evidence is more routine and available, it would be nearly impossible to convict someone without it. Has it happened in the past? Yes. And we may hear more cases revealed (as the evidence is now made available). HOWEVER, from this point forward, DNA is routinely submitted in criminal cases now.

On the flip side, what people tend to forget, is how difficult it is to actually get someone convicted of their crime and punished. I've heard of countless cases where there was clear DNA evidence and even confessions...and STILL the criminals were not prosecuted due to legal "technicalities". It is very frustrating for those who spend their lives trying to bring justice and prosecute people for their crimes, when a large number of people who are guilty end up scott free. That should be more concerning to people, and frightening.

Butch5
Nov 11th 2008, 08:10 PM
Slug1---Paul agreed to the escort of 470 or so troops when he knew his life was threatened, is this showing his enemy any love?

Where did Paul have any control over the military?



Slug1---think that if that ambush to kill him went down, that he'd stop those troops from doing their job?

Did Paul have any authority? Ho could he have stopped the troops, even if he wanted to.

Butch5
Nov 11th 2008, 08:19 PM
Well, that ends the death discussion, you are lacking a far more foundational knowledge of Scripture that we should address first.

Please answer the following for me, so we can narrow down what areas we need to work on.

1. Is Jesus God?

2. Was Jesus ALWAYS God?

3. Are the Old Testament Saints (Abraham, David, Deborah, Rahab, Moses, Noah, etc.), in hell because they did not know Christ? If not, how, specifically did they get to heaven?

4. Are morals absolute or relative?

Edit: Are you Catholic??

No my friend, my foundation is fine, but I will answer your questions. First let me say, a Christian is a follower of Jesus, a follower of His teachings. avid and Gideon did not follow Christ, since He came after them. Now to your questions.

1. Is Jesus God?

Yes, He is God, however He is not hte Father.

2. Was Jesus ALWAYS God?

Yes.

3. Are the Old Testament Saints (Abraham, David, Deborah, Rahab, Moses, Noah, etc.), in hell because they did not know Christ? If not, how, specifically did they get to heaven?

No, the OT saints are not in hades because they did not know Christ, they are in hades because that is where the souls of the dead go. The OT saints are in Abraham's bosom, which is in hades, the rest of the souls are in their appointed place and all await the resurrection.

4. Are morals absolute or relative?

They are absolute.

Edit: Are you Catholic??

No.

Butch5
Nov 11th 2008, 08:47 PM
Not surprisingly, these are largely taken out of context ;)

I conferred with someone who is what I consider to be an expert on church history (currently working on his PhD), and this is what he told me:



The latter part is significant, as he points out the fact that there were Church Fathers on both sides of the issue. Regardless, this is an appeal to authority which is a logical fallacy. We could go back and forth with "experts" on either side.

Considering the way you have taken both Scripture and your own sources out of context, it doesn't appear that having a logical discussion with you is very possible.

You have one person's opinion (who you consider to be an expert) and that negates all of the information that I have presented. That's real logical. Do you care to show how I have taken the ECF quotes out of context??? Also, if you noticed, I only quoted from the Ante-Nicene fathers, not all of the church fathers. All of the Ante-Nicene fathers are in agreement. You don't have people on both sides of the issue until after the council of Nicaea. When Constantine legalized Christianity and the Christians started to compromise on the issues. As for Augustine, what more needs to be said, along with the just war theory, He also brought us the idea of predestination to heaven and hell, He brought, the heavenly destiny idea, he was a gnostic before he became a Christian and his ideas were not in line with the early church.
Also you claim that I pose a logical fallacy in an appeal to authority. I was not appealing to the ECF's for authority. I quoted them because you said,



Hope---Historically, in the first century slapping someone on the cheek was considered a severe personal insult, similar to flipping someone off today. This was an assault on someone’s pride. Therefore, Jesus is not advocating pacifism, He is speaking against taking revenge in order to protect one’s own pride. "Eye for an eye" was meant to be used as system of recompense for an injury caused to another person. It was a judgment to be carried out by the magistrates. In other words, if you injure a person, the judge would sentence you to compensate that person for the cost of their medical care and any lost wages as a result of the injury you caused. By the time we arrive at the first century, this commandment had been perverted into a justification for seeking personal revenge. It was that distortion of the commandment that Jesus was trying to correct in the verses above. He certain was NOT saying that upholding laws or punishing criminals is wrong.

So, I posted the quotes to show that this is "not" how the early Christians understood Jesus teaching. I was not appealing to them for authority.

Now, concerning the Scriptures, please show me how I have taken them out of context. In the OT God gave Israel commands to kill, however when Jesus came He said, you have heard it said an eye for an eye, "BUT I SAY," in other words Jesus is going to change things. But I say, if we are going to follow Jesus then we need to listen to His "but I say". Jesus change things, He said love your enemy, do good to those who persecute you. Do not return evil for evil. The old covenant with Israel was based on justice, the now covenant that Christ brought is based on grace and mercy. Now, can you please explain to me, how we can be fulfilling Christ's commands to love our enemy, if we kill them? How are we not resisting evil, if we kill them?

Please show me where I have taken things out of context.

Butch5
Nov 11th 2008, 08:54 PM
You ask the wrong question here Always. Where in the NT does it do away with the death penalty. I'll need scripture mentioning the death penalty directly please since god mentioned it directly in the OT.

One would expect, and rightly so, that God would not be vague, beat around the bush, coy, or anything but explicit and direct about such an important topic as the death penalty. God was certainly very clear about it in the OT. But here you grab a verse that doesn't even mention the death penalty and claim it speaks to it.

That would be your opinion only. I see no proof in the scripture you provide. I see no mention of the death penalty.

So the question is: can you provide scripture from the NT doing away with the death penalty where the death penalty is mentioned?

As for it costing more to put someone to death that keep them for life - I don't believe that for a minute.

As for the concerns of putting an innocent person to death, yes, I find that a genuine concern and a reasonable argument against the death penalty, but it is not an argument proving God changed His mind on the death penalty.


There would be not need to mention the death penalty since Christians were not supposed to Kill. In the OT God commanded the Israelites to Kill, therefore, there needed to be rules governing Killing. In the NT Christ said my kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight. Jesus said to love your enemies, that is the command of His kingdom. If you are in His kingdom you must love your enemies, If you are in His kingdom you do not fight as Jesus said.

Slug1
Nov 11th 2008, 09:00 PM
Where did Paul have any control over the military?




Did Paul have any authority? Ho could he have stopped the troops, even if he wanted to.The point is that if he was to show love to an enemy that wanted to kill him he'd have NOT told the centurion of the plot to kill him.

*Hope*
Nov 11th 2008, 11:13 PM
You have one person's opinion (who you consider to be an expert) and that negates all of the information that I have presented. That's real logical. I don’t have one person’s opinion, lol. He is just one person I conferred with to confirm that what I have studied and believe is accurate.

Do you care to show how I have taken the ECF quotes out of context??? I already did, in brief. For instance, you quoted Tertullian, but I could quote him also:

“We sail with you, serve in the military with you, and cultivate the ground with you.” (3.49)
“The soldiers, crowned with laurels, were approaching. However, one of them was more a soldier of God. In fact, he was more steadfast than the rest of his brethren, who had imagined that they could serve two masters. His head alone was uncovered, for he held the useless wreath in his hand. By that peculiarity alone, he was recognized by everyone as being a Christian.” (3.93)
“Marcus Aurelius, also, in his expedition to Germany, got rain in that well-known thirst by the prayers that his Christian soldiers offered to God.” (3.107)

Again, what is the point of quoting them anyway? They were wrong (or disagreed) on many subjects, so they could easily be wrong on this one also. You’re the one who brought them up, so I was simply addressing the fact that some of the people you quoted also stated things that support Christians in the military.

So, I posted the quotes to show that this is "not" how the early Christians understood Jesus teaching. I was not appealing to them for authority. The problem is, you appealed to them as if to discredit what I was saying regarding the historical concept of “turning the other cheek”. When I said “historical”, I was not referring to the history of the church, I was referring to the Hebrew concept. This is the orthodox, historical view of turning the other cheek. Thus, appealing to the Early Church Fathers completely misses the point. I’m talking about the biblical concept, in it’s historical context (meaning the history surrounding the time it was written), and in the language of the culture it was written (Hebrew).


Now, concerning the Scriptures, please show me how I have taken them out of context. In the OT God gave Israel commands to kill, however when Jesus came He said, you have heard it said an eye for an eye, "BUT I SAY," in other words Jesus is going to change things. But I say, if we are going to follow Jesus then we need to listen to His "but I say". Jesus change things, He said love your enemy, do good to those who persecute you. Do not return evil for evil. The old covenant with Israel was based on justice, the now covenant that Christ brought is based on grace and mercy. Now, can you please explain to me, how we can be fulfilling Christ's commands to love our enemy, if we kill them? How are we not resisting evil, if we kill them? I’ve already done this. You are looking at the entire concept from the wrong position (evidenced by your inaccuracy in interpreting the “turn the other cheek” passages). We are not talking about “killing”, we are talking about punishment for vicious crimes; justice. The death penalty does not negate God’s grace. Scripture teaches that God punishes those who are His, does this mean He lacks grace? Suffering the consequences of sin is part of living in a fallen world, and part of how God maintains order. Very often, in fact, it is the means God uses to bring about brokenness and conviction in someone’s life. It could be argued that those who are brought face to face with the reality of their sin and face judgment are often poised and more open to receive God’s gift of grace.

EarlyCall
Nov 11th 2008, 11:58 PM
There would be not need to mention the death penalty since Christians were not supposed to Kill. In the OT God commanded the Israelites to Kill, therefore, there needed to be rules governing Killing. In the NT Christ said my kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight. Jesus said to love your enemies, that is the command of His kingdom. If you are in His kingdom you must love your enemies, If you are in His kingdom you do not fight as Jesus said.

You of course could not either show me scripture nor evidence to support your opinion. Romans 13 speaks to the institution of government putting people to death - note the word sword used in context with punishing wrong-doers.

You also could not explain how putting someone in jail was an act of forgiveness and love, and yet you use that as the reason not to put someone to death.

In other words, I forgive and love you and will not put you to death, but I will put you in jail for the rest of your life.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer such questions.

apothanein kerdos
Nov 12th 2008, 01:05 AM
You have one person's opinion (who you consider to be an expert) and that negates all of the information that I have presented. That's real logical

Considering you're not an expert in patristic history, I'd say that it is logical for her to do what she did. ;)


Also, if you noticed, I only quoted from the Ante-Nicene fathers, not all of the church fathers. All of the Ante-Nicene fathers are in agreement. You don't have people on both sides of the issue until after the council of Nicaea. When Constantine legalized Christianity and the Christians started to compromise on the issues. As for Augustine, what more needs to be said, along with the just war theory, He also brought us the idea of predestination to heaven and hell, He brought, the heavenly destiny idea, he was a gnostic before he became a Christian and his ideas were not in line with the early church.

Patently false. I point you to both Tertullian and Origen. Tertullian actually prays for the Roman government to have brave armies. Now, while this doesn't lend his advocacy for a Christian killing in warfare (in fact, he does actually argue against such an act), it does make us wonder why he isn't against war all together. In fact, in his Apology, he defends Christianity as being loyal to the Roman Empire by saying that some Christians are soldiers in the Roman army. In fact, in his apology (3.22) he states:

We, on the contrary, bring before you an emperor who was their protector. You will see this by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most serious of emperors. For, in his letters, he bears witness that the Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians, who happened to be fighting under him.


Notice the term, "...fighting under him." I don't have the Latin text in front of me so I'm not exactly aware of which Latin word he is using, however, considering the context it might be ballare, which would be a "war-like" fighting.

As for Origen, in his Contra Celcus he argues that Christians can engage in a Just War (Augustine is actually drawing on Origen for this belief in City of God). In fact, in quoting Origen:

But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country, of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from resisting the enemy.

Now, Origen goes on to make the case that Christians are the best allies of the Emperor because they would pray for his victory - however, he never negates that Christians are, in fact, involved in the military at the time.

I can also note Clement of Alexandria who - though arguing for Christians to be trained in peace - observed that Jesus called on soldiers to be just and accept their wages, but never called on them to leave their positions.

There really is no consensus among early Christians. Though they are certainly more peaceable than modern Western Christians who go along with almost every war, the Early Christian fathers didn't give us a clear answer on the issue.

Butch5
Nov 12th 2008, 01:35 AM
The point is that if he was to show love to an enemy that wanted to kill him he'd have NOT told the centurion of the plot to kill him.

How do you reason that? I did not say they set out to die.

Butch5
Nov 12th 2008, 01:55 AM
Considering you're not an expert in patristic history, I'd say that it is logical for her to do what she did. ;)



Patently false. I point you to both Tertullian and Origen. Tertullian actually prays for the Roman government to have brave armies. Now, while this doesn't lend his advocacy for a Christian killing in warfare (in fact, he does actually argue against such an act), it does make us wonder why he isn't against war all together. In fact, in his Apology, he defends Christianity as being loyal to the Roman Empire by saying that some Christians are soldiers in the Roman army. In fact, in his apology (3.22) he states:

We, on the contrary, bring before you an emperor who was their protector. You will see this by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most serious of emperors. For, in his letters, he bears witness that the Germanic drought was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians, who happened to be fighting under him.


Notice the term, "...fighting under him." I don't have the Latin text in front of me so I'm not exactly aware of which Latin word he is using, however, considering the context it might be ballare, which would be a "war-like" fighting.

As for Origen, in his Contra Celcus he argues that Christians can engage in a Just War (Augustine is actually drawing on Origen for this belief in City of God). In fact, in quoting Origen:

But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country, of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from resisting the enemy.

Now, Origen goes on to make the case that Christians are the best allies of the Emperor because they would pray for his victory - however, he never negates that Christians are, in fact, involved in the military at the time.

I can also note Clement of Alexandria who - though arguing for Christians to be trained in peace - observed that Jesus called on soldiers to be just and accept their wages, but never called on them to leave their positions.

There really is no consensus among early Christians. Though they are certainly more peaceable than modern Western Christians who go along with almost every war, the Early Christian fathers didn't give us a clear answer on the issue.

Ok, what is your point? Other than Origen which I will have to research, none of the others advocated Christians going to war or to kill. Just because Jesus did not command the soldiers to leave the military does not mean that He was advocating their participation. Your points have not shown where the early writers were advocating Christians to kill or go to war. As I said you may have Origen on your side, I will have to check what you have said concerning him.

Butch5
Nov 12th 2008, 02:18 AM
Hope---I already did, in brief. For instance, you quoted Tertullian, but I could quote him also:

“We sail with you, serve in the military with you, and cultivate the ground with you.” (3.49)
“The soldiers, crowned with laurels, were approaching. However, one of them was more a soldier of God. In fact, he was more steadfast than the rest of his brethren, who had imagined that they could serve two masters. His head alone was uncovered, for he held the useless wreath in his hand. By that peculiarity alone, he was recognized by everyone as being a Christian.” (3.93)
“Marcus Aurelius, also, in his expedition to Germany, got rain in that well-known thirst by the prayers that his Christian soldiers offered to God.” (3.107)

Again, what is the point of quoting them anyway? They were wrong (or disagreed) on many subjects, so they could easily be wrong on this one also. You’re the one who brought them up, so I was simply addressing the fact that some of the people you quoted also stated things that support Christians in the military.
The problem is, you appealed to them as if to discredit what I was saying regarding the historical concept of “turning the other cheek”. When I said “historical”, I was not referring to the history of the church, I was referring to the Hebrew concept. This is the orthodox, historical view of turning the other cheek. Thus, appealing to the Early Church Fathers completely misses the point. I’m talking about the biblical concept, in it’s historical context (meaning the history surrounding the time it was written), and in the language of the culture it was written (Hebrew).


You said the first century, so I quoted the ECF's to show that this was how they understood Jesus teaching. However, this is not the only verse that I pose to support what I said. As for your quotes I will have to read them in context.


Hope---I’ve already done this. You are looking at the entire concept from the wrong position (evidenced by your inaccuracy in interpreting the “turn the other cheek” passages). We are not talking about “killing”, we are talking about punishment for vicious crimes; justice. The death penalty does not negate God’s grace. Scripture teaches that God punishes those who are His, does this mean He lacks grace? Suffering the consequences of sin is part of living in a fallen world, and part of how God maintains order. Very often, in fact, it is the means God uses to bring about brokenness and conviction in someone’s life. It could be argued that those who are brought face to face with the reality of their sin and face judgment are often poised and more open to receive God’s gift of grace.


Again, this is not the only Scripture I posed. Notice that God is the one who told the Israelites to kill, to administer punishment and so forth. Where has God told Christians to do the same? Is it your contention that when Jesus said, you have heard it said (an eye for an eye, but I say to you,) he didn't change anything? Wasn't an eye for an eye a measure of meeting out justice? 1:1 retribution, a life for a life? But I say to you, love your enemies, bless them that persecute you. So Jesus says in place of an eye for an eye, love your enemies, bless them that persecute you.

Butch5
Nov 12th 2008, 02:26 AM
You of course could not either show me scripture nor evidence to support your opinion. Romans 13 speaks to the institution of government putting people to death - note the word sword used in context with punishing wrong-doers.

You also could not explain how putting someone in jail was an act of forgiveness and love, and yet you use that as the reason not to put someone to death.

In other words, I forgive and love you and will not put you to death, but I will put you in jail for the rest of your life.

I'm still waiting for someone to answer such questions.

What is your point regarding Romans 13? God can use the ungodly to administer justice.

Again, about putting people in jail, why would we expect an act of love from the ungodly? Your statement is the reason Christians shouldn't be in government, if they were not then they would not face that problem.

apothanein kerdos
Nov 12th 2008, 03:16 AM
Ok, what is your point? Other than Origen which I will have to research, none of the others advocated Christians going to war or to kill. Just because Jesus did not command the soldiers to leave the military does not mean that He was advocating their participation. Your points have not shown where the early writers were advocating Christians to kill or go to war. As I said you may have Origen on your side, I will have to check what you have said concerning him.

There are others though. I'm simply pointing to the most obvious. Likewise - and I could be mistaken - but Marcus Aurelius mentions having Christians.

Regardless, it's all unnecessary. As pointed out, we have Origen stating that Christians were fighting for the Empire and Origen uses this as a positive example. This is because almost all of the ECF bought into Cicero's Just War theory (in fact, it wasn't until Augustine that it was really Christianized and used under a Constantinian Sacral System - Augustine's theory of Just War would have been different from the ante-Nicene fathers, but they still would have held to a similar form, most likely a Stoic version). Still, all this shows is there was disagreement among some of the Church fathers. It shows different people interpreted the various passages in a different manner.

Furthermore, it is interesting to note that in all the interactions that the New Testament characters had with soldiers, not once do we see a soldier being told to leave the army. Even further, the example of Jesus is quite detrimental to your case in that Jesus is telling soldiers how to conduct their jobs properly if they are to bring honor to God. Why does He not just forbid soldiering completely? Here is the perfect opportunity - His silence is astounding.

Moving on, you're arguing for a changeable God. A God that is pro-killing in the OT, but suddenly anti-killing in the NT? What caused God to choose to operate differently? The bigger problem, of course, is we're left with theistic existential ethics - God changes moral codes. In the OT it is justifiable to kill while in the NT it is no only not justifiable, it's wrong. In other words, God negates Himself and makes Himself immoral by saying it's immoral in one area, but then participating in another. Your interpretation puts God in quite a bind.

Finally, Romans 13 makes it quite clear that God allows governments to wage war. Paul not only says nothing to the wrongness of such an action, but actually encourages it and says that even a righteous leader wages war (by implication).

Thus, I fail to see your point. Now, I would argue the last Just War that America entered into was WWII - however, it really is up to each person to decide.

apothanein kerdos
Nov 12th 2008, 03:19 AM
What is your point regarding Romans 13? God can use the ungodly to administer justice.

Again, about putting people in jail, why would we expect an act of love from the ungodly? Your statement is the reason Christians shouldn't be in government, if they were not then they would not face that problem.

What of justice? You are, by insinuation, saying God performs acts that are not loving simply because He administers justice upon people.

You hold a very perverted, "feel good" view of Christianity that ignores the other aspects of the faith. How in the world do you explain Church discipline, which can involve casting people out from the fold? How do you deal with corporeal punishment in the Bible on children...or even modern day "time-outs"? If we can't administer justice, then you've just negated much of Paul's writings.

*Hope*
Nov 12th 2008, 03:28 AM
What of justice? You are, by insinuation, saying God performs acts that are not loving simply because He administers justice upon people.

You hold a very perverted, "feel good" view of Christianity that ignores the other aspects of the faith. How in the world do you explain Church discipline, which can involve casting people out from the fold? How do you deal with corporeal punishment in the Bible on children...or even modern day "time-outs"? If we can't administer justice, then you've just negated much of Paul's writings.

Exactly. I guess he's advocating that the "loving" thing to do is to "turn the other cheek" when your 57 year old neighbor molests, tortures and murders your 2 year old child? I wonder how we should do this....offer our other child too?

Slug1
Nov 12th 2008, 03:47 AM
How do you reason that? I did not say they set out to die.OK, ya lost me.. who set out to die?

The bad guys (those that do evil or are referred to as a "wrongdoer" in the Bible) made an oath to kill Paul. Did Paul turn his cheek to these enemy... not on his life he didn't... he informed the soldiers and they escorted him. "If" this attack had gone down these soldiers would have killed them as they defended Paul. Paul's the one responsible for all the deaths that would have happened if the ambush was executed by deciding to tell the centurion commander. He had a choice... love the enemy and leave on this trip without telling anyone, or not... he chose, NOT.

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 12th 2008, 03:47 AM
I guess he's advocating that the "loving" thing to do is to "turn the other cheek" when your 57 year old neighbor molests, tortures and murders your 2 year old child? I wonder how we should do this....offer our other child too?

And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 1 Peter 3:13-17.

*Hope*
Nov 12th 2008, 04:11 AM
And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?

But and if ye suffer for righteousness' sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ.

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing. 1 Peter 3:13-17.

Could you clarify how these verses apply to my quote please?:)

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 12th 2008, 04:26 AM
Sure I will give a try:


Exactly. I guess he's advocating that the "loving" thing to do is to "turn the other cheek" when your 57 year old neighbor molests, tortures and murders your 2 year old child? I wonder how we should do this....offer our other child too?

I guess I should have quoted only the verse 17:

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

Only supporting the idea of


offering our other child too?

And probably It would fit better this another verse from the book of Peter:

For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 1 Peter 2:20-24.

But I guess there is another option:

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Take care

*Hope*
Nov 12th 2008, 04:33 AM
Sure I will give a try:



I guess I should have quoted only the verse 17:

For it is better, if the will of God be so, that ye suffer for well doing, than for evil doing.

Only supporting the idea of



And probably It would fit better this another verse from the book of Peter:

For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God.

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously:

Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 1 Peter 2:20-24.

But I guess there is another option:

But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

Take care

Okay, I'm sorry but I'm still a little lost. These verses are in reference to persecution, or suffering for the sake of righteousness. They do not address self-defense and certainly do not advocate allowing those who are vulnerable and innocent to suffer. Were you suggesting that these verses support ignoring violent crime or turning a blind eye to those who commit vicious acts against others? I'm confused...

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 12th 2008, 05:11 AM
Okay, I'm sorry but I'm still a little lost.

No problem, I could try all the day/night in my case ...


These verses are in reference to persecution, or suffering for the sake of righteousness. They do not address self-defense and certainly do not advocate allowing those who are vulnerable and innocent to suffer. Were you suggesting that these verses support ignoring violent crime or turning a blind eye to those who commit vicious acts against others? I'm confused/So do I..

What I was signifying was only that in case one would be "who is vulnerable and innocent to suffer" we are to go the second and therd mile and so on...

Only acting as the Savior you know, and what I was trying to support with the persecution vers was that Jesus said if one is preaching the gospel and they chase one then one can flee, and maybe could be applied to "offering our other child too".

And taking it a bit further, I guess the Lord could say/use both situations, A] To offer the other child. B] To flee to another place.

God bless

Butch5
Nov 13th 2008, 04:53 PM
What of justice? You are, by insinuation, saying God performs acts that are not loving simply because He administers justice upon people.

You hold a very perverted, "feel good" view of Christianity that ignores the other aspects of the faith. How in the world do you explain Church discipline, which can involve casting people out from the fold? How do you deal with corporeal punishment in the Bible on children...or even modern day "time-outs"? If we can't administer justice, then you've just negated much of Paul's writings.

First, you have drawn a wrong conclusion of my view of Christianity from a few statements that I have made. I never said anything was wrong with punishment. This thread is not about punishment, it is about the death penalty. I fully agree with church discipline and I strongly believe in secular discipline. As a matter of fact, up until just a short time ago, I was a strong proponent of the death penalty. Maybe too strong, because I believed that it should be used for more than just murder. I felt it should be used on rapists, child molesters, and murderers, and there may be a few more. So, to draw the conclusion that I am a feel good christian is incorrect. After looking at the Scriptures and the early church on the issue I have come to the conclusion that what I believed was wrong. Now, in regards to the death penalty, simply explain to me how we are loving our enemies when we are putting them to death.

Moses said,

Deuteronomy 18:15 ( KJV ) 15The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;

Well, who is that prophet?


John 1:19-21 ( KJV ) 19And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? 20And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. 21And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.

In Jesus time they were still looking for "that prophet", so who was it? Let's see what Peter says,


Acts 3:20-26 ( KJV ) 20And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: 21Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began. 22For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. 23And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people. 24Yea, and all the prophets from Samuel and those that follow after, as many as have spoken, have likewise foretold of these days. 25Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed. 26Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Peter understands "that prophet" to be Christ. As is also mentioned in John,

John 6:13-14 ( KJV ) 13Therefore they gathered them together, and filled twelve baskets with the fragments of the five barley loaves, which remained over and above unto them that had eaten. 14Then those men, when they had seen the miracle that Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that prophet that should come into the world.

Moses said God would raise up a prophet like unto Him. What separated Moses from all of the other prophets? He brought the Law. How is Jesus a prophet like Moses? He also brought the Law. Jesus fulfilled the old Law, the old law was based on justice the fulfilled law is based on grace. Notice in Matthew 5 what Jesus says,


Matthew 5:17-18 ( KJV ) 17Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.


Matthew 5:21-22 ( KJV ) 21Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, RacaRaca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


Matthew 5:27-28 ( KJV ) 27Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: 28But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.


Matthew 5:33-34 ( KJV ) 33Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: 34But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God’s throne:


Matthew 5:38-39 ( KJV ) 38Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:39But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


Matthew 5:43-44 ( KJV ) 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

Now, Moses said anyone who will not hear "that prophet" will be destroyed from among the people, he said we are to listen to everything He says. Here He says,

You have heard it said thou shall not commit adultery. In the OT Moses allowed divorce because of the hardness the peoples hearts. Here Jesus says no. No more, if a man lusts after a woman he commits adultery. The same thing about forswearing yourself, The OT said to perform your oaths, Jesus said, don't swear at all. Again, with justice, the OT said an eye for an eye, Jesus says resist not evil. And again you have heard is it said love your neighbor and hate your enemy, but Jesus said, but I say, love your enemies, bless them that persecute you. Notice that every one of Jesus' "but I say"'s are matters of the heart, the OT is justice, Jesus' "but I say"'s are grace and mercy.

Looking at this, how can we say we are loving our enemies with the death penalty???

AngelAuthor
Nov 13th 2008, 05:20 PM
Now, in regards to the death penalty, simply explain to me how we are loving our enemies when we are putting them to death.
That's the whole point you keep missing. Show me anywhere in scriptures where a government ruler (rulers) or system was commanded to "love its enemies".

Never happened. YOU, the INDIVIDUAL are commanded to love your enemies, but as I pointed out earlier, trying to apply what YOU the INDIVIDUAL must do compared to what a GOVERNMENT must do is unworkable and unreasonable. There are quite obviously differences in behavior between the ONE and the Organized Government. This is exemplified clearly throughout the Bible, Old Testament AND New.

How are we loving our enemies when we are putting them in a cage for the rest of their lives?

EarlyCall
Nov 13th 2008, 05:29 PM
There would be not need to mention the death penalty since Christians were not supposed to Kill. In the OT God commanded the Israelites to Kill, therefore, there needed to be rules governing Killing. In the NT Christ said my kingdom is not of this world, if it were my servants would fight. Jesus said to love your enemies, that is the command of His kingdom. If you are in His kingdom you must love your enemies, If you are in His kingdom you do not fight as Jesus said.


What is your point regarding Romans 13? God can use the ungodly to administer justice.

Again, about putting people in jail, why would we expect an act of love from the ungodly? Your statement is the reason Christians shouldn't be in government, if they were not then they would not face that problem.


You assume far too much. First, you assume there would be no need to mention the death penalty in the NT. I think you lack the safe assumption here.

First, it is easily enough argued that the death penalty is a serious enough punishment that it ought to be addressed clearly, specifically and directly. And God did exactly that in the OT. But we lack any such clarity doing away with it in the NT. So we have you and others that take verses that do not even remotely mention it and you assume it speaks to the issue.

I think that is you lining up God's word with your own preferences in life. But it doesn't actually work that way.

Second, Romans 13 says the governing authorities wield the sword to exercise justice to the wrong doer. As I've said before, the word sword was not chosen randomly by God but intentionally and everyone then knew what the sword was used for - to kill. It was not a whip to beat someone with but to kill someone with. Thus the death penalty is spoken of here by implication far more clearly than any other verse assumed to be speaking against the death penalty.

That is my point about Romans 13. You said, God can use the ungodly to exercise punishment... Exactly!! He can use the Godly to do it too. And He has.

You may claim that God did away with the death penalty in the NT, claiming it while unable to actually give scripture that says so, but apparently God still believed in it when He put Herod, Ananias and Saphira to death. Was God setting a bad example for us do you think?

Can you show me scripture that says Christians shouldn't be in government? If that is true, we can only hope God does not send revival to America and save all our politicians at once. We'd have no government, which would then cause a problem according to Romans 13 since God has established such an institution and authority of government.

Isn't it odd that God would establish the institution of government and that authority and yet want it to be filled with the ungodly. Terribly odd don't you think? Very strange.

But I think you could not answer my question. If we do not put someone to death because we ar to forgive and love, how then can we justify putting someone in prison for the rest of their lives, or for any length of time and consider that acting under the same guideline of forgiving and loving? The answer is that we cannot and it is a contradiction.

That's ok. No one claiming the death penalty is wrong for those reasons has been able to answer that question yet. A few have skirted it just as you have, but no one has been honest enough yet to admit they are in a corner on that one and cannot defend their position in light of this contradiction. Now you are but one of many.

Butch5
Nov 13th 2008, 06:58 PM
That's the whole point you keep missing. Show me anywhere in scriptures where a government ruler (rulers) or system was commanded to "love its enemies".

Never happened. YOU, the INDIVIDUAL are commanded to love your enemies, but as I pointed out earlier, trying to apply what YOU the INDIVIDUAL must do compared to what a GOVERNMENT must do is unworkable and unreasonable. There are quite obviously differences in behavior between the ONE and the Organized Government. This is exemplified clearly throughout the Bible, Old Testament AND New.

How are we loving our enemies when we are putting them in a cage for the rest of their lives?

That is why I said, if Christians are not in the government they do not have this problem.

Here is the problem. You keep saying governments. Christians are not supposed to be in governments. Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world. Our government is in the heavenly kingdom, it is there that were will rule and reign with Christ, "not here". If a Christian is in the government and the government advocates putting the criminals to death, the Christian has to either condone or condemn the action. Governments are made up of individuals Can Christians make the laws that provide for the death penalty and not be guilty of breaking Christ's command? Can they administer the death penalty and not be guilty of breaking Christ's command? What part of the death penalty can Christians be involved with, without breaking Christ's commands?

Butch5
Nov 13th 2008, 07:18 PM
You assume far too much. First, you assume there would be no need to mention the death penalty in the NT. I think you lack the safe assumption here.

First, it is easily enough argued that the death penalty is a serious enough punishment that it ought to be addressed clearly, specifically and directly. And God did exactly that in the OT. But we lack any such clarity doing away with it in the NT. So we have you and others that take verses that do not even remotely mention it and you assume it speaks to the issue.

I think that is you lining up God's word with your own preferences in life. But it doesn't actually work that way.

Second, Romans 13 says the governing authorities wield the sword to exercise justice to the wrong doer. As I've said before, the word sword was not chosen randomly by God but intentionally and everyone then knew what the sword was used for - to kill. It was not a whip to beat someone with but to kill someone with. Thus the death penalty is spoken of here by implication far more clearly than any other verse assumed to be speaking against the death penalty.

That is my point about Romans 13. You said, God can use the ungodly to exercise punishment... Exactly!! He can use the Godly to do it too. And He has.

You may claim that God did away with the death penalty in the NT, claiming it while unable to actually give scripture that says so, but apparently God still believed in it when He put Herod, Ananias and Saphira to death. Was God setting a bad example for us do you think?

Can you show me scripture that says Christians shouldn't be in government? If that is true, we can only hope God does not send revival to America and save all our politicians at once. We'd have no government, which would then cause a problem according to Romans 13 since God has established such an institution and authority of government.

Isn't it odd that God would establish the institution of government and that authority and yet want it to be filled with the ungodly. Terribly odd don't you think? Very strange.

But I think you could not answer my question. If we do not put someone to death because we ar to forgive and love, how then can we justify putting someone in prison for the rest of their lives, or for any length of time and consider that acting under the same guideline of forgiving and loving? The answer is that we cannot and it is a contradiction.

That's ok. No one claiming the death penalty is wrong for those reasons has been able to answer that question yet. A few have skirted it just as you have, but no one has been honest enough yet to admit they are in a corner on that one and cannot defend their position in light of this contradiction. Now you are but one of many.

Well, you can dismiss what I have said in order to keep your position, I wouldn't have expected otherwise. However, to claim that I did not answer your question is nonsense, since I stated that, if Christians are not in government then they do have to face the problem of putting someone in jail for the reast of their lives.

You said,


Earlycall---You may claim that God did away with the death penalty in the NT, claiming it while unable to actually give scripture that says so, but apparently God still believed in it when He put Herod, Ananias and Saphira to death. Was God setting a bad example for us do you think?

I think you are missing the point in your quote, who put Herod and Ananias and Saphira to death? God, not a government, God. Nowhere have I said that God cannot use the death penalty. However, where has he told America or France or any other nation to do it. God told Israel to do it, it was under his direct control, many times it was not even Israel but God Himself who did it. God gave His commands to the Israelites. Please show me where God gave Christians this same command. The whole issue is this, Israel, was a physical nation that existed in the world. Christ's kingdom does not. And as I have pointed out, an eye for an eye, which was the system justice, was changed by Jesus, when He said, "but I say to you." resist not evil.

AngelAuthor
Nov 14th 2008, 05:21 AM
Christians are not supposed to be in governments. Jesus said, my kingdom is not of this world.

This is a stretch-twist and misrepresentation of this Scripture. Christ was stating the obvious...that His Kingdom is a Heavenly one and that it would one day come to and control this world.

That does not in any way, shape, or form equally state "Christians shouldn't be involved in Earthly Government at all." You are reachin...big time.

The next step is for you to say Christians shouldn't vote, since that is them taking part in the government. Do you advocate that as well? Do you really believe that Governments of the world should be 100% secular and devoid of Christ and Christ's influence?

That's what God REALLY wanted since the time of Christ? Really?

Slug1
Nov 14th 2008, 12:39 PM
Or calling the police (another Minister of God) for help cause then that is utilizing the governement's protection and condoning their use of lethal force if used. Many Christrians won't hesitate to call the police when a killer breaks into a neighbors home, or even their own without thought that there is a possiblility those very police will use lethal force if necessary to protect. But then they turn around 180 degrees about the use of the death penalty when this is the same thing... using lethal force to protect.

EarlyCall
Nov 14th 2008, 06:13 PM
Well, you can dismiss what I have said in order to keep your position, I wouldn't have expected otherwise. However, to claim that I did not answer your question is nonsense, since I stated that, if Christians are not in government then they do have to face the problem of putting someone in jail for the reast of their lives.

You said,



I think you are missing the point in your quote, who put Herod and Ananias and Saphira to death? God, not a government, God. Nowhere have I said that God cannot use the death penalty. However, where has he told America or France or any other nation to do it. God told Israel to do it, it was under his direct control, many times it was not even Israel but God Himself who did it. God gave His commands to the Israelites. Please show me where God gave Christians this same command. The whole issue is this, Israel, was a physical nation that existed in the world. Christ's kingdom does not. And as I have pointed out, an eye for an eye, which was the system justice, was changed by Jesus, when He said, "but I say to you." resist not evil.

As to the eye for an eye thing, are you arguing Jesus was doing away with the death penalty here when He spoke of this?

I'm wondering because the eye for an eye thing had to do with far more than just the death penalty. It had to do with lesser crimes and punishments as well. So it must be then, logically, that Jesus was doing away with the entire justice system - by your arguing.

No justice system. Chaos. Interesting. Can you explain that?

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 14th 2008, 06:32 PM
Hello ƒєℓℓσωѕ;

I think it is related to Jesus and the death penalty:

And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

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.

And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:2-11

God bless you

AngelAuthor
Nov 14th 2008, 06:53 PM
Hello ƒєℓℓσωѕ;

I think it is related to Jesus and the death penalty:

And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

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.

And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more. John 8:2-11

God bless you
How is this related to the death penalty vis a vis the current disucssion?

The Pharisees were NOT the rulers of the day...not a Government. They were, in fact, representatives of the Church...God in theory. We'll agree with you for decades that the church shouldn't be putting people to death. The GOVERNMENT does.

The Pharisees were corrupt and unjust and Jesus knew it (they never brought the man to justice). Of course he wasn't about to condone stoning her unfairly.

Butch5
Nov 14th 2008, 10:37 PM
This is a stretch-twist and misrepresentation of this Scripture. Christ was stating the obvious...that His Kingdom is a Heavenly one and that it would one day come to and control this world.

That does not in any way, shape, or form equally state "Christians shouldn't be involved in Earthly Government at all." You are reachin...big time.

The next step is for you to say Christians shouldn't vote, since that is them taking part in the government. Do you advocate that as well? Do you really believe that Governments of the world should be 100% secular and devoid of Christ and Christ's influence?

That's what God REALLY wanted since the time of Christ? Really?

If you think I am stretching and twisting the Scriptures please feel free to show me how.
You said,


Angyl---This is a stretch-twist and misrepresentation of this Scripture. Christ was stating the obvious...that His Kingdom is a Heavenly one and that it would one day come to and control this world.


His heavenly kingdom would one day come to and control this world?


Matthew 3:2 ( KJV ) 2And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 4:17 ( KJV ) 17From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 10:7 ( KJV ) 7And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

I don't think Jesus was saying that one day His kingdom would come.


Why do you suppose Jesus wasn't in the government? The people wanted to make Him king and He slipped away.

About governments, who's government should we be in? If we are in the kingdom of God, should we hold office in a kingdom of darkness? Jesus said His kingdom is not of this world, He told us to be in the world but not of the world. Jesus said His disciples were not of the world. Why do you suppose they didn't try to hold office?


Angyl---Do you really believe that Governments of the world should be 100% secular and devoid of Christ and Christ's influence?

That's what God REALLY wanted since the time of Christ? Really?


Who's concern is that?

Romans 13:1 ( KJV ) 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

Butch5
Nov 14th 2008, 10:40 PM
How is this related to the death penalty vis a vis the current disucssion?

The Pharisees were NOT the rulers of the day...not a Government. They were, in fact, representatives of the Church...God in theory. We'll agree with you for decades that the church shouldn't be putting people to death. The GOVERNMENT does.

The Pharisees were corrupt and unjust and Jesus knew it (they never brought the man to justice). Of course he wasn't about to condone stoning her unfairly.


Angyl---We'll agree with you for decades that the church shouldn't be putting people to death. The GOVERNMENT does.


Well, if Christians are in the government then isn't the church putting them to death?

Butch5
Nov 14th 2008, 10:44 PM
How is this related to the death penalty vis a vis the current disucssion?

The Pharisees were NOT the rulers of the day...not a Government. They were, in fact, representatives of the Church...God in theory. We'll agree with you for decades that the church shouldn't be putting people to death. The GOVERNMENT does.

The Pharisees were corrupt and unjust and Jesus knew it (they never brought the man to justice). Of course he wasn't about to condone stoning her unfairly.

It's directly related. According to the law she should have been stoned. The law required that she be put to death. The Jews here were still abiding by the law. Why wasn't she stoned? If the death penalty was demanded for justice why didn't Jesus command it??? Because He changed it.

Butch5
Nov 14th 2008, 10:50 PM
As to the eye for an eye thing, are you arguing Jesus was doing away with the death penalty here when He spoke of this?

I'm wondering because the eye for an eye thing had to do with far more than just the death penalty. It had to do with lesser crimes and punishments as well. So it must be then, logically, that Jesus was doing away with the entire justice system - by your arguing.

No justice system. Chaos. Interesting. Can you explain that?

It seems you are forgetting, we are speaking of Jesus' kingdom. He said, do not resist evil, love your enemies, bless them that persecute you. The lost in the world are going to do as they please, they are not going to follow Jesus' commands. They will have their governments and their laws and their punishments. However this is not for the kingdom of God.

AngelAuthor
Nov 14th 2008, 11:04 PM
It's directly related. According to the law she should have been stoned. The law required that she be put to death. The Jews here were still abiding by the law. Why wasn't she stoned? If the death penalty was demanded for justice why didn't Jesus command it??? Because He changed it.
Noooo....Jesus and God are perfect justice, what they were trying to do was UNJUST for a whole host of reasons, which was why they got shot down by Christ. Has nothing to do with anything else.

AngelAuthor
Nov 14th 2008, 11:08 PM
Who's concern is that?

Romans 13:1 ( KJV ) 1Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

So...:rofl:

Let me get this straight... :lol:

A prince is born somewhere...he lives a pagan life. When he is 17 he gets saved. He should abdicate the throne...according to you.

Obama gets saved...he should resign the Presidency...according to you.

Our country NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUNDED...according to you.

Seriously?

Your problem seems to be that you honestly believe God changes. One year He puts David on the throne, the next, He doesn't want any of His people having anything to do with government.

One day He guides the hand that slays thousands, the next, Christians ought not be involved in government or military at all.

That ain't my God, sir. My God says He changes NOT.

EarlyCall
Nov 14th 2008, 11:35 PM
It seems you are forgetting, we are speaking of Jesus' kingdom. He said, do not resist evil, love your enemies, bless them that persecute you. The lost in the world are going to do as they please, they are not going to follow Jesus' commands. They will have their governments and their laws and their punishments. However this is not for the kingdom of God.

But again, I suggested that if you are going to use this argument to claim the death penalty is off the table, then you must also follow it to its logical conclusion which is that all punishment for all crimes is off the table or done away with. But you refuse to take it that far because it shows the weakness in your position. So you respond here that we are talking about the kingdom of Jesus. That is a diversionary tactic meant to draw away from the weakness of your position and what I said.

Further, Since Paul spoke to the authorities and they being established by God to punish wrong doers and they wield the sword, an instrument of death, to punish wrong doers, it seems far-fetched to me that God sets up something He finds ungodly and worldly and sinful and whatever else you may wish to claim it is. But God said it anyway.

You like so many need to separate what you wish were so, what you feel ought to be and your dislike for something from God and His word. It is one thing to be against the death penalty and another thing to claim God is too when the evidence in His word does not support it. That is taking your own preference too far.

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 15th 2008, 12:32 AM
Hi ΛПGΥᄂ,


Your problem seems to be that you honestly believe God changes. One year He puts David on the throne, the next, He doesn't want any of His people having anything to do with government.

Well this can get a bit confusing if we don`t get the whole picture:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to Samuel unto Ramah,

And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk not in thy ways: now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD.

And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.

Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them.

And Samuel...said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.

And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.

And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.

He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day.

Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us;

That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. 1 Sammuel 8:4-11,14,16-20.

Sorry if it got a bit long.

So God did not choose any king for Israel, not wanted Israel to have a government. The people rejected God`s advise and now what? God kills the people? No but let them reap what they have sown. And as God is a Savior, and acts only as a Savior, then now that the people chose their own ways stead of God`s ways, God respect their choice, and now deals with the problem, in a way to avoid them the worst consecuences. Sending them to the War, etc, etc.

For they at that time not only had rejected God in the matter of the leadership of the country but also -well since the desert - they did not trust in God the Lord to save them from their enemies and they took - The sword- a sign of unbelief, God showed them His power to save them from every evil thing in delivering them out of Egypt, and just after have displayed His power with the plagues and the red sea, they took the swords of the Egyptians who were drown in the sea, for between Egypt and the Mount where they were given the commandments there was not a gunsmith`s shop.

Then when the next part of the prophesy was fulfilled:

And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you;

Furthermore they were taken captives by many nations and delivered many times. Till the turn of Babylon came and it was written:

And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the LORD for it: for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace. Jeremiah 29:7

May the Lord bless you

AngelAuthor
Nov 15th 2008, 04:43 AM
Hi ΛПGΥᄂ,



Well this can get a bit confusing if we don`t get the whole picture:

Two things contradict that idea:

1. Moses and the Law and Arron, both established by God to LEAD AND RULE OVER THE PEOPLE. They were, sir, a Government.

2. David, a "man after God's own Heart" (God's words, not mine), was clearly led by the Lord in just about everything he did as King. It was God that annointed Kings. True, Israel having a King may not have been God's PERFECT will, but that doesn't mean He turned around and said "fine, elect a king, I won't have anything to do with it..."

No...God "elected" the Kings Himself through His prophets, and guided them and directed them for as long as they would listen to Him.

so there you have it...explain Moses if Christians aren't supposed to lead (and do not, as Butch did, errantly tell me that Moses wasn't a Christian. He was as much as you or I, looking to the Savior...looking FORWARD rather than we look BACK). Explain Aaron. Explain the law given by God to establish a GOVERNMENT with rulers just like any other government...and explain David, whom God led and spoke to and blessed and loved dearly and ANNOINTED to be King.

Butch5
Nov 16th 2008, 03:36 AM
Noooo....Jesus and God are perfect justice, what they were trying to do was UNJUST for a whole host of reasons, which was why they got shot down by Christ. Has nothing to do with anything else.

I agree what they were doing was unjust. But, the law still required that she be stoned.

Butch5
Nov 16th 2008, 04:02 AM
So...:rofl:

Let me get this straight... :lol:

A prince is born somewhere...he lives a pagan life. When he is 17 he gets saved. He should abdicate the throne...according to you.

Obama gets saved...he should resign the Presidency...according to you.

Our country NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUNDED...according to you.

Seriously?

Your problem seems to be that you honestly believe God changes. One year He puts David on the throne, the next, He doesn't want any of His people having anything to do with government.

One day He guides the hand that slays thousands, the next, Christians ought not be involved in government or military at all.

That ain't my God, sir. My God says He changes NOT.

Then how come you are not still following the Mosaic Law?

Remember, it was the Israelites who wanted a king, so God gave them a king.

You are missing the fact that Christians belong to a kingdom that is "not" of this world. If you want to be a citizen of America, you have every right. My citizenship is in God's kingdom alone. I have no need or desire to have citizenship in an earthly kingdom.

James 4:4 ( KJV ) 4Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.


2 Corinthians 6:14-15 ( KJV ) 14Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? 15And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?


Let me ask you a question, why do you suppose God didn't have the Israelites vote for their leaders???

Why were they appointed by God???

Butch5
Nov 16th 2008, 04:15 AM
But again, I suggested that if you are going to use this argument to claim the death penalty is off the table, then you must also follow it to its logical conclusion which is that all punishment for all crimes is off the table or done away with. But you refuse to take it that far because it shows the weakness in your position. So you respond here that we are talking about the kingdom of Jesus. That is a diversionary tactic meant to draw away from the weakness of your position and what I said.

Further, Since Paul spoke to the authorities and they being established by God to punish wrong doers and they wield the sword, an instrument of death, to punish wrong doers, it seems far-fetched to me that God sets up something He finds ungodly and worldly and sinful and whatever else you may wish to claim it is. But God said it anyway.



You like so many need to separate what you wish were so, what you feel ought to be and your dislike for something from God and His word. It is one thing to be against the death penalty and another thing to claim God is too when the evidence in His word does not support it. That is taking your own preference too far.

Are you paying attention to what I am saying? I never said that God could not kill anyone, I said that we as Christians can't. You keep saying that I like so many others, yet you have not shown were what I said is wrong. Where is punishment forbidden in Scripture? You say to take it to it's logical conclusion, we do not have to take all punishment off of the table. Punishment is Scriptural, however Christians killing people is not. God Chastens us, why? Because He loves us, so there is Scriptural support for punishment. However, when we need Chastisement does God kill us???

Can I assume from your position that you want to have a part in this world? If we are in the world but not of the world, why would we want to be part of the world.

AngelAuthor
Nov 16th 2008, 10:35 PM
Why were they appointed by God???
Because he supports the system of having His people in government as part of His permissive will.

And I wasn't talking about being part of the law, I was pointing out facts that Kings and servants of God KILLED one day...has nothing to do with the Law. You are saying that God CHANGED HIS MIND from one day to the next.

And I'm not ignoring where my citizenship is. You are twisting that passage to try to imply that Christians are to have nothing to do with this world, practically.

EarlyCall
Nov 16th 2008, 11:57 PM
Are you paying attention to what I am saying? I never said that God could not kill anyone, I said that we as Christians can't. You keep saying that I like so many others, yet you have not shown were what I said is wrong. Where is punishment forbidden in Scripture? You say to take it to it's logical conclusion, we do not have to take all punishment off of the table. Punishment is Scriptural, however Christians killing people is not. God Chastens us, why? Because He loves us, so there is Scriptural support for punishment. However, when we need Chastisement does God kill us???

Can I assume from your position that you want to have a part in this world? If we are in the world but not of the world, why would we want to be part of the world.

I keep trying to refer you to Romans chapter 13. Until you acknowledge that and understand it, you will continue to believe the death penalty is wrong. Arguing it further isn't going to change your thinking.

I have mentioned Romans chapter 13 haven't I? I believe I have. Have you acknowledged it to me in return? I don't recall that you have.

Why don't you tell me what you think that scripture is saying.

Slug1
Nov 17th 2008, 12:01 AM
Or why those mentioned in that scripture(s) are called, "Minister's of God" ;)

Butch5
Nov 17th 2008, 05:15 AM
Because he supports the system of having His people in government as part of His permissive will.

And I wasn't talking about being part of the law, I was pointing out facts that Kings and servants of God KILLED one day...has nothing to do with the Law. You are saying that God CHANGED HIS MIND from one day to the next.

And I'm not ignoring where my citizenship is. You are twisting that passage to try to imply that Christians are to have nothing to do with this world, practically.

What does not of this world mean?

Butch5
Nov 17th 2008, 05:29 AM
I keep trying to refer you to Romans chapter 13. Until you acknowledge that and understand it, you will continue to believe the death penalty is wrong. Arguing it further isn't going to change your thinking.

I have mentioned Romans chapter 13 haven't I? I believe I have. Have you acknowledged it to me in return? I don't recall that you have.

Why don't you tell me what you think that scripture is saying.

Paul is simply telling His readers to be subject to those who are in authority. Is it your assumption that these are Christians?? Those in authority would be the Romans, not Christians. Paul is telling them not to disobey because the rulers are placed there by God. God also put Pharaoh in place as a ruler. Why do you assume the phrase " he beareth not the sword in vain" refers to the death penalty? It could be an expression defined by a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.