Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Clawandfang on February 25, 2008, 08:31:16 am
-
Hey, I was just wondering what other people on this forum thought about Capital Punishment. I personally feel that in extreme circumstances we should still use it, like treason during wartime or the such. What do others think?
-
i think that breathing should be a capitol offense and that everyone who engages in such activities be shot on sight. :D
-
i think that breathing should be a capitol offense and that everyone who engages in such activities be shot on sight. :D
Including yourself?
-
i think that breathing should be a capitol offense and that everyone who engages in such activities be shot on sight. :D
Including yourself?
Nuke is not a human. You must be new here. :p
-
Nuke is not a human. You must be new here. :p
Fairly, yes.
-
Capital punishment is fine, because it's sure preferable to rotting away for 50+ years in a tiny cell. That way, society doesn't have to keep paying for someone it doesn't want around to begin with, and the offending prisoner gets to die with a measure of dignity. A proper death, befitting a man and not an animal. Given the choice, I'm sure that most people would choose a quick death over a slow, numbing, bleak one.
Although I must say that lethal injection is a crazy way of administering that death. It's proven to be needlessly cruel and complicated.
-
it's a waste of time and money - it costs more to execute someone due to the appeals proccess than it costs to keep them locked in solitary for the rest of their nature life.
the later of which I consider more punishment
the idea of "Capital punishment as a deterrent" is simply laughable when you think about it
furthermore look at the number of people incorrectly put on death row - at least one state has completely suspended executions because of this (illinois IIRC).
The death penalty is also consistently racist (and no before you say "that's because they commit more murders" .. no.. it exceeds proportionality by a significant amount)
basically there is nothing good about it.
-
It's wrong when it's on the government level. Government sanctioned murder is retarded.
If the bereaved wants to execute, after the criminal has been found guilty, then they should be given the opportunity to. It requires a different system though, which means I think the current one is wrong.
-
Keep it for the military and the truly incorrigible, but ban otherwise.
-
If the bereaved wants to execute, after the criminal has been found guilty, then they should be given the opportunity to.
because revenge is the same thing as justice
It's wrong when it's on the government level. Government sanctioned murder is retarded.
so in your revenge system the person doing the revenge killing is then charged and convicted of murder.
then the other family kills them
cycle of violence
or they're not charged with murder and it's still government sanctioned murder
It requires a different system though, which means I think the current one is wrong.
yeah... the system of revenge is seems
-
Give out capital punishment to capital stupidness (Republicans).
-
Knowingly undermining the constitution of the united states should be considered treason :P that covers your post.
-
If the bereaved wants to execute, after the criminal has been found guilty, then they should be given the opportunity to.
because revenge is the same thing as justice
It's wrong when it's on the government level. Government sanctioned murder is retarded.
so in your revenge system the person doing the revenge killing is then charged and convicted of murder.
then the other family kills them
cycle of violence
or they're not charged with murder and it's still government sanctioned murder
It requires a different system though, which means I think the current one is wrong.
yeah... the system of revenge is seems
Why did you do that?
-
do what?
point out the problems with your statement?
-
No, you didn't point out the problems. We both know what you did. Now I'm going to take you like a dog, and rub your muzzle into the **** you took on the floor.
Why did you do it?
-
furthermore look at the number of people incorrectly put on death row - at least one state has completely suspended executions because of this (illinois IIRC).
The death penalty is also consistently racist (and no before you say "that's because they commit more murders" .. no.. it exceeds proportionality by a significant amount)
Maybe in the US of A.
I'd avoid bashing capitol punishment as a whole.
I'd reserved it for only the biggest offenders in cases with overwhleming evidence.
-
child molesters = capital judgment
-
It's wrong when it's on the government level. Government sanctioned murder is retarded.
If the bereaved wants to execute, after the criminal has been found guilty, then they should be given the opportunity to. It requires a different system though, which means I think the current one is wrong.
It would also give people related to convicted murderers a reason to harass, intimidate and eventually seek revenge against the family of the victim which doesn't currently exist. Having the government do it means that there is no one person to seek revenge against. You got the death sentence because that is what is the proscribed punishment for the crime.
-
Capital punishment - cutting off one's capitus, or head. Death penalty.
Capitol punishment - forcing someone to sit through a session of Congress. Death penalty.
-
Killing someone, except in the case of immediate self defence, is a criminal act in my books.
Legal systems should fight crime, not commit them.
-
we should bring back torture n stuff
ripping off finger nails would make one reconsider having sex with a child ......
-
we should bring back torture n stuff
ripping off finger nails would make one reconsider having sex with a child ......
You really think so?
...I still say DEATH
-
Castration...THEN death.
-
http://cbs3.com/local/Snowball.Shooting.Teen.2.661821.html
Now tell me how you feel about capital punishment.
-
No, you didn't point out the problems.
I didn't eh? care to explain to me how your statement doesn't describe a binary choice of between: state sanctioned killing (Which you said is bad), and the revenge system
We both know what you did. Now I'm going to take you like a dog, and rub your muzzle into the **** you took on the floor.
Why did you do it?
right.. that's mature... straighten up fast
-
Pump him full of steroids and bleed stopping meds.
Chop his penorz into pieces and squeeze his balls until they explode.
Rip out finger- and toenails.
Break every bone of him.
Then execute with a slow chainsaw through the forehead.
-
No, you didn't point out the problems.
I didn't eh? care to explain to me how your statement doesn't describe a binary choice of between: state sanctioned killing (Which you said is bad), and the revenge system
We both know what you did. Now I'm going to take you like a dog, and rub your muzzle into the **** you took on the floor.
Why did you do it?
right.. that's mature... straighten up fast
You're not answering my question. Evasion with inane insults hasn't worked on me since I turned 10. It's dopey talk.
Why did you do it?
-
http://cbs3.com/local/Snowball.Shooting.Teen.2.661821.html
Now tell me how you feel about capital punishment.
Insta-death!
Doesn't look like anger managment is gonna help that guy if he's willing to shoot a kid over a wayard snowball (and the kid apologized).
Heck, it's about time humanity did some natural selection on it's own!
-
I support life.
No abortion, no capital punishment.
-
Anyone who tries to turn this into an abortion debate gets a week long ban for trolling.
Kazan, Blackdove, cut it out the pair of you.
-
Anyone who tries to turn this into an abortion debate gets a week long ban for trolling.
Kazan, Blackdove, cut it out the pair of you.
So...... we can turn it into a global warming thread? :p
-
Only if you want a week off for spamming.
-
Hmm...strong views. But it's what one come to expect in these matters. What I've always found interesting, is the amount of time one spends thinking about these different problems. There's the problem of what to do with the perpatrators of serious crimes, but then genuinly good people are also starving in poor countries. I don't think at the moment we as a race are particulary good at dividing up the time we allocate to different problems.
"Seventeen more people starved to death yesterday..." "Ah... a shame..."
"One little girl has gone missing..." "WHAT?!"
I'm not trying to diss little girls gone missing, but from a purely unbiased angle... I can see which is more important.
-
Yeah. Quita same with the WTC.
When I saw it, know what I thought?
"Who gives a **** to 3'000 People, 30'000 are starving each day". In the end, 3'000 People are nothing even compared to the weekly total.
And, after all, 3000 people less to feed, from a purely neutral POV.
-
I just found a great quote which sums up my point:
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."
Joseph Stalin
-
Hmm...strong views. But it's what one come to expect in these matters. What I've always found interesting, is the amount of time one spends thinking about these different problems. There's the problem of what to do with the perpatrators of serious crimes, but then genuinly good people are also starving in poor countries. I don't think at the moment we as a race are particulary good at dividing up the time we allocate to different problems.
"Seventeen more people starved to death yesterday..." "Ah... a shame..."
"One little girl has gone missing..." "WHAT?!"
I'm not trying to diss little girls gone missing, but from a purely unbiased angle... I can see which is more important.
Life goes on - no matter how serious the circumstance, we must rationalize about situations everyday in life when; they are important to us / effect us / or if they are situations in which we can influence.
We are not starving but some of us have daughters...
-
I just found a great quote which sums up my point:
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."
Joseph Stalin
Ah, memories of Red Alert.
"When you kill one... it is a tragedy. When you kill ten million? It is a statistic. THEY CALL ME KILLER... but I live only to serve the people... and the PEOPLE'S HISTORY will judge me." etc.
Can't believe I still remember them speeches from the cutscenes. Kind of sad, you're supposed to remember **** like this from history books. Lulz.
-
Yeah, I wasn't trying to turn it into a debate. It just irks me when people claim to be "Pro-life" and then support the death penalty. Enough said on the A word.
(Sarcastic joke tone) Anyway, who's up for killing two birds with one stone? Cannabalize the people on Death Row to feed the hungry! (/end sarcastic joke tone)
-
The death penalty is also consistently racist (and no before you say "that's because they commit more murders" .. no.. it exceeds proportionality by a significant amount)
Yeah, but then again, the entire justice system is racist, so I'm not sure how well that works as an argument against capital punishment specifically.
I'm categorically opposed to capital punishment for several reasons of ethical philosophy, but before any other, I object to it simply because innocent people can, and have been, wrongly convicted.
-
I'm categorically opposed to capital punishment for several reasons of ethical philosophy, but before any other, I object to it simply because innocent people can, and have been, wrongly convicted.
And you would rather they simply sat in a cell whilst getting more and more depressed about their circumstances?
I'm not saying you're wrong, I actually think that this is a valid point, but is it always better to live?
-
Only because imprisonment can, in some sense, be undone. Of course time lost to prison can't be given back, but someone can't be released from death.
-
Yeah, I wasn't trying to turn it into a debate. It just irks me when people claim to be "Pro-life" and then support the death penalty. Enough said on the A word.
Then say that rather than tossing the equivalent of a verbal hand grenade into the thread. :p
I tend to agree with you on that. Whether you agree or not on whether a foetus is a life (and frankly we don't need to hear from either side on this thread) it's pretty obvious that the guy sitting on death row is. I think Bill Hicks said it best.
"Pro-lifers killing doctors. Pro-LIFErs KILLING people. 'I'm pro-life and I'm gonna kill your ass!' .. it's irony on a base level..."
-
Yes.
-
Extreme cases in my view call for extreme measures. Namely- Molestation Murder and Treason / Terrorism. You could go into sub-Categories of each and i suppose we could debate whether lesser degrees of each will reap lesser degrees of punishment but i suppose this is the point of the topic. :) discuss.
-
Yeah, I wasn't trying to turn it into a debate. It just irks me when people claim to be "Pro-life" and then support the death penalty. Enough said on the A word.
It actually makes a degree of sense when you consider it from "the everyone deserve a chance...but you ****ed yours up" point of view. Which generally happens to be theirs.
But we digress.
I, personally, favor the expansion of the death penalty's current application to include premediated or multiple rape (or maybe just rape period, depending on my mood when asked).
And there isn't a country in the world that doesn't still reserve the right to execute those whose crimes could potentionally need an accountant for keeping track of all the bodies. Granted, a lot of them haven't killed anyone over espionage or treason charges anytime recently, but last I checked they were all keeping the option open.
-
And there isn't a country in the world that doesn't still reserve the right to execute those whose crimes could potentionally need an accountant for keeping track of all the bodies.
Every country that outlaws capital punishment? Which is like half the globe it seems. :wtf:
-
Yeah, I wasn't trying to turn it into a debate. It just irks me when people claim to be "Pro-life" and then support the death penalty. Enough said on the A word.
It actually makes a degree of sense when you consider it from "the everyone deserve a chance...but you ****ed yours up" point of view. Which generally happens to be theirs.
Except, far too many of them claim to be Christians, which happens to demand an infinite number of second chances within a period of one's life, and also that it's not for us to decide when one such person's life is to end. Ergo, they are either hypocrites or just plain ignorant of the Scripture they claim to follow.
-
Only because imprisonment can, in some sense, be undone. Of course time lost to prison can't be given back, but someone can't be released from death.
After 20 years in prison and frequent visits from other inmates during the "uups, dropped my soap" time? Not my idea of living.
I have absolutely no objection to death penalty, assuming of course that the crime was heinous enough to deserve it and that the evidence was really compelling and overwhelming. Even then I'd give some extra time before the sentence is carries out, in case the defense finds some miracle or another.
Let's face it - the perfect set ups happen only in movies. On a few occasions innocent people do get sentenced it's mostly because the defense and police weren't doing their job right (looking for a scapegoat instead of the truth).
With a good system in place such errors would be rare.
-
Except, far too many of them claim to be Christians, which happens to demand an infinite number of second chances within a period of one's life, and also that it's not for us to decide when one such person's life is to end. Ergo, they are hypocrites.
I'm Christian and I don't consider myself a hypocrite.
Gods/Christ's mercy and patience might be infinite, but my isn't.
At the end of the day I got to live my life here before I move up, and this place needs cleaning up. Extreme stains need a different approach. However it would be prudent to keep that approach to a minimum, as it can be damaging itself.
-
Then one of the elders asked me, "These in white robes—who are they, and where did they come from?"
I answered, "Sir, you know."
And he said, "These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Forget Oxyclean. Christ's blood is the ultimate stain-remover.
Cleaning up from a Christian perspective = repentance, a changed life. It does not = death. Period. Hell is not a place designed for anyone. Not even the "worst" of us.
-
For the record God is for the death penalty... But we are NOT God - SO....
-
Yes, that's what I was trying to get at above. God decides who dies. Not us. God decides who is irredeemable.
-
I guess that "Let he who is without sin..." stuff applies to other people then Trashman?
-
Lately, I've found myself becoming more and more of the opinion that we should stop killing people. By this I mean all cases: war, murder, death penalty, etc. Now I realize this is extremely idealistic and will most likely never be realized; war isn't going away any time soon.
However, I also don't like the idea of expending resources on keeping a prisoner alive until they die of natural causes. I think the way to solve this is that life in prison is the maximum punishment you can receive for a crime, but then you can elect to be put to death at any time during your sentence. Oh and you wouldn't wait 20 years for your execution either, as soon as you get tired of prison life, you can quit. This way, your death isn't punishment for your crime, it's your own choice. It would actually be an easier sentence, I suppose.
-
But how would you distinguish between those who were guilty and sick of life and those who were innocent and clinically depressed about being in jail or otherwise mentally ill?
-
I guess that "Let he who is without sin..." stuff applies to other people then Trashman?
No one is without sin. But there are is a difference. The worst thing I did in my life is...erm.. hmmmm... lemme think...lie?
Compared to a serial child molestor or killer? You're dam right I can judge him...here on earth.
I'll leave the afterlife for God to settle.
-
Sorry but I don't agree with that statement - scripture says otherwise Trashman.
-
No one is without sin. But there are is a difference. The worst thing I did in my life is...erm.. hmmmm... lemme think...lie?
Compared to a serial child molestor or killer? You're dam right I can judge him...here on earth.
I'll leave the afterlife for God to settle.
Bloody hell, i'm not a Christian by any means, but even i'm insulted by that kind of hand-waving ignorance towards the core philosophies of Christianity. By drawing a distinction between lying and murder, you're doing exactly what Jesus is supposed to have argued against in his 'let he who is without sin...' spiel, and yet you have the gall to call yourself a Christian.
It's just that kind of ****ed up, fundamentalist logic that gives religion a bad name. Right now, i'm seriously picturing you wearing a hat that says "Shoot 'em all and let God sort 'em out", shortly before going into a bank with a rifle and putting that **** into practice.
Aaaanyhoo, back to the topic at hand:
We're faced with two options here regarding capital punishment: Make it a deterrent, an actual deterrent, or abolish it completely.
Option A is to extend capital punishment to encompass most crime, everything from grand larceny to mass murder. Kill 20 people? Death penalty. Steal $10 million from your employees? Death penalty. With the right checks and balances to allow for a drastic cut to the current lengthly and expensive appeals process, the death penalty would serve as a true deterrent towards people committing crime. If you can create an environment where the death penalty is on the mind of the people as a real threat, I guarantee that crime will plummet in the first year alone.
Option B is to simply abolish it, because it's no use having it for use in special cases only. By making it so darn hard for people to actually get the death penalty, it ceases to be a deterrent and merely serves to anger humanitarian groups and 'progressive thinkers' worldwide. Legal capital punishment on a scale destined to make no difference to the justice system serves to introduce only the worst parts of the deal, while cheating yourself out of any benefits. Simple as that.
-
I just found a great quote which sums up my point:
"A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic."
Joseph Stalin
Ah, memories of Red Alert.
"When you kill one... it is a tragedy. When you kill ten million? It is a statistic. THEY CALL ME KILLER... but I live only to serve the people... and the PEOPLE'S HISTORY will judge me." etc.
Can't believe I still remember them speeches from the cutscenes. Kind of sad, you're supposed to remember **** like this from history books. Lulz.
I figure whatever it takes to get people to remember history is a good thing. Even if its alternative history that gets people a tiny bit interested in knowing the real one. The Stalin quote is quite interesting and very introspective...particularly for someone with his reputation.
Canada outlawed capital punishment and I think its the right course ultimately...mostly because of the possibility of killing someone wrongly accused rather than anything else. I still wouldn't mind an alligator pit for a few criminal folks who really deserve nothing less.
-
I would oppose it even if our system were flawless, because I don't subscribe to the notion of certain crimes that simply warrant the perpetrator's death. I see that as a sign that we've given ourselves a carte blanche to hate with ethical impunity, and we should never allow ourselves to feel comfortable with hatred. I don't care if the person in question abused children or orchestrated a genocide; they should be seen as the ultimate test of our restraint, not as receptacles for all the bile in our souls.
-
Sorry but I don't agree with that statement - scripture says otherwise Trashman.
Even better. Life would be very dull if everyone agreed.
Bloody hell, i'm not a Christian by any means, but even i'm insulted by that kind of hand-waving ignorance towards the core philosophies of Christianity. By drawing a distinction between lying and murder, you're doing exactly what Jesus is supposed to have argued against in his 'let he who is without sin...' spiel, and yet you have the gall to call yourself a Christian.
Fiddlesticks. I'm well aware of the core philosophy of Christianity. And I'm willing to forgive and give a dozen second chances...but up to a point.
Even Jesus stressed the importance of children.
A man who who molested and killed a dozen children? Sorry, thats way above my tolerance treshold. Burn him. Kill him.
Alltough when I think about it, when you suffer in your life you get extra points for it in the afterlife. So by killing a murder, am I actually helping him get a lesser sentence up there? :wtf: Heck, I don't want that. Letting him live might be better..unless life in prison gets you more points than just being murdered. :wtf:
Hmm....an interesting dillema.
-
And there isn't a country in the world that doesn't still reserve the right to execute those whose crimes could potentionally need an accountant for keeping track of all the bodies.
Every country that outlaws capital punishment? Which is like half the globe it seems. :wtf:
Not so. All those European nations that have outlawed capital punishment still have laws on the books for execution in treason and espionage cases during wartime. The conflicting laws have never come to a test case, and probably won't unless there's still another Act to play in the Great European Civil War, but they're not quite willing to part with their ability to use the ultimate sanction in the ultimate of dire circumstances.
And come on people, even Jesus was allowed to get all Old Testament on folks once.
-
Alltough when I think about it, when you suffer in your life you get extra points for it in the afterlife. So by killing a murder, am I actually helping him get a lesser sentence up there? :wtf: Heck, I don't want that. Letting him live might be better..unless life in prison gets you more points than just being murdered. :wtf:
Hmm....an interesting dillema.
It's not about getting the highest score...
-
Not so. All those European nations that have outlawed capital punishment still have laws on the books for execution in treason and espionage cases during wartime. The conflicting laws have never come to a test case, and probably won't unless there's still another Act to play in the Great European Civil War, but they're not quite willing to part with their ability to use the ultimate sanction in the ultimate of dire circumstances.
Incorrect. The 13th protocol of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms prohibits the death penalty under all circumstances in the UK. The UK actually abolished the penalty in 1998. That protocol prevents the reintroduction in any of the member States of the Council of Europe.
-
Disclaimer: This part of this post is directed specifically at Trashman.
I guess that "Let he who is without sin..." stuff applies to other people then Trashman?
No one is without sin. But there are is a difference. The worst thing I did in my life is...erm.. hmmmm... lemme think...lie?
Compared to a serial child molestor or killer? You're dam right I can judge him...here on earth.
I'll leave the afterlife for God to settle.
Buddy, you are so way off-base here... That is absolutely wrong. So completely against Scripture... Oh my gosh, I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with most of the overall theme of Mefustae's last post. DANG that's saying something!
You want a real-world example? Paul. He was a Pharisee that dragged early Christians out of their homes and had them publicly executed just for being Christians. He oversaw the stonings of hundreds of people. He was a mass murderer.
David, the "man after God's own heart" was an adulterer and a murderer. He sent a soldier in his army on a suicide mission so that he could sleep with the man's wife. You can't tell me that's not messed up.
And look what God did with them. One wrote most of the Psalms, and was the greatest king of Israel. The other wrote over half of the New Testament after being confronted by Christ Himself and shown the error of his ways.
Would you dare say you're a better Christian than Paul, or a more righteous man than David?
Sorry but I don't agree with that statement - scripture says otherwise Trashman.
Even better. Life would be very dull if everyone agreed.
But to disagree with God is like a stream rising above its source. Good luck arguing with Scripture.
Bloody hell, i'm not a Christian by any means, but even i'm insulted by that kind of hand-waving ignorance towards the core philosophies of Christianity. By drawing a distinction between lying and murder, you're doing exactly what Jesus is supposed to have argued against in his 'let he who is without sin...' spiel, and yet you have the gall to call yourself a Christian.
Fiddlesticks. I'm well aware of the core philosophy of Christianity. And I'm willing to forgive and give a dozen second chances...but up to a point.
Even Jesus stressed the importance of children.
A man who who molested and killed a dozen children? Sorry, thats way above my tolerance treshold. Burn him. Kill him.
Here's what Jesus had to say to a man who was willing to forgive "up to a point":
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?"
Jesus answered, "I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
Christ clearly pushes the bounds of forgiveness. If you place boundaries on your willingness to forgive, Christ warns, so will God.
Alltough when I think about it, when you suffer in your life you get extra points for it in the afterlife. So by killing a murder, am I actually helping him get a lesser sentence up there? :wtf: Heck, I don't want that. Letting him live might be better..unless life in prison gets you more points than just being murdered. :wtf:
Hmm....an interesting dillema.
That is so disgustingly unbiblical and un-Christlike I question whether you know ANYTHING of forgiveness...
Christ died so murderers and rapists and child molesters and drunkards and homosexuals and adulterers and thieves could find grace and forgiveness. Not so you could condemn them with your twisted sense of "justice." Go read the New Testament. Particularly John 3:17. I find myself disgusted with your ignorance of Christ's sacrifice, it's purpose, and significance.
Normally I would do this in private. But I can't let such a misrepresentation go undenounced.
-
Sorry but I don't agree with that statement - scripture says otherwise Trashman.
Even better. Life would be very dull if everyone agreed.
Bloody hell, i'm not a Christian by any means, but even i'm insulted by that kind of hand-waving ignorance towards the core philosophies of Christianity. By drawing a distinction between lying and murder, you're doing exactly what Jesus is supposed to have argued against in his 'let he who is without sin...' spiel, and yet you have the gall to call yourself a Christian.
Fiddlesticks. I'm well aware of the core philosophy of Christianity. And I'm willing to forgive and give a dozen second chances...but up to a point.
Even Jesus stressed the importance of children.
A man who who molested and killed a dozen children? Sorry, thats way above my tolerance treshold. Burn him. Kill him.
Alltough when I think about it, when you suffer in your life you get extra points for it in the afterlife. So by killing a murder, am I actually helping him get a lesser sentence up there? :wtf: Heck, I don't want that. Letting him live might be better..unless life in prison gets you more points than just being murdered. :wtf:
Hmm....an interesting dillema.
You just broke my logical fallacy detector. Thanks a lot.
-
That is so disgustingly unbiblical and un-Christlike I question whether you know ANYTHING of forgiveness...
It appears as if Jesus only died for the sins of mankind that Trashman wanted him to die for. He should be able to pick and choose which sins people can live long enough to possibly repent for.
-
That's the problem with a doctrine that has you trying to reach up to God. That's the real defining line between what I believe and pretty much all the other religions of the world.
I've acknowledged I'm at a loss to "make it," as it were, under my own power. God's reached down to us, ALL of us, rather than having us trying to climb a ladder to get to God. That climb is impossible for us to make. In that way, I'm no better than a serial killer. And Christ gave me a clean slate in the same way He gave Paul a clean slate.
Time does not diminish sin. Christ does. I believe in giving people as much time as possible for Christ to work in them. Thus, no death penalty.
No one can buy their way into Heaven. No amount of points will get you to the bonus round. That price has been paid for all of us already.
-
That is so disgustingly unbiblical and un-Christlike I question whether you know ANYTHING of forgiveness...
Christ died so murderers and rapists and child molesters and drunkards and homosexuals and adulterers and thieves could find grace and forgiveness. Not so you could condemn them with your twisted sense of "justice." Go read the New Testament. Particularly John 3:17. I find myself disgusted with your ignorance of Christ's sacrifice, it's purpose, and significance.
Normally I would do this in private. But I can't let such a misrepresentation go undenounced.
Aww, G0atmaster, you were doing so well. I was totally agreeing with you, truly seeing you as a credit to the board... right up until you decided to mix homosexuality in with child molestation and murderers. I mean come on. You're a conservative lad, I get that, but now you're just trying to start some ****.
-
In that grouping, I also include guys that watch porn, girls that watch porn, people that do things with each other that they shouldn't, druggies, slanderers, politicians, lawyers, drug lords, gang leaders, gang members, upper, middle, and lower-class people, psychos, evil dictators, gamers, divorcees, programmers, lepers, world conquerors, Strongbad, the Master Chief, Chuck Norris, the folks at Blizzard Entertainment, and just about every other member of the Human Race.
-
In that grouping, I also include guys that watch porn, girls that watch porn, people that do things with each other that they shouldn't, druggies, slanderers, politicians, lawyers, drug lords, gang leaders, gang members, upper, middle, and lower-class people, psychos, evil dictators, gamers, divorcees, programmers, lepers, world conquerors, Strongbad, the Master Chief, Chuck Norris, the folks at Blizzard Entertainment, and just about every other member of the Human Race.
Sure, mate. Whatever you say. :doubt:
-
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."
"As it is written: There is no one righteous. No, not even one."
"For the wages of Sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord."
-
That is so disgustingly unbiblical and un-Christlike I question whether you know ANYTHING of forgiveness...
Christ died so murderers and rapists and child molesters and drunkards and homosexuals and adulterers and thieves could find grace and forgiveness. Not so you could condemn them with your twisted sense of "justice." Go read the New Testament. Particularly John 3:17. I find myself disgusted with your ignorance of Christ's sacrifice, it's purpose, and significance.
Normally I would do this in private. But I can't let such a misrepresentation go undenounced.
Aww, G0atmaster, you were doing so well. I was totally agreeing with you, truly seeing you as a credit to the board... right up until you decided to mix homosexuality in with child molestation and murderers. I mean come on. You're a conservative lad, I get that, but now you're just trying to start some ****.
Actually he makes a fair point. Some Christians really do need to be reminded that whether or not their religion finds homosexuality distasteful it's God's job to deal with them. Going around beating up homosexuals etc isn't righteous. It's arrogating God's duty of judging people to yourself.
But anyway let's not drag this off-topic about making it about Christian attitudes to homosexuality. I'd rather see if we can get somewhere with pointing out how capital punishment is unchristian.
-
Actually he makes a fair point. Some Christians really do need to be reminded that whether or not their religion finds homosexuality distasteful it's God's job to deal with them. Going around beating up homosexuals etc isn't righteous. It's arrogating God's duty of judging people to yourself.
But anyway let's not drag this off-topic about making it about Christian attitudes to homosexuality. I'd rather see if we can get somewhere with pointing out how capital punishment is unchristian.
Okay, i'll agree with you there. Now, let's get this topic back on track.
Regarding Christians for the death penalty, let me quote some of my scripture:
...There was an execution in California and there were a lot of Christians out front supporting the death penalty, and a lot of people found that ironic, particularly people who, y'know, know the words of Christ. Yeah, I didn't know "Thou shalt not kill" had a footnote. But apparently it's "Thou shalt not kill* Unless you really want to" [...] I didn't find that ironic at all, Christians for the death penalty, because after all; if it weren't for capital punishment, y'know, we'd have no Easter."
:p
-
Buddy, you are so way off-base here... That is absolutely wrong. So completely against Scripture... Oh my gosh, I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with most of the overall theme of Mefustae's last post. DANG that's saying something!
Get this - the scripture sez do not kill. Ever. Under no circumstances. Jesus didn't strike against those who killed and tortured him.
Therefore, to follow the scripture to the letter, you shouldn't defend yourself when someone tries to kill you. Because even killing in self-defense is still killing.
Now, I'm not prepared to got that far.
Maybe there's a better solution. Drop them on some far off island and let them fend for themselves (with a death penalty if they leave the island). There - they are not dead and are far away.
I'm sorry, but I just don't consider a father having to pay to keep the man who killed his daughter alive, secure and well fed justice. Not by a longshot.
At the end of the day the details of how it is setteled do not matter to me - as long as the solution is better than the current one.
Would you dare say you're a better Christian than Paul, or a more righteous man than David?
Maybe.. I'm not keeping score, alltough I haven't killed or endulged in adultery. That's got to count for something.
Christ clearly pushes the bounds of forgiveness. If you place boundaries on your willingness to forgive, Christ warns, so will God.
I'm not God or Christ.
When I hear someone molested, raped and killed children for years and shows no remorse at all... I simply can't forgive that. It's too much for me. Alltough I hope God can.
If God judges me by my own standards I think I should be o.k. tough. Guess we'll see.
-
guys I know this sounds crazy - but religious doctrine is a completely different topic that I believe has a place for it's own thread, I would be happy to get involved w/out taking away from this thread on capital punishment. Can the mods split the thread?
-
Don't get me wrong here - as a general rule I'm against death penalty.
But exceptions prove the rule, as the old saying goes. I honestly think some are more then worthy of that exception. Not to say that it HAS to be like that - I just consider it better than life in prison (actually, more merciful in a way). Wish there was some middle ground, some better solution. There probably is.
-
Aren't you the same person who was talking about executing politicians for corruption only a couple of days ago?
-
Like I said - exceptions prove the rule. And actually I'd prefer a public whipping + jail time. Or that thing they had in the middle ages - when they restrained you on the public square and people threw rotten fruit at ya.
-
Stocks? You mean then right? A whipping in public square like johnny rico!
-
Each time I read a response I'm ever more scared.
-
Wow, this topic is getting hazy.
Get this - the scripture sez do not kill. Ever. Under no circumstances. Jesus didn't strike against those who killed and tortured him. Therefore, to follow the scripture to the letter, you shouldn't defend yourself when someone tries to kill you. Because even killing in self-defense is still killing.
I'm pretty sure the original text (unbastardized) states something along the lines of 'thou shalt not murder'. I could be wrong about that, however.
Regardless, if the original texts weren't bastardized in this regard, Jesus said to turn the other cheek. In other words, he negates earlier records of what Moses declared to be one of God's laws.
That's the biggest problem, we have no real way of knowing how much (if any) of the Bible is incorrect. I suppose the best solution would be to read the original texts, but that would require learning another language. And even then, the people who wrote it in the first place could have stretched the truth or forgotton to include important details, and that's not even going into how the current Holy Bible was put together. :ick:
Would you dare say you're a better Christian than Paul, or a more righteous man than David?
Maybe.. I'm not keeping score, alltough I haven't killed or endulged in adultery. That's got to count for something.
While (as I have pointed out) the original texts may state something different (although I doubt it in this case), current scripture states that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
---------------
Well, this thread probably needs to be split in twain, now.
-
Regardless, if the original texts weren't bastardized in this regard, Jesus said to turn the other cheek. In other words, he negates earlier records of what Moses declared to be one of God's laws.
That's the biggest problem, we have no real way of knowing how much (if any) of the Bible is incorrect. I suppose the best solution would be to read the original texts, but that would require learning another language. And even then, the people who wrote it in the first place could have stretched the truth or forgotton to include important details, and that's not even going into how the current Holy Bible was put together.
Reason why I'm pretty much ignoring the Old Testament (being old and filled with everything). Christianity is based on the New Testament anyway.
While (as I have pointed out) the original texts may state something different (although I doubt it in this case), current scripture states that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
Petty theft = murder/rape?
You got to be kidding me! I recall no such thing. Heck I wouldn't be a christian if that were true.
-
...current scripture states that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
Really? So if I believed in Christianity, then I should find the idea of theft just as abhorrent as serial rape and/or murder?
-
While (as I have pointed out) the original texts may state something different (although I doubt it in this case), current scripture states that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
Petty theft = murder/rape?
You got to be kidding me! I recall no such thing. Heck I wouldn't be a christian if that were true.
...current scripture states that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
Really? So if I believed in Christianity, then I should find the idea of theft just as abhorrent as serial rape and/or murder?
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
The very nature of a sin is that it is an affront to God. The only difference between sins is how humans treat them. That's why there are Seven Deadly Sins, it's because they lead there, not because they're worse.
In other words, treating sins as different is a double-standard. Is killing a child worse than killing an adult? Double-standard. Is committing adultery worse than stealing a candy bar from a supermarket? Double-standard.
-
RUBBISH.
-
RUBBISH.
:wtf:
Care to elaborate?
-
Perhaps in the eyes of men crimes seem different. I can't exactly disagree with murder being worse than petty theft. I think the whole "all sins equal in the eyes of God" thing is meaning that no matter how grievous or trivial your sins, they're still sins and need to be forgiven.
-
The very nature of a sin is that it is an affront to God.
I consider a sin to be something which causes unnecessary damage to someone, physcological or physical or whatever. I care about things depending on how they effect my own kind and other living things, not whether it pleases God (probably, I'll admit, because I don't believe in him/her).
-
So from what I understand of original sin and the things stated in this thread, being born a human is as bad as ruthlessly torturing a nun. :p
Either the religions wrote something down wrong in the bible, or God isn't that special.
-
Or you're not understanding it right..option no.3 that most people ignore.
-
On a serious note, i'm all athiest but i could convert to Autobotism, worship at the temple of matrix, see Optimus for confession etc. And Yay he did die for our safety only to rise again in lesser episodes after the movie. Religion has had thousands of years to imbue itself into society, i would've thought that the 2nd coming would've 'come' by now.
-
What does that have to do with capital punishment? :wtf:
-
Oops. Ignore / Delete post pls. Wrong forum. Lol
-
I have half a mind to ditch class to post here, there's so much wrong with what I'm reading since I last posted...
But I can't. Have mercy and try not to add another 3 pages before 10:30 PST when I get out of class...
-
Alright, not talking much on the nature of sin itself but rather on capital punishment. Christians should know where they stand on this issue, because the bible is clear that God is for capital punishment, ironically most "Christians" are just as confused as everyone else.
Let me show you guys biblical teaching on capital punishment.
I've had plenty of time to find my scriptures and will have at it... Please, I'm not trying to start a huge debate but I really want to defend this position. I've spent ALOT of time on this so please forgive me on the length.
First - Old Testament
Genesis 9:5-6
5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
God spoke these words to Noah after the flood in context of the covenant He made with mankind to never again destroy mankind by flood. (Note: This command preceded the Mosaic Law which by nature was temporal until fulfilled by Christ in the New Covenant ) This covenant was not temporal, but eternal in nature... thus exist in the New Covenant
Man is made in the image of God; therefore, a fatal attack against God's image-bearers is an attack against God Himself. This is the reason God commanded that the individual who sheds another man's blood shall have his own blood shed as well.
When we come to the Mosaic Covenant we find an many crimes for which capital punishment was applicable. The Law of Moses instructed the penalty of death for many offenses, most of which were moral and religious in nature. While human government is no longer responsible for dealing out capital punishment for most moral and religious offences (as they were under Mosaic Law), they are still responsible for administering capital punishment in the case of the intentional murder of an innocent human being (Noahic Covenant).
You shall not kill. (Exodus 20:13; see also Deuteronomy 5:17)
The hebrew word for kill is ratsach which always refers to the murder of another human being (whether it be intentional or accidental). Although there are more words for kill that refer to the taking of life a accurate word for ratsach is "murder". Muwth is another word means to kill, often prematurely; i.e. execution. This is the power God has over His creation (Deuteronomy 32:39), what God intended to do to Moses for not circumcising his son, what God commanded Israel to do to those who sacrifice their children to Molech, and what David consented to be done to him had he been guilty of any wrongdoing against Saul (II Samuel 14:32). The prohibition in the Ten Commandment then, is against murder, not killing. It is a prohibition against the unjust taking of innocent human life, not the taking of any life whatsoever.
It's wise for use to to make a clear distinction between killing and murder as well. Killing can be just, but murder is always unjust. That's why it is factually incorrect to say capital punishment is the killing of those who kill others. Capital punishment is the killing of those who murder others. It would be equally wrong to say capital punishment is the murdering of those who murder others. Taking the life of an individual who unjustly took the life of another human being is not murder, but killing. To use "killing" or "murder" of both parties interchangeably is to confuse the just taking of life with the unjust.
New Testament
Pilate therefore said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin." (John 19:10-11, NAS)
Alright, what is important to note about this passage is that Jesus did not challenge Pilate's governal right to sentence Him to death. He implicitly affirmed Pilate's right to administer capital punishment, and that the right came from God. He did not say, "You have no authority to do this," but rather - "You only have this authority because it is given to you by God." Pilate thought he held the power of Jesus' life in his own hand, but Jesus countered that Pilate would not be able to crucify Him unless God allowed him to do so.... Jesus challenged the source of Pilate's right, not the right itself.
There is no question that the state's execution of Jesus was unjust (because Jesus was innocent, and capital punishment is for the guilty), but that is no reflection on the just nature of capital punishment itself. While there may be unjust applications of a state's right to execute certain criminals for purposes of justice, it does not taint the just nature of capital punishment itself.
Now turn your attention to Paul - Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God's appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God's servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1-4)
According to Paul the purpose of human government is to reward good and punish evil...
Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, asked Paul, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and be tried before me there on these charges?" 25:10 Paul replied, "I am standing before Caesar's judgment seat, where I should be tried. I have done nothing wrong to the Jews, as you also know very well. 25:11 If then I am in the wrong and have done anything that deserves death, I am not trying to escape dying, but if not one of their charges against me is true, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!" 25:12 Then, after conferring with his council, Festus replied, "You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you will go!" (Acts 25:9-11)
Paul had been imprisoned for approximately two years when he stood trial before Festus. The Jews in attendance brought many accusations against him. Paul maintained his innocence from those charges, but did not object to being put to death if he had done anything that was deserving of death. Paul did not object to the possibility of capital punishment by arguing that it was unjust punishment... or in contradiction to God's design. To the contrary, he acknowledged there were crimes deserving of death, and was willing to submit to that penalty had he actually committed those crimes.
I believe this to be on topic and not directly dealing with the nature of sin but the justification of capital punishment from a "Christian" point of view.
-
Contradicting passages, FTW!
-
It appears as if Jesus only died for the sins of mankind that Trashman wanted him to die for. He should be able to pick and choose which sins people can live long enough to possibly repent for.
It's not quite mad. Recall that some sins are basically unforgiveable. Murder, for example, is a bit tough to forgive, because the person who could do it with any real meaning is kinda dead.
-
No sin is unforgivable - the only sin where a person cannot receive pardon is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit... In-short - the context of that passage is seeing a miracle and calling it of the devil... Since we rely on God to even search for His existence (because according to Romans "No man seeks God" unless God draws him)
It's not that God will not forgive them, it's they are not moved by the Holy Ghost to repent... anyway that's off-topic
-
No sin is unforgivable - the only sin where a person cannot receive pardon is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit...
By technicality, suicide (if it's done correctly) is an unforgivable sin.
-
No sin is unforgivable - the only sin where a person cannot receive pardon is the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit...
By technicality, suicide (if it's done correctly) is an unforgivable sin.
True, which could fall under the category of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost... Whereas the person submits himself to a state that is impossible to repent of.
-
Now explain to me why choosing to die by suicide is an unforgivable sin but choosing to put someone in a state where they can't repent by executing them isn't?
-
Forgive the length. You guys gave me a couple pages to respond to. Also forgive me if I brought things back up that were already addressed. I apologize for my redundancy as well as my repetitiveness.
...There was an execution in California and there were a lot of Christians out front supporting the death penalty, and a lot of people found that ironic, particularly people who, y'know, know the words of Christ. Yeah, I didn't know "Thou shalt not kill" had a footnote. But apparently it's "Thou shalt not kill* Unless you really want to" [...] I didn't find that ironic at all, Christians for the death penalty, because after all; if it weren't for capital punishment, y'know, we'd have no Easter."
:p
Wrong.
Get this - the scripture sez do not kill. Ever. Under no circumstances. Jesus didn't strike against those who killed and tortured him.
Therefore, to follow the scripture to the letter, you shouldn't defend yourself when someone tries to kill you. Because even killing in self-defense is still killing.
Now, I'm not prepared to got that far.
Wrong. The Bible says "Do not murder," not "Do not kill." Not all killing is murder, just as not all sex is adultery. But besides that, Christ also said "Do not resist an evil man. Furthermore, "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." The only sure way to beat evil is to let it burn itself out. If you match an evil act with an evil act, all you will do is paint the streets with blood. "If a man steals your cloak from you, give him the shirt also." This serves two purposes. First, if a man tries to steal from you, and you just give him what he wants and thensome, you have destroyed his act of stealing with your act of giving. There is nothing left to steal, and in this the very fabric of the act of theft is undone. If you lay down your life for a man ready to murder you, he will likely lose all motivation to murder you. And if he doesn't, murder, the evil act, is destroyed by your sacrifice. This is the only true way to abolish evil. What's more, since you seem so insistent on keeping score, the Bible tells us "in being nice to your enemies, you heap burning coals on their heads." If you eliminate all cause for them to want to harm you, and they do so anyway, you can rest assured it will be atoned for. What's more, is anything you lose in the process is credited to you a hundred fold in Heaven.
Beyond all that, I imagine it would quite make a thief begin to question the very meaning of life if this person he's trying to rob bestows him with an incredible act of kindness.
Would you dare say you're a better Christian than Paul, or a more righteous man than David?
Maybe.. I'm not keeping score, alltough I haven't killed or endulged in adultery. That's got to count for something.
Your words betray you, you ARE keeping score. It accounts for nothing if you have any sin in your life at any time since you have been born.
Here's an interesting metaphor: We start at 0. Committing sin gets us negative points. Lack of sin does NOT give us positive points. A score below 0 gets us death as a result. Yet Christ offers us a way to get around this petty, childish scorekeeping by taking the death our score calls for upon himself.
Christ clearly pushes the bounds of forgiveness. If you place boundaries on your willingness to forgive, Christ warns, so will God.
I'm not God or Christ.
When I hear someone molested, raped and killed children for years and shows no remorse at all... I simply can't forgive that. It's too much for me. Alltough I hope God can.
If God judges me by my own standards I think I should be o.k. tough. Guess we'll see.
Let me rephrase that: Christ called US to push the boundaries of forgiveness.
If God judges you, His judgment will be perfect because He is perfect. It will not be this "That crime is ok, we can let that slide, good thing you didn't do those we can't let slide." ALL crimes will be atoned for.
Moving on:
I'm pretty sure the original text (unbastardized) states something along the lines of 'thou shalt not murder'. I could be wrong about that, however.
You are absolutely right about that. There are multiple words for killing. The one used in the Ten Commandments, and the one used when Christ talks about said commandments, are the word for "Murder" specifically. In fact, I haven't read a translation of the Bible that doesn't say Murder. But I haven't read every version...
Regardless, if the original texts weren't bastardized in this regard, Jesus said to turn the other cheek. In other words, he negates earlier records of what Moses declared to be one of God's laws.
That's the biggest problem, we have no real way of knowing how much (if any) of the Bible is incorrect. I suppose the best solution would be to read the original texts, but that would require learning another language. And even then, the people who wrote it in the first place could have stretched the truth or forgotton to include important details, and that's not even going into how the current Holy Bible was put together.
Reason why I'm pretty much ignoring the Old Testament (being old and filled with everything). Christianity is based on the New Testament anyway.
If you call yourself a Christian, and claim to believe the New Testament, reread 2 Timothy 3:16:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness
There you go. That's Paul talking to Timothy about the Scripture they had in the days of Acts. That includes the Old Testament, bud.
While (as I have pointed out) the original texts may state something different (although I doubt it in this case), current scripture states that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
Petty theft = murder/rape?
You got to be kidding me! I recall no such thing. Heck I wouldn't be a christian if that were true.
Revelation 21:27 (Talking about New Jerusalem): Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.
There you go. All shameful acts, and all deceitful acts have been brought to the same level, with the saeme power of keeping people out of Heaven. Yet that doesn't negate Christ's sacrifice. He still forgives these acts, and by His blood we are made pure. All of us. Every last one. From liars to petty thieves to child molesters to murderers.
While (as I have pointed out) the original texts may state something different (although I doubt it in this case), current scripture states that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
Petty theft = murder/rape?
You got to be kidding me! I recall no such thing. Heck I wouldn't be a christian if that were true.
...current scripture states that all sins are equal in the eyes of the Lord.
Really? So if I believed in Christianity, then I should find the idea of theft just as abhorrent as serial rape and/or murder?
For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
The very nature of a sin is that it is an affront to God. The only difference between sins is how humans treat them. That's why there are Seven Deadly Sins, it's because they lead there, not because they're worse.
In other words, treating sins as different is a double-standard. Is killing a child worse than killing an adult? Double-standard. Is committing adultery worse than stealing a candy bar from a supermarket? Double-standard.
Very true. For no evil of ANY measure, small or great, can stand in the presence of perfection and yet live.
Perhaps in the eyes of men crimes seem different. I can't exactly disagree with murder being worse than petty theft. I think the whole "all sins equal in the eyes of God" thing is meaning that no matter how grievous or trivial your sins, they're still sins and need to be forgiven.
Good point. All stains need to be removed, to refer back to the "Clean-up" metaphor.
The very nature of a sin is that it is an affront to God.
I consider a sin to be something which causes unnecessary damage to someone, physcological or physical or whatever. I care about things depending on how they effect my own kind and other living things, not whether it pleases God (probably, I'll admit, because I don't believe in him/her).
That's understandable. But we are talking from a perspective of one who believes in God, and God is the chiefly hurt party in any crime or sin. Jesus' attitude of forgiving others of their sins would have been asinine if this weren't true. It would be like me forgiving Karajorma for stealing Mefustae's car. It wouldn't make sense unless I was hurt more by it than Mefustae was.
So from what I understand of original sin and the things stated in this thread, being born a human is as bad as ruthlessly torturing a nun. :p
Either the religions wrote something down wrong in the bible, or God isn't that special.
You're touching on something that wars have been fought over. I believe that being born itself is not a sin, but we are born into sin, in such a way that without God, it's literally impossible to go our whole lives without sinning. Even with God it's very hard, and I by no means believe perfection is an attainable goal this side of Eternity. Yet I still strive for it. also notice, before Adam's sin, there was no death in the World.
Alright, not talking much on the nature of sin itself but rather on capital punishment. Christians should know where they stand on this issue, because the bible is clear that God is for capital punishment, ironically most "Christians" are just as confused as everyone else.
Let me show you guys biblical teaching on capital punishment.
I've had plenty of time to find my scriptures and will have at it... Please, I'm not trying to start a huge debate but I really want to defend this position. I've spent ALOT of time on this so please forgive me on the length.
First - Old Testament
Genesis 9:5-6
5 Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.
6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
By man his blood shall be shed;
For in the image of God
He made man.
God spoke these words to Noah after the flood in context of the covenant He made with mankind to never again destroy mankind by flood. (Note: This command preceded the Mosaic Law which by nature was temporal until fulfilled by Christ in the New Covenant ) This covenant was not temporal, but eternal in nature... thus exist in the New Covenant
Man is made in the image of God; therefore, a fatal attack against God's image-bearers is an attack against God Himself. This is the reason God commanded that the individual who sheds another man's blood shall have his own blood shed as well.
When we come to the Mosaic Covenant we find an many crimes for which capital punishment was applicable. The Law of Moses instructed the penalty of death for many offenses, most of which were moral and religious in nature. While human government is no longer responsible for dealing out capital punishment for most moral and religious offences (as they were under Mosaic Law), they are still responsible for administering capital punishment in the case of the intentional murder of an innocent human being (Noahic Covenant).
You shall not kill. (Exodus 20:13; see also Deuteronomy 5:17)
The hebrew word for kill is ratsach which always refers to the murder of another human being (whether it be intentional or accidental). Although there are more words for kill that refer to the taking of life a accurate word for ratsach is "murder". Muwth is another word means to kill, often prematurely; i.e. execution. This is the power God has over His creation (Deuteronomy 32:39), what God intended to do to Moses for not circumcising his son, what God commanded Israel to do to those who sacrifice their children to Molech, and what David consented to be done to him had he been guilty of any wrongdoing against Saul (II Samuel 14:32). The prohibition in the Ten Commandment then, is against murder, not killing. It is a prohibition against the unjust taking of innocent human life, not the taking of any life whatsoever.
It's wise for use to to make a clear distinction between killing and murder as well. Killing can be just, but murder is always unjust. That's why it is factually incorrect to say capital punishment is the killing of those who kill others. Capital punishment is the killing of those who murder others. It would be equally wrong to say capital punishment is the murdering of those who murder others. Taking the life of an individual who unjustly took the life of another human being is not murder, but killing. To use "killing" or "murder" of both parties interchangeably is to confuse the just taking of life with the unjust.
New Testament
Pilate therefore said to Him, "You do not speak to me? Do You not know that I have authority to release You, and I have authority to crucify You?" Jesus answered, "You would have no authority over Me, unless it had been given you from above; for this reason he who delivered Me up to you has the greater sin." (John 19:10-11, NAS)
Alright, what is important to note about this passage is that Jesus did not challenge Pilate's governal right to sentence Him to death. He implicitly affirmed Pilate's right to administer capital punishment, and that the right came from God. He did not say, "You have no authority to do this," but rather - "You only have this authority because it is given to you by God." Pilate thought he held the power of Jesus' life in his own hand, but Jesus countered that Pilate would not be able to crucify Him unless God allowed him to do so.... Jesus challenged the source of Pilate's right, not the right itself.
There is no question that the state's execution of Jesus was unjust (because Jesus was innocent, and capital punishment is for the guilty), but that is no reflection on the just nature of capital punishment itself. While there may be unjust applications of a state's right to execute certain criminals for purposes of justice, it does not taint the just nature of capital punishment itself.
Now turn your attention to Paul - Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God's appointment, and the authorities that exist have been instituted by God. 13:2 So the person who resists such authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will incur judgment 13:3 (for rulers cause no fear for good conduct but for bad). Do you desire not to fear authority? Do good and you will receive its commendation, 13:4 for it is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be in fear, for it does not bear the sword in vain. It is God's servant to administer retribution on the wrongdoer. (Romans 13:1-4)
According to Paul the purpose of human government is to reward good and punish evil...
Festus, wanting to do the Jews a favor, asked Paul, "Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and be tried before me there on these charges?" 25:10 Paul replied, "I am standing before Caesar's judgment seat, where I should be tried. I have done nothing wrong to the Jews, as you also know very well. 25:11 If then I am in the wrong and have done anything that deserves death, I am not trying to escape dying, but if not one of their charges against me is true, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar!" 25:12 Then, after conferring with his council, Festus replied, "You have appealed to Caesar; to Caesar you will go!" (Acts 25:9-11)
Paul had been imprisoned for approximately two years when he stood trial before Festus. The Jews in attendance brought many accusations against him. Paul maintained his innocence from those charges, but did not object to being put to death if he had done anything that was deserving of death. Paul did not object to the possibility of capital punishment by arguing that it was unjust punishment... or in contradiction to God's design. To the contrary, he acknowledged there were crimes deserving of death, and was willing to submit to that penalty had he actually committed those crimes.
I believe this to be on topic and not directly dealing with the nature of sin but the justification of capital punishment from a "Christian" point of view.
Wow. Truly, thank you for that. Something solid to go on.
Now, about that, I believe it falls along with the "Submit to Authority" thing, because all people given authority are given it by God. Therefore, if the current authority uses capital punishment, we are not to actively oppose this. That's why I'm not actively protesting much, not even the war. The thing I cry out against the most is the misrepresentation of Christ by people, E.G. the Westboro Baptist church (the "God hates fags" people). This is also why I believe that Christianity was never meant to be a world power. I don't believe in the death penalty, but I don't protest at executions.
It appears as if Jesus only died for the sins of mankind that Trashman wanted him to die for. He should be able to pick and choose which sins people can live long enough to possibly repent for.
It's not quite mad. Recall that some sins are basically unforgiveable. Murder, for example, is a bit tough to forgive, because the person who could do it with any real meaning is kinda dead.
Once again, Christ is the chief injured party by any sin, therefore, He has chief power to forgive.
Besides that, you're forgetting that Christians believe life is an eternal thing. Death is merely a transition from one kind of life to a far better one. Thus, the dead can yet forgive, because while dead, they do not cease to exist.
Contradicting passages, FTW!
:nervous: What?! Where?!! :confused:
Now explain to me why choosing to die by suicide is an unforgivable sin but choosing to put someone in a state where they can't repent by executing them isn't?
Karajorma, we agree on something (sorta). I expect the Rapture tomorrow. lol, jk.
Blasphemy is defined as giving oneself the attributes of God. So I guess, saying you should have the power to decide when a person should live or die is blasphemy, unless you are, in fact, God. However, according to the Bible, God puts people in power, and the things they decide, they do so with His authority. So considering that, IDK if I'd really call that blasphemy.
You see, as Christians living under the Great Commission ("Go forth and make disciples of all nations..."), we pretty much have to assume that all people are able to accept Christ. However, I do believe that there are some people who just won't accept redemption, for whatever reason. And as jdjtcagle said, no one will seek God unless God has sought them out. Although, I do believe that in Christ, God has sought out every single human being.
Anyway, what I'm ultimately getting at, is it's God that decides when a person's time is up. However, I don't believe in people have a place in that.
And to add to the debate at hand (and I apologize for bringing up the A word again), any Christian who believes in the Death Penalty for the reasons jdjtcagle brought up above, but doesn't believe in abortion for the same reason, is putting in place a double standard.
That is one reason why I don't believe in either. Although I don't blow up electric chairs or abortion clinics.
-
The reason we're agreeing by and large is cause you're arguing your point based on what the bible says and I pretty much agree with your interpretation of what it says. While I might not believe that the bible is correct it's obvious Christians like yourself do. Therefore I expect to see you trying to live by the values you claim you should.
In Trashman's and jdjtcagle's case I'm not seeing that. I find it especially ironic that it's Trashman (who as a Catholic is supposed to believe in the power of the confessional as part of repentance) that is actually arguing that some people shouldn't get every chance to repent.
And that's before we get back around to the more secular arguments against it. I've still not seen anyone convince me that you can avoid executing people who are innocent (and by that I mean actually innocent, receiving a stiffer sentence than deserved due to bias or mentally ill and therefore the person who committed the crime but not actually responsible for it).
-
@G0atmaster:
1. We should all follow Christs example. And he did never turn against anyne, even those who killed him. Ergo, we shouldn't neither then.
2. Secondly murder = killing. You can argue the semantics of the possible translation all you want, but the end result is the same.
3. No, I'm not keeping score. I'm simply aware of what I did and what I didn't do.
4. I real the Old Testament, but with a fistful of salt. It's educational, but there's also some stuff that really doesn't belong there.
5. All sins are not equal. That quote you posted - I read it a few times and yet I can't understand how the hell you came up with THAT interpretation. :rolleyes:
6. As far as suicide go, I have no oppinion on it at all. It feels strange to me that it's a sin and I can't recall anything in the New Testament about it.
-----------------
@Kaj:
Chance to repent? How am I taking that chance away? If he wants to repent, he will (before the execution, which is usually several years after the sentance has been declared). If anything, when confronted with ones own death, people tend to re-evaluate their lives.
That said, I never stated the death penalty is a must...like I said, I'd only consider it a option for the most extreeme and brutal offenders.
-
In Trashman's and jdjtcagle's case I'm not seeing that. I find it especially ironic that it's Trashman (who as a Catholic is supposed to believe in the power of the confessional as part of repentance) that is actually arguing that some people shouldn't get every chance to repent.
I'm planning on answering you questions Kara, just give me time and keep the thread OPEN! :p
btw, I appreciate the way you challenge our faith and I'll tell you when I don't know the answer and must go study :-)
-
Chance to repent? How am I taking that chance away? If he wants to repent, he will (before the execution, which is usually several years after the sentance has been declared). If anything, when confronted with ones own death, people tend to re-evaluate their lives.
That said, I never stated the death penalty is a must...like I said, I'd only consider it a option for the most extreeme and brutal offenders.
Supporting the death penalty at all is unchristian is the point I'm making. Even if you claim you only support the death penalty for Stalin and Pol Pot it's still an unchristian point of view.
As for repentance how many times have you heard of people repenting 30-40 years later for crimes they committed. Claiming that facing death may make some people repent is not the issue.
-
@G0atmaster:
1. We should all follow Christs example. And he did never turn against anyne, even those who killed him. Ergo, we shouldn't neither then.
If I'm ever up for the Death Penalty, I will submit to authority. I still do not support the belief that it's the place of any human to decide where and when and how a person should be killed.
2. Secondly murder = killing. You can argue the semantics of the possible translation all you want, but the end result is the same.
murder = killing. killing =/= murder. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. How can you not understand that? Just look at how many words we have in English to describe types of killing. If your statement were true, all soldiers, all executioners, and everyone put on trial for the death of another human being would be convicted of murder.
3. No, I'm not keeping score. I'm simply aware of what I did and what I didn't do.
For what purpose then? And "that's gotta count for something" sure makes it sound like you're keeping tally.
4. I real the Old Testament, but with a fistful of salt. It's educational, but there's also some stuff that really doesn't belong there.
2 Timothy 3:16. 'Sall I gotta say.
5. All sins are not equal. That quote you posted - I read it a few times and yet I can't understand how the hell you came up with THAT interpretation. :rolleyes:
ANYTHING that is decietful or ANYTHING that is shameful will keep you from entering the city, but for Christ's blood. This drops all lies and all shameful acts to the same level of "j00 got permabanned from Heaven, d00d."
-----------------
@Kaj:
Chance to repent? How am I taking that chance away? If he wants to repent, he will (before the execution, which is usually several years after the sentance has been declared). If anything, when confronted with ones own death, people tend to re-evaluate their lives.
That said, I never stated the death penalty is a must...like I said, I'd only consider it a option for the most extreeme and brutal offenders.
So basically the people who need the forgiveness and grace of Christ the most are the ones you'd consider shortening the amount of time they has to receive it. That's not self-defeating at all... /sarcasm.
-
You seem not to understand. Any unwillingful death, except accidential, I consider murdering. War is fought by soldiers which are 'allowed' to murder. Same for executioners.
-
Well it's a good thing we have you along to define things for the rest of Humanity =P
Not to be a jerk, but the key word there is "I."
The Universe isn't dark because you have a certain definition of light that doesn't describe the stuff that allows us to see.
Murder in the first degree is defined as killing in malice.
Soldiers are not murderers. Neither is a person who kills in self-defense or in defense of another.
-
You seem not to understand. Any unwillingful death, except accidential, I consider murdering. War is fought by soldiers which are 'allowed' to murder. Same for executioners.
You might have a point of GOatmaster was coming at this from a "Thou shalt not murder" angle. However his angle to me looks more like "Thou shalt not judge the sins of others." Locking up a murderer so that he can't kill again is all you need to do for the public's protection. The death penalty goes further and says that someone's crime is so bad that they shouldn't be allowed to continue living. The point he seems to be making is that it's God's job to decide how bad sins are. Not mankind's.
I find it humorous that an atheist can see that but two of the Christians he is arguing with can't. :D
2. Secondly murder = killing. You can argue the semantics of the possible translation all you want, but the end result is the same.
In which case you've scuppered your own argument. If the commandment isn't "Thou shalt not murder" and is "Thou shalt not kill" it means that war and capitol punishment break that commandment.
Oh and while I'm at it do you really need it pointed out to you that GOatmaster is actually closer to the Vatican's position on the matter?
-
He's arguing with me? :confused:
-
Well. I think, as said before, capitol punishment should be used as a alternative to people who have to stay in jail for tens of years. If you americans and all other countrys really want to keep up capitol punishment, they should atleast do it in a respectful way, after all, it's still a human. Like a barbituriate or the use of real toxics which kill you in a matter of seconds.
It's simply more human.
On wikipedia, I also readed about a case where a executioner multiply stinged the wrong spot on the victim on purpose. Like, to make it extra long and extra painful. :doubt:
-
Supporting the death penalty at all is unchristian is the point I'm making. Even if you claim you only support the death penalty for Stalin and Pol Pot it's still an unchristian point of view.
As for repentance how many times have you heard of people repenting 30-40 years later for crimes they committed. Claiming that facing death may make some people repent is not the issue.
Yeah right... Like I'm gonna be tutored about my religion by you. :rolleyes:
Excuse me if I completely ignore you trying to dictate what I should think.
@G0atmaster
murder = killing. killing =/= murder. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. How can you not understand that? Just look at how many words we have in English to describe types of killing. If your statement were true, all soldiers, all executioners, and everyone put on trial for the death of another human being would be convicted of murder.
What I'm saying that either we are arguing semantics. Murder is non-government sanctioned killing. Basicely, thats it. So killing is esentially murder, the only difference is if someone is gonna say it was legal.
I would like it if it were no killing..ever.
It's clear we, the humanity, have exceptions. If you admit exceptions exist then who's to say this isn't a exception too?
For what purpose then? And "that's gotta count for something" sure makes it sound like you're keeping tally.
For the purpose of having a good memory, that's why. And yes, I do very much believe not all sins are equal.
ANYTHING that is decietful or ANYTHING that is shameful will keep you from entering the city, but for Christ's blood. This drops all lies and all shameful acts to the same level of "j00 got permabanned from Heaven, d00d."
I don't see it. I'm interpreting that passage differently. Too bad.
-
Yeah right... Like I'm gonna be tutored about my religion by you. :rolleyes:
Excuse me if I completely ignore you trying to dictate what I should think.
The texts and philosophical traditions of your religion aren't exactly an institutional secret. We all have access to the same information whether or not we call ourselves Christians, which means we're all entitled to take a hermeneutical crack at it.
-
And a good chunk of it is open to interpretation.. and mine and yours don't have to fit.
It's the official interpretation of the Church you say? Well, I never did say I was a perfect Christian, did I? I try, but in a few cases I'm not that keen on following everything to the letter.
Pardoning a child killer in not in me. Everything els I can stand. If that makes me burn in Hell then so be it. At least I'll have a lot of company.
-
Yeah right... Like I'm gonna be tutored about my religion by you. :rolleyes:
Excuse me if I completely ignore you trying to dictate what I should think.
When I say you're wrong about Catholicism you can claim I don't know Christianity. But it takes a very special kind of arrogance to claim that you know more about it than the Pope.
-
Supporting the death penalty at all is unchristian is the point I'm making. Even if you claim you only support the death penalty for Stalin and Pol Pot it's still an unchristian point of view.
As for repentance how many times have you heard of people repenting 30-40 years later for crimes they committed. Claiming that facing death may make some people repent is not the issue.
Yeah right... Like I'm gonna be tutored about my religion by you. :rolleyes:
Excuse me if I completely ignore you trying to dictate what I should think.
From what I've read here, Kara has a better understanding of Christianity than you do...
@G0atmaster
murder = killing. killing =/= murder. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. How can you not understand that? Just look at how many words we have in English to describe types of killing. If your statement were true, all soldiers, all executioners, and everyone put on trial for the death of another human being would be convicted of murder.
What I'm saying that either we are arguing semantics. Murder is non-government sanctioned killing. Basicely, thats it. So killing is esentially murder, the only difference is if someone is gonna say it was legal.
I would like it if it were no killing..ever.
It's clear we, the humanity, have exceptions. If you admit exceptions exist then who's to say this isn't a exception too?
So you are saying that governments have the God-given ability to judge when it's right to kill people or not?
For what purpose then? And "that's gotta count for something" sure makes it sound like you're keeping tally.
For the purpose of having a good memory, that's why. And yes, I do very much believe not all sins are equal.
No idea what's going on here, so I'm not gonna say anything :)
ANYTHING that is decietful or ANYTHING that is shameful will keep you from entering the city, but for Christ's blood. This drops all lies and all shameful acts to the same level of "j00 got permabanned from Heaven, d00d."
I don't see it. I'm interpreting that passage differently. Too bad.
Here neither
-
FYI - I'm discussing this for discussions sake, and trying to keep religion out of this (which has failed b.t.w.)
-
He's arguing with me? :confused:
-
Given that you seem to hold diametrically opposite views on whether the death penalty is valid for Christians I'd say he is. Even if not directly.
-
Supporting the death penalty at all is unchristian is the point I'm making. Even if you claim you only support the death penalty for Stalin and Pol Pot it's still an unchristian point of view.
As for repentance how many times have you heard of people repenting 30-40 years later for crimes they committed. Claiming that facing death may make some people repent is not the issue.
Yeah right... Like I'm gonna be tutored about my religion by you. :rolleyes:
Excuse me if I completely ignore you trying to dictate what I should think.
Based on what I've seen and read, better than him to try and learn it from you, sir.
@G0atmaster
murder = killing. killing =/= murder. All murder is killing. Not all killing is murder. How can you not understand that? Just look at how many words we have in English to describe types of killing. If your statement were true, all soldiers, all executioners, and everyone put on trial for the death of another human being would be convicted of murder.
What I'm saying that either we are arguing semantics. Murder is non-government sanctioned killing. Basicely, thats it. So killing is esentially murder, the only difference is if someone is gonna say it was legal.
I would like it if it were no killing..ever.
It's clear we, the humanity, have exceptions. If you admit exceptions exist then who's to say this isn't a exception too?
There are no exceptions when it comes to God. He follows all His own rules to the letter. He must if He is to be perfect. Even the Miracles talked about in the Bible followed the laws of the Universe. The food Christ used to feed the 5000 indeed nourished them. The wine Christ made from water did indeed make the people drunk. The fire God sent down to Elijah did indeed burn.
I too would like it if there were no more killing. But the fact remains that we are not merely arguing semantics. Self-defense is not government-sanctioned killing, yet it is not murder. Driving someone over in your car because you're drunk or not paying attention or asleep is not murder.
This is getting beyond frustrating. 2 Peter Chapter 2. Read it, Trashman, and learn from it.
For what purpose then? And "that's gotta count for something" sure makes it sound like you're keeping tally.
For the purpose of having a good memory, that's why. And yes, I do very much believe not all sins are equal.
So are you about to say that Christ's blood isn't enough to atone for all sin? Who are you to put limits on the amazingness of God's grace? Back your belief that not all sins are equal with some scripture, please. I'm interested in reading where you get your twisted ideas of Sin and forgiveness..
ANYTHING that is decietful or ANYTHING that is shameful will keep you from entering the city, but for Christ's blood. This drops all lies and all shameful acts to the same level of "j00 got permabanned from Heaven, d00d."
I don't see it. I'm interpreting that passage differently. Too bad.
There is no interpreting that passage differently, dude. It says what it says and that's all here is to the matter.
"Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life." -That's in Revelation, talking about entering Heaven.
Nothing impure. That's not open to interpretation. "Anyone" is not open to interpretation. "Shameful" and "deceitful" are not open to interpretation. "Nothing impure will ever enter it" is not open to interpretation. These are all absolute and crystal clear phrases. If you're gonna argue about interpretations of Scripture, try picking a passage that's not as precisely worded.
And it is impossible to keep your faith out of matters that are governed largely by faith, as the entire lives of so-called "christians" should be.
-
Given that you seem to hold diametrically opposite views on whether the death penalty is valid for Christians I'd say he is. Even if not directly.
I held true that the bible does teach capital punishment. Doesn't he agree with that? From what I can tell he basically said he doesn't agree with the concept of being pro-life and agree with the death penalty.
Am I missing something... Goat where am I wrong?
-
Okay, based on what I understand the laws from the Old Testament were superseded by the new covenant with Jesus and therefore the punishments detailed within don't apply to Christians.
That leaves you on much shakier ground.
You pointed out that Jesus didn't challenge Pilate's right to crucify him. Why would he? He'd already decided to die for the sins of mankind. What did you suggest he should do in order to do that if not be crucified? What you claim is implicit support for capitol punishment could just as likely be pointing out that Pilate only has the authority to execute him because God has already decided that Jesus should die for mankind's sins.
Paul on the other hand could easily have been talking about the legal rather than moral right of the Romans to execute him. Which is what GOatmaster was referring to in his reply to you on the subject.
-
It always seemed to me that the story of the Crucifixion was one of protest at state sanctioned execution. Here is the most innocent of men being put to death because of the politics of men!
-
When I say you're wrong about Catholicism you can claim I don't know Christianity. But it takes a very special kind of arrogance to claim that you know more about it than the Pope.
And when did I say that? Religion is more than reading a old book, and you sure as hell ain't the Pope. I know very well what the Churches stances on things are and what my religion sez.
-----------------------
There are no exceptions when it comes to God.
Oh? Then why does it say (as you say yourself) "Thou shall not MURDER."? If there were no exception it would say "Thou shall not kill".
Speaking of which, why are you continually dragging religion into it? The Death Penalty is a government determined thing. Sure, you can say what your religion states about that, but a government is supposed to be secular, so capital punishment should be discussed as such.
There is no interpreting that passage differently, dude. It says what it says and that's all here is to the matter.
As I say they very much is. God absolves of all sins, therefore no one enters heaven with a sin...but that doesn't mean all sins are equal.
And I say again - tone it down guys. You're reading way much into this. Chill.
-
Somewhat right, somewhat not, Karajorma. My point in my responce to JD was that the Bible does indeed say we should submit to authority because God put authority figures in power, which seemed to be the basis of his argument for the death penalty. My response basically said, "yes, but you can say the same about abortion." The current authority of the United States states that both abortion and the death penalty are legal. Therefore, if that is the basis of your argument, you can't support one and not the other if you're a Christian living in the United States.
There are no exceptions when it comes to God.
Oh? Then why does it say (as you say yourself) "Thou shall not MURDER."? If there were no exception it would say "Thou shall not kill".
The law is "Do not Murder," therefore, this not an exception to the law. The way the law is defined is not and cannot be an exception to the very law defined! There is no law that says "Do not kill, period," therefore, the law that says "do not murder" is not an exception to the law "Do not kill," because there is no such law.
Speaking of which, why are you continually dragging religion into it? The Death Penalty is a government determined thing. Sure, you can say what your religion states about that, but a government is supposed to be secular, so capital punishment should be discussed as such.
I give you the quote from the original, topic-starting post:
Hey, I was just wondering t other people on this forum thought about Capital Punishment.
As you'll note, the topic asked what others thought about Capital Punishment. My thoughts on this subject are governed by my belief in God, as are many things.
There is no interpreting that passage differently, dude. It says what it says and that's all here is to the matter.
As I say they very much is. God absolves of all sins, therefore no one enters heaven with a sin...but that doesn't mean all sins are equal.
What do you mean by the sentence, "As I say they very much is?"
Also, how can you say there is such a thing as a "small" or "lesser" sin if they ALL would keep you from the presence of God?
-
And when did I say that? Religion is more than reading a old book, and you sure as hell ain't the Pope. I know very well what the Churches stances on things are and what my religion sez.
This should be good for a laugh. What is it your religion sez then?
I'll hear your side and then prove exactly how full of **** you are by linking to the Holy See site.
-
The law is "Do not Murder," therefore, this not an exception to the law. The way the law is defined is not and cannot be an exception to the very law defined! There is no law that says "Do not kill, period," therefore, the law that says "do not murder" is not an exception to the law "Do not kill," because there is no such law.
And yet what constitues for murder is up for debate...
What do you mean by the sentence, "As I say they very much is?"
Also, how can you say there is such a thing as a "small" or "lesser" sin if they ALL would keep you from the presence of God?
Hell. Think it over. Or purgatory. Will I spend the same ammount of time there for killing a baby in cold blood and stealing a candy?
Speaking of which, every priest I talked to seems ot agree with me on this matter. :rolleyes:
This should be good for a laugh. What is it your religion sez then?
Oh, you misunderstood. I do very well know my religion and the stances of the Church. However I said that *I* have my doubts about a few..I don't have to agree with everything to the letter 100%.
-
I don't have to agree with everything to the letter 100%.
Actually you do. I mean, it's technically inappropriate to pick and choose which aspects of a faith you are going to accept as truth or not.
-
I'm not denying anything. I just might not follow it trough 100%.
It's sorta like promising I'll never lie again. I can try, but I know that's a promise I have practicely 0 chance of keeping.
-
The law is "Do not Murder," therefore, this not an exception to the law. The way the law is defined is not and cannot be an exception to the very law defined! There is no law that says "Do not kill, period," therefore, the law that says "do not murder" is not an exception to the law "Do not kill," because there is no such law.
And yet what constitues for murder is up for debate...
It is not either! Didn't you read above? I posted the definition of first-degree murder plainly enough for you to see! Sheesh, what is it with you trying to "reinterpret" absolute things!?
What do you mean by the sentence, "As I say they very much is?"
Also, how can you say there is such a thing as a "small" or "lesser" sin if they ALL would keep you from the presence of God?
Hell. Think it over. Or purgatory. Will I spend the same ammount of time there for killing a baby in cold blood and stealing a candy?
Speaking of which, every priest I talked to seems ot agree with me on this matter. :rolleyes:
Oh, here we go... Show me a SINGLE piece of Scripture that speaks a SINGLE word on Purgatory, and I will freaking find a way to email you a candybar. Buying "Purgatory candles" and burning them to lessen your loved ones' time in Purgatory is rubbish. Paying the Catholic Church for pennance to lessen your time and the time of your loved ones in Purgatory is rubbish. Not knowing the doctrine you claim to believe and the doctrine the church you follow claims to believe is how you, my friend, allow yourself to be lied to and get taken advantage of. When it comes to the Bible, the idea of Purgatory balderdash. Again, 2 Peter 2.
This should be good for a laugh. What is it your religion sez then?
Oh, you misunderstood. I do very well know my religion and the stances of the Church. However I said that *I* have my doubts about a few..I don't have to agree with everything to the letter 100%.
This sort of pick-and-choose Christianity is what leads to fanaticism and stuff being blowed up. It also leads to very weak faith, and doctrinal contradictions.
-
Murder is the taking of another human being's life, usually premeditated. That usually gets a second- or first-degree murder in most legal systems.
Manslaughter is the taking of another human being's life, usually unintentionally or without control of your emotions. Examples: vehicular manslaughter or reckless homicide.
Killing someone who has a gun pointed at you or a fellow soldier in combat is obeying a lawful order. Shooting up Iraqi villages and executing civilians is a warcrime and every soldier in the US military has an obligation to disobey such an order and report it up their chain of command.
Killing in self-defense can either lessen a sentence or get an acquittal for the action. You as a human being have a right to your life, liberty, and property. This is the basis for the patents system, and why theft is just as illegal as murder. You have a right to protest legislation that aims to take your liberty, and you have the right to defend your life.
Honestly, when I see a religious "justification" for state-sponsored execution or any murder, I dismiss it as some of the most backwards barbarism I've ever heard. All Middle Eastern religions (hell, nearly all religions) teach three basic things:
1. Don't be a dickhead to other people.
2. Don't be a douchebag to other people.
3. Be nice to everyone.
The other 99% of stuff in the Bible, Torah, Hadith, Koran, etc. is all just bull**** added in by people later that starts wars and "justifies" racism, homophobia, and general douchebaggery. We really could be better off without it all.
Religion should be your own personal connection with a higher power. It should never be about telling other people how to live their lives.
Basically, all I see here is people arguing and *****ing over the bull**** parts of the Bible. And before you say it, this is not me having a pick and choose approach to Christianity. This is Christianity. Jesus died for my sins, and told me not to be a douchebag to others. I acknowledge and follow that.
I don't believe God told me to hate homosexuals or believe state-sponsored execution is right. Believe me, I have my non-religious reasons for supporting capital punishment.
Sentencing someone to death should never, ever, ever, ever have even the remote justification of "God said it was OK."
-
I don't believe God told me to hate homosexuals [...].
Please point to the verse where Jesus said to hate homosexuals anyone. :rolleyes:
-
Last I checked, the "sexually immoral" were some of those going into John's lake of fire. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is also a favorite.
Did Jesus say it? No, and I never said Jesus did. There's plenty of Old Testament God Christians like to believe in.
Unfortunately, Old Testament God is vengeful God, destroying whole cities with fire, allowing Jerusalem to fall to the Babylonians, letting loose venomous snakes among the Hebrews in the wilderness, etc etc etc. Is there forgiving God in the Old Testament? Yes, and plenty of, but who besides medical professionals remembers the bronze snake?
Like I said: Love your neighbor as yourself. That's all Christianity, Judaism, and Islam need to be. The rest is bullcrap.
-
Like I said: Love your neighbor as yourself. That's all Christianity, Judaism, and Islam need to be. The rest is bullcrap.
But... But... But... How else are we supposed to justify our petty prejudices and hatreds? You can't seriously expect us all to admit openly how racist, sexist and homophobic we are. That would make us wrong. We're just doing what God tells us to do, hating who He tells us to hate. It's not us, it's Him!
-
I think religion is actually pretty peripheral in contemporary American racism. We've moved on to justifying it by pretending it doesn't exist.
Actually that's true of sexism as well.
-
Somewhat right, somewhat not, Karajorma. My point in my responce to JD was that the Bible does indeed say we should submit to authority because God put authority figures in power, which seemed to be the basis of his argument for the death penalty. My response basically said, "yes, but you can say the same about abortion." The current authority of the United States states that both abortion and the death penalty are legal. Therefore, if that is the basis of your argument, you can't support one and not the other if you're a Christian living in the United States.
I knew I was on par with you the whole time, I couldn't understand where Kara was saying I was against you... thanks for clearing that up
It seems that this thread is gone... no rational arguments - just "fast-food" religion for the most part which in turn leads to Christian bashing
Anyway, good luck to you... but people will believe what they feel is right and it is apparent that no thought is being put into the fact (what if I'm wrong?)
So sorry again for the confusion :)
-
I'd rather this didn't become a debate on Christianity as a whole. So far people are doing a reasonable job of not straying too far from the original topic.
Oh, you misunderstood. I do very well know my religion and the stances of the Church. However I said that *I* have my doubts about a few..I don't have to agree with everything to the letter 100%.
I'm not denying anything. I just might not follow it trough 100%.
The whole position of the Catholic church on the matter is based on the sanctity of life. You can't just doubt a little bit of the sanctity of life. You either believe it or don't believe it. You can't say "all life is sacred, except for murders, rapists and other people I don't like." That's not a small disagreement with the position of the Vatican. By saying that ANY life isn't sacred you deny the entire position of the church on the matter.
And again I'll point out that it takes a very special kind of arrogance for a Catholic to say "I understand Catholicism better than the Pope does cause I'm right and he is wrong."
-
It is not either! Didn't you read above? I posted the definition of first-degree murder plainly enough for you to see! Sheesh, what is it with you trying to "reinterpret" absolute things!?
That's not a Bible's definition of murder (actually, I don't recall there being a definition about it in the Bible). Since you're the one arguing for the religious POV, the definitions accepted by government institutions and laws are irrelevant, aren't they?
Oh, here we go... Show me a SINGLE piece of Scripture that speaks a SINGLE word on Purgatory, and I will freaking find a way to email you a candybar. Buying "Purgatory candles" and burning them to lessen your loved ones' time in Purgatory is rubbish. Paying the Catholic Church for pennance to lessen your time and the time of your loved ones in Purgatory is rubbish. Not knowing the doctrine you claim to believe and the doctrine the church you follow claims to believe is how you, my friend, allow yourself to be lied to and get taken advantage of. When it comes to the Bible, the idea of Purgatory balderdash. Again, 2 Peter 2.
Yeah, I know the concept of purgatory has been removed recently from official Church doctrine. I just put it in to be on the safe side.
That still doesn't prove anything, sorry. My point of an alternate interpretation still stands.
Speaking of which, I repeat - CHILL.
I'm discussing this purely because it's an interesting topic to discuss, NOT because I'm trying to prove something or expect a specific result. I'm just bored and this seems like a good way to kill time (not in the modding mood atm). So bring it down a notch.
-
Just FYI - I myself consider a soldier going into another country and killing the soldeirs defending it murder.
As long as you are defending your own and your friends I can understand and say it was self-defense. but as soon as you cross that border you're the attacker and the other guy is a defender. As a soldier you got no buisness invading another country.
That's why I'd be a terrible soldier - I would be to prone to disobeying orders. :p
The whole position of the Catholic church on the matter is based on the sanctity of life. You can't just doubt a little bit of the sanctity of life. You either believe it or don't believe it. You can't say "all life is sacred, except for murders, rapists and other people I don't like." That's not a small disagreement with the position of the Vatican. By saying that ANY life isn't sacred you deny the entire position of the church on the matter.
Oh, I do believe all life is sacred.
But we still kill. To eat, to defend or on some other shaky grounds.
Like I said again, don't give me any lectures. You might think you know all there is to know about my religion or what it means to be or how it should be. You don't.
And please, read the last thing I said to G0atmaster in the previous post. It might put some things into perspective.
-
If you truly believe that all life is sacred why are you calling for an increase in the death penalty? Why add MORE shaky reasons for killing people?
-
I think they might be considered two different areas, Punishment and regional defense, however i believe that a strong offense is the best defense so i disagree with >> [quote ]
but as soon as you cross that border you're the attacker and the other guy is a defender. As a soldier you got no buisness invading another country.
As i said before, don't do the crime if you can't take the punishment.
-
If you truly believe that all life is sacred why are you calling for an increase in the death penalty? Why add MORE shaky reasons for killing people?
I'm not calling for an increase in anything. I'm not advocating anything. I'm just discussing for discussions sake.
-
Fine, let's get rid of your usual flim-flam. What do you think should be Croatia's position on the death penalty? From what I currently understand they don't have it and if they did they'd have to get rid of it for EU membership anyway.
So if you say anything other than absolutely no death penalty under any circumstances you're calling for an increase.
-
Honest answer? Don't care. Well, not really. I wish there was some better way to deal with things.
If death penalty were to be introduced in Croatia? I'd be either against it or I wouldn't even bother with it. Depends on a lot of things.
-
Wait, so do you support the death penalty or not? You're flipflopping here.
-
What are you having trouble understanding?
I won't call for it, but if it's put in I won't object either (up to a point. Depends how it's implemented in the legal system).
-
So instead you just don't care?
That's honestly worse, IMO. But then again, I tend to prefer absolutes rather than gray area anyway.
-
What are you having trouble understanding?
I won't call for it, but if it's put in I won't object either (up to a point. Depends how it's implemented in the legal system).
So in other words you believe that the death penalty is a valid sentence for crimes if the court hands one down even though the Vatican says the exact opposite on the matter?
-
Interesting thread...
I have the same opinion of Cesare Beccaria, with some exceptions(I want something moderate, but still present).
Only "ha-hem" countries like China and Iran fully support death penalty. European countries(mostly thanks to Italy, I think) changed their opinion in the past 30 years. In the US people are realizing that death penalty isn't a deterrent and costs too much. Things are rapidly changing.
At this point I would like to discuss a FreeSpace related aspect of the matter...
-
It is not either! Didn't you read above? I posted the definition of first-degree murder plainly enough for you to see! Sheesh, what is it with you trying to "reinterpret" absolute things!?
That's not a Bible's definition of murder (actually, I don't recall there being a definition about it in the Bible). Since you're the one arguing for the religious POV, the definitions accepted by government institutions and laws are irrelevant, aren't they?
Going by Christ's own words: "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
FYI, "Raca" is an Aramaic term of contempt.
Based on that, He's basically saying if you're angry at someone, it's equivocal to murder. Which means that murder and hatred go hand in hand.
Also, in Numbers 35:16-25, it lists conditions for murder and killings other than murder:
" 'If a man strikes someone with an iron object so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or if anyone has a stone in his hand that could kill, and he strikes someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. Or if anyone has a wooden object in his hand that could kill, and he hits someone so that he dies, he is a murderer; the murderer shall be put to death. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death; when he meets him, he shall put him to death. If anyone with malice aforethought shoves another or throws something at him intentionally so that he dies or if in hostility he hits him with his fist so that he dies, that person shall be put to death; he is a murderer. The avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him.
" 'But if without hostility someone suddenly shoves another or throws something at him unintentionally or, without seeing him, drops a stone on him that could kill him, and he dies, then since he was not his enemy and he did not intend to harm him, the assembly must judge between him and the avenger of blood according to these regulations.
Again, we see that hostility and demonstrated intent is key. It talks about using your fists with "malice aforethought," and in the places it doesn't say "malice aforethought" it makes it very clear that the use of a deadly weapon is required for it to be considered murder. And IDK about you, but I would think someone coming at me with a deadly weapon demonstrates his intent and desire to do me harm. Note, these were laws for day-to-day life in the towns. These were not talking about battle or executions. There are completely different sets of Mosaic laws that talk about that.
Oh, here we go... Show me a SINGLE piece of Scripture that speaks a SINGLE word on Purgatory, and I will freaking find a way to email you a candybar. Buying "Purgatory candles" and burning them to lessen your loved ones' time in Purgatory is rubbish. Paying the Catholic Church for pennance to lessen your time and the time of your loved ones in Purgatory is rubbish. Not knowing the doctrine you claim to believe and the doctrine the church you follow claims to believe is how you, my friend, allow yourself to be lied to and get taken advantage of. When it comes to the Bible, the idea of Purgatory balderdash. Again, 2 Peter 2.
Yeah, I know the concept of purgatory has been removed recently from official Church doctrine. I just put it in to be on the safe side.
That still doesn't prove anything, sorry. My point of an alternate interpretation still stands.
Recently? Dude, the only places in any church literature or whatever that Purgatory has ever been mentioned, as far as I know, are in one of the Apocryphal books, Maccabees I think, it gets a very small mention, and in the Divine Comedy, neither of which had any standing of being Inspired works. Ask your priest to show you any Scriptural evidence of Purgatory. Anyway, if the official Church's stance on Purgatory and the Scriptural pieces regarding it has changed, why bring it up at all? Unless you believe in it. To which I'd ask, on what grounds? On what basis?
Speaking of which, I repeat - CHILL.
I'm discussing this purely because it's an interesting topic to discuss, NOT because I'm trying to prove something or expect a specific result. I'm just bored and this seems like a good way to kill time (not in the modding mood atm). So bring it down a notch.
That makes one of us. Sorry if I sound a little heated. I'm trying my best at staying gently rebuking, but complete and utter misrepresentations of Christianity and Christ by a professing Christian is something that really sets me off. And I am, in fact, trying to correct that. And when you say things like treating people nicely on Earth so they will be miserable in the afterlife, and debating with yourself whether or not killing them or letting them live in prison would get them the worst score in the afterlife shows me that you either don't know much about what you claim to believe, or that you aren't truly a follower of Christ. And if THAT'S the case, I would want to bring that out, because I don't want your words which I mentioned representing my God to the non-Christians of this message board, because they certainly don't.
Just FYI - I myself consider a soldier going into another country and killing the soldiers defending it murder.
As long as you are defending your own and your friends I can understand and say it was self-defense. but as soon as you cross that border you're the attacker and the other guy is a defender. As a soldier you got no buisness invading another country.
That's why I'd be a terrible soldier - I would be to prone to disobeying orders. :p
Ok, so what about defending your country across foreign borders? E.G. if they're threatening to attack.
The whole position of the Catholic church on the matter is based on the sanctity of life. You can't just doubt a little bit of the sanctity of life. You either believe it or don't believe it. You can't say "all life is sacred, except for murders, rapists and other people I don't like." That's not a small disagreement with the position of the Vatican. By saying that ANY life isn't sacred you deny the entire position of the church on the matter.
Oh, I do believe all life is sacred.
But we still kill. To eat, to defend or on some other shaky grounds.
Like I said again, don't give me any lectures. You might think you know all there is to know about my religion or what it means to be or how it should be. You don't.
And please, read the last thing I said to G0atmaster in the previous post. It might put some things into perspective.
So basically instead of answering the topic and stating what you believe on the subject, you're arguing multiple sides for the sake of continuing the debate? Do I understand that correctly?
and JD, just curious as to what your response was to my submitting to authorities on more than just capital punishment thing.
-
Well I'm not sure what your asking of me, but let me try and explain what I think you mean. :-P
First and foremost let me give you a short rundown on what I believe...
I believe that the bible is the literal word of God...
Romans 3:4
4 May it never be! Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, as it is written,
"THAT YOU MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS,
AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED."
2 Peter 1:20-21
20But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
I believe that truth can be known and that doctrine is very important...
1 Timothy 4:16
16 Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine. Continue in them, for in doing this you will save both yourself and those who hear you.
2 Timothy 4:1-4
1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at[a] His appearing and His kingdom: 2 Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
I believe you'll recognize true Christians by their fruits... :)
Matthew 7:20-23
20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.
21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’
I believe that you must submit to the law of the land, that was one of Jesus big messages... Let me briefly explain, (I'm tired) during Christ's time people were looking for a Messiah that would deliver them from the oppression of the Romans and to establish Israel as a government once again. Christ instead preached to embrace the romans, with famous sayings such as - "Give to Caesar what belongs to him" when referring to paying taxes, or "if your enemy strikes you, give him the other cheek" The Jews were infuriated by this teaching. Jesus was to bring a spiritual kingdom until the second coming where He would set up New Jerusalem and the New Earth.
I don't agree with the death penalty (and due to the nature of my faith I trust God to take care of those wrongly accused) since we as a society has evolved socially and technologically there is no more a government with capital punishment as there was in the past.
The Old Testament law is fulfilled rather than abolished and the government God set up for Israel in the Old Testament was an effective method of securing the safety of it's citizens with capital punishment... similar beliefs were also viewed on disease quarantine, which is pretty harsh now days.
But whatever our government does, it's our responsibility to obey the laws of the land until tribulation, whenever that is... So whether I like it or not, I'm respecting their decision and the examples that Christ has laid down for us.
2 Timothy 2:15
15 Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
-
I totally and completely agree with what you've said here.
-
Going by Christ's own words: "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' 22But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
FYI, "Raca" is an Aramaic term of contempt.
Based on that, He's basically saying if you're angry at someone, it's equivocal to murder. Which means that murder and hatred go hand in hand.
And again, I don't agree with that interpretation. That passage is saying that you will answer and be hel accountable for every sin/crime, big or small. It doesn't say murder and insulting are equal.
Recently? Dude, the only places in any church literature or whatever that Purgatory has ever been mentioned, as far as I know, are in one of the Apocryphal books, Maccabees I think, it gets a very small mention, and in the Divine Comedy, neither of which had any standing of being Inspired works. Ask your priest to show you any Scriptural evidence of Purgatory. Anyway, if the official Church's stance on Purgatory and the Scriptural pieces regarding it has changed, why bring it up at all? Unless you believe in it. To which I'd ask, on what grounds? On what basis?
Is there a Purgatory? I have no clue. I don't belive in it myself, at least not in the context it's normally used.
IIRC, for some time the church claimed that dead babies go to purgatory, but that interpretation has been changed, and by JP II no less. IIRC.
That makes one of us. Sorry if I sound a little heated. I'm trying my best at staying gently rebuking, but complete and utter misrepresentations of Christianity and Christ by a professing Christian is something that really sets me off. And I am, in fact, trying to correct that. And when you say things like treating people nicely on Earth so they will be miserable in the afterlife, and debating with yourself whether or not killing them or letting them live in prison would get them the worst score in the afterlife shows me that you either don't know much about what you claim to believe, or that you aren't truly a follower of Christ. And if THAT'S the case, I would want to bring that out, because I don't want your words which I mentioned representing my God to the non-Christians of this message board, because they certainly don't.
That's the problem with interpretations. People don't see eye to eye about everything, not even within a small unified group. And I do have quite a ...how should I put it..colorful way of expressing myself. Not to mention that my mind works in mysterious ways :P
Speaking of which, there are very few persons I would feel comfortable telling people about my religion too. Not purely for the content given, but the delivery also.
Ok, so what about defending your country across foreign borders? E.G. if they're threatening to attack.
Still murder. Have they attacked you? Are they still in their country? Once they cross the border they are free game - otherwise? No.
You must not forget that soldiers on both sides are led to believe that the other side is "teh evil", that they will shoot on sight and that you MUST shoot them first. And let's not forget the whole "following your orders bit". Given a proper choice, I doubt any one of those soldier would actually want to kill.
That's why I detest war.
So basically instead of answering the topic and stating what you believe on the subject, you're arguing multiple sides for the sake of continuing the debate? Do I understand that correctly?
Correct. I like to look at things from various angles. Tends to give you a better picture. If nothing else it's fun, or at least a good mental excercise. There's nothing like trying to defend two completely different viewpoints at the same time ;7
-
You do know that starting arguments for your own amusement is the very definition of trolling, right?
-
Lies. This is an argument. I don't HAVE to stick strictly to any side of the debate. All my posts are strictly on-topic.
Really kaj, how can you be a admin if you don't know what trolling is? :rolleyes:
-
You are supposed to actually state what your position in the debate is. If you're playing devil's advocate you should say so. The original question was what you think about capitol punishment. Not what positions you can invent in order to cause an argument.
And what makes it especially annoying is that you simply dance from one position to another without actually even acknowledging you've changed position when you do it. That's NOT what you do in a debate. If you change positions you really should tell people that you're doing it or else things get very confusing.
The simple fact is that a few people are starting to think you get into these debates to troll and you've basically come within a gnat's bollock of saying that you are.
Next time I catch you changing positions mid-debate without telling anyone or claiming that you support multiple or no positions after 8 pages of you supporting only one side of an argument I'm monkeying you for a week for trolling. If you can't be bothered to debate in a reasonable manner you're not debating at all.
-
Again, I say again:
Capital = capitus = head.
Capitol = where Congress meets.
Capital punishment is ending someone's life. Capitol punishment is forcing someone to sit through a bill reading.
-
:lol: I think you just like to hear yoursef nuclear
-
Damnit! I've already swapped at least once. You and Admiral Stones fight it out amongst yourselves and I'll use which ever one the pair of you can decide on. :p
Well. I think, as said before, capitol punishment should be used as a alternative to people who have to stay in jail for tens of years.
-
Sheesh, spelling Nazi here.
Going by Christ's own words: "You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.' But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, 'Raca,' is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, 'You fool!' will be in danger of the fire of hell.
FYI, "Raca" is an Aramaic term of contempt.
Based on that, He's basically saying if you're angry at someone, it's equivocal to murder. Which means that murder and hatred go hand in hand.
And again, I don't agree with that interpretation. That passage is saying that you will answer and be hel accountable for every sin/crime, big or small. It doesn't say murder and insulting are equal.
How does that leave it open to interpretation? The same punishment for murder is bestowed upon those that are angry with their neighbors. Do you not see that there in the text?
Recently? Dude, the only places in any church literature or whatever that Purgatory has ever been mentioned, as far as I know, are in one of the Apocryphal books, Maccabees I think, it gets a very small mention, and in the Divine Comedy, neither of which had any standing of being Inspired works. Ask your priest to show you any Scriptural evidence of Purgatory. Anyway, if the official Church's stance on Purgatory and the Scriptural pieces regarding it has changed, why bring it up at all? Unless you believe in it. To which I'd ask, on what grounds? On what basis?
Is there a Purgatory? I have no clue. I don't belive in it myself, at least not in the context it's normally used.
IIRC, for some time the church claimed that dead babies go to purgatory, but that interpretation has been changed, and by JP II no less. IIRC.
Then why the HECK would you even bring it up? Why would you use something you don't believe in to try and justify your argument?
That makes one of us. Sorry if I sound a little heated. I'm trying my best at staying gently rebuking, but complete and utter misrepresentations of Christianity and Christ by a professing Christian is something that really sets me off. And I am, in fact, trying to correct that. And when you say things like treating people nicely on Earth so they will be miserable in the afterlife, and debating with yourself whether or not killing them or letting them live in prison would get them the worst score in the afterlife shows me that you either don't know much about what you claim to believe, or that you aren't truly a follower of Christ. And if THAT'S the case, I would want to bring that out, because I don't want your words which I mentioned representing my God to the non-Christians of this message board, because they certainly don't.
That's the problem with interpretations. People don't see eye to eye about everything, not even within a small unified group. And I do have quite a ...how should I put it..colorful way of expressing myself. Not to mention that my mind works in mysterious ways :P
Speaking of which, there are very few persons I would feel comfortable telling people about my religion too. Not purely for the content given, but the delivery also.
IDK, pretty much all eight Christians I've spoken to about sin being equal since this topic started pretty much agree with me.
Ok, so what about defending your country across foreign borders? E.G. if they're threatening to attack.
Still murder. Have they attacked you? Are they still in their country? Once they cross the border they are free game - otherwise? No.
You must not forget that soldiers on both sides are led to believe that the other side is "teh evil", that they will shoot on sight and that you MUST shoot them first. And let's not forget the whole "following your orders bit". Given a proper choice, I doubt any one of those soldier would actually want to kill.
That's why I detest war.
I agree here.
So basically instead of answering the topic and stating what you believe on the subject, you're arguing multiple sides for the sake of continuing the debate? Do I understand that correctly?
Correct. I like to look at things from various angles. Tends to give you a better picture. If nothing else it's fun, or at least a good mental excercise. There's nothing like trying to defend two completely different viewpoints at the same time ;7
Kara already took this one.
-
firing squad...have a few million packs of cigarettes and start at Murder 1 then end when you actually finish.
-
If the United Scroles of Antharkazam (whatever) ultimately want to keep up capitol punishment, they could atleast feature a honorable method of execution.
Like firing squad or cyanide.
-
How does that leave it open to interpretation? The same punishment for murder is bestowed upon those that are angry with their neighbors. Do you not see that there in the text?
I'll give an (bad) example.
You can't get into congress if you're found guilty of mass murder. You can't get into congress if you're found guilty on forgery.
Both will get you out of congress. Will you serve the same jail time for both?
The passage states that no one with sin will enter before God. Ergo, God will remove the sins of those that come before him. You steal a candy and die. I murder a baby and die. God removes your sins and you stand before him. God doesn't remove mine and I burn in hell.
Comprende, amigo?
IDK, pretty much all eight Christians I've spoken to about sin being equal since this topic started pretty much agree with me.
And how many of them were actually priests who studied in Vatican (like my uncle)?
-
Ah, the ever familiar appeal to (nebulous) authority. Ask him about whether he agrees with you on whether the Vatican's position on the death penalty is wrong while you're at it.
Since we can't voir dire your witness let's at least see if he's as big an iconoclast as you are before assuming he's any kind of authority worth listening to.
-
My uncle is as good a man you can find these days. He's a priests priest - you don't have many like him these days. In that regard I consider myself lucky.
Heck, the Pope and him are the only two people I feel I can really look up to.
Haven't seen him in the last few months tough. I can ask the local priest (also a very good man) since I'm going tomorrow on Choir rehearsals anyway.
-
How does that leave it open to interpretation? The same punishment for murder is bestowed upon those that are angry with their neighbors. Do you not see that there in the text?
I'll give an (bad) example.
You can't get into congress if you're found guilty of mass murder. You can't get into congress if you're found guilty on forgery.
Both will get you out of congress. Will you serve the same jail time for both?
The passage states that no one with sin will enter before God. Ergo, God will remove the sins of those that come before him. You steal a candy and die. I murder a baby and die. God removes your sins and you stand before him. God doesn't remove mine and I burn in hell.
Comprende, amigo?
I understand. However, that is absolutely wrong.
"For whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved." God removes murder just as much as he removes theft. Dying immediately after the act has no bearing on this, because God sees all we have done, are doing, and will ever do, and died for us the same. He forgives past, present and future.
IDK, pretty much all eight Christians I've spoken to about sin being equal since this topic started pretty much agree with me.
And how many of them were actually priests who studied in Vatican (like my uncle)?
Why does that matter? They know the Bible. In this day and age, we're rather literate. We can read the Bible for ourselves. Why do we need a priest to tell us what to believe?
Beyond that, if I remember, the whole point of a priest is to have an intercessor between us and God. A go-between, if you will. Why do we even need that anymore if God Himself came directly to US? The veil that blocked the common people from the Holy of Holies was rent in half when Christ was crucified. That symbolized that God was now open for business to the public.
My uncle is as good a man you can find these days. He's a priests priest - you don't have many like him these days. In that regard I consider myself lucky.
Heck, the Pope and him are the only two people I feel I can really look up to.
What about Christ Himself? That's who I look up to and try to emulate..
-
I understand. However, that is absolutely wrong.
"For whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved." God removes murder just as much as he removes theft. Dying immediately after the act has no bearing on this, because God sees all we have done, are doing, and will ever do, and died for us the same. He forgives past, present and future.
And I don't agree. If God removes all sins immediately than what's the purpose of Hell? Who goes there according to you?
Now, do you go to Hell for some crimes, burn there for a while and THEN God removes your sins and you can enter Heaven? I have no clue. No one has.
The working of the afterlife are a mystery and all we have to go on are a couple of lines of text written by humans who can't even grasp the concept.
So don't go all "AAAck! Heretic!" on me just cause I don't interpret a passage the same way as you.
You don't see me jumping on you claiming you aren't Christian cause you don't agree with me, now do you?
Why does that matter? They know the Bible. In this day and age, we're rather literate. We can read the Bible for ourselves. Why do we need a priest to tell us what to believe?
Beyond that, if I remember, the whole point of a priest is to have an intercessor between us and God. A go-between, if you will. Why do we even need that anymore if God Himself came directly to US? The veil that blocked the common people from the Holy of Holies was rent in half when Christ was crucified. That symbolized that God was now open for business to the public.
Maybe because priests are learned theologists. Maybe because the Church has studies the Bible and it's interpretations for millenia. Maybe because they are best suited to interpret it.
What about Christ Himself? That's who I look up to and try to emulate..
Keyword - PEOPLE I look up to. Christ is God (and is also a given rolemodel). I don't compare Him with humans. It's like comparing a abbacus with a planet-sized supercomputer.
-
I don't compare Him with humans. It's like comparing a abbacus with a planet-sized supercomputer.
Exactly, one's a tangible, real thing, and the other is purely the stuff of fiction.
Hey, I work with what you give me. :p
-
And you do really bad work to boot. :rolleyes:
-
My uncle is as good a man you can find these days. He's a priests priest - you don't have many like him these days. In that regard I consider myself lucky.
Heck, the Pope and him are the only two people I feel I can really look up to.
its really sad that with the way i see things now, even the best of priests are nothing more than good-natured con men
-
You an extreme puritan? Where's that Mary biach when ya need 'er?
-
:mad:
-
Why does that matter? They know the Bible. In this day and age, we're rather literate. We can read the Bible for ourselves. Why do we need a priest to tell us what to believe?
Beyond that, if I remember, the whole point of a priest is to have an intercessor between us and God. A go-between, if you will. Why do we even need that anymore if God Himself came directly to US? The veil that blocked the common people from the Holy of Holies was rent in half when Christ was crucified. That symbolized that God was now open for business to the public.
Maybe because priests are learned theologists. Maybe because the Church has studies the Bible and it's interpretations for millenia. Maybe because they are best suited to interpret it.
Says the man who was earlier insisting that he was right and the Vatican was wrong.
-
I understand. However, that is absolutely wrong.
"For whoever calls upon the Name of the Lord will be saved." God removes murder just as much as he removes theft. Dying immediately after the act has no bearing on this, because God sees all we have done, are doing, and will ever do, and died for us the same. He forgives past, present and future.
And I don't agree. If God removes all sins immediately than what's the purpose of Hell? Who goes there according to you?
Now, do you go to Hell for some crimes, burn there for a while and THEN God removes your sins and you can enter Heaven? I have no clue. No one has.
The working of the afterlife are a mystery and all we have to go on are a couple of lines of text written by humans who can't even grasp the concept.
So don't go all "AAAck! Heretic!" on me just cause I don't interpret a passage the same way as you.
You don't see me jumping on you claiming you aren't Christian cause you don't agree with me, now do you?
Trashman. That is a verse from the Bible. It is also an absolute statement. You cannot NOT agree with it. You cannot interpret it differently. Romans 10:9-10: That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Hell is no place intended for men. Hell is intended for Satan and fallen angels. man was made to stand in God's presence. A person going to Hell is the ultimate tragedy imaginable. Earlier, you yourself said Christ's blood absolved all sin. Yet here you contradict yourself. The Bible is as it is right now because God intended it to be that way for this time.
To answer your question about who goes to Hell: Any person who sins (everybody on Earth), that doesn't call on the name of the Lord and believe in all that He did.
Why does that matter? They know the Bible. In this day and age, we're rather literate. We can read the Bible for ourselves. Why do we need a priest to tell us what to believe?
Beyond that, if I remember, the whole point of a priest is to have an intercessor between us and God. A go-between, if you will. Why do we even need that anymore if God Himself came directly to US? The veil that blocked the common people from the Holy of Holies was rent in half when Christ was crucified. That symbolized that God was now open for business to the public.
Maybe because priests are learned theologists. Maybe because the Church has studies the Bible and it's interpretations for millenia. Maybe because they are best suited to interpret it.
So are pastors. And how many extra books has the Catholic Church claimed to be Inspired works that in reality contradict the Bible? Many. How often does the Catechism contradict the Bible? Quite often. By that alone your point is shattered.
What about Christ Himself? That's who I look up to and try to emulate..
Keyword - PEOPLE I look up to. Christ is God (and is also a given rolemodel). I don't compare Him with humans. It's like comparing a abbacus with a planet-sized supercomputer.
Christ was a person. That's the whole point of God coming to Earth. Christ is a God for everyone on Earth. He came, He lived a poor life, was tempted and yet lived a sinless life, suffered excruciatingly, and was executed for a crime He did not commit.
Our God is the only one who can truly sympathize with the entirety of the Human Race.
-
The nature of Christ, is off-topic... because that would only add 9 more pages to the conversation. I quick rundown
The fundamental teaching in the Old Testament that God is one, the Jews always believed that God is numerically one and no-where did that change. God took on humanity and existed as a human, felt, eat, slept, died and even had an relationship with God.
1 Timothy 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
The term "God the Father" is biblical and refers to God Himself (Galatians 1:1-4). God is the Father; He is not merely Father of the Son, but the Father of all creation (Malachi 2:10; Hebrews 12:9). He is also our Father by reason of the new birth (Romans 8:14-16). The title Father indicates a relationship between God and man, particularly between God and His Son and between God and regenerated man. Jesus taught many times that God is our Father (Matthew 5:16, 45, 48). He taught us to pray, "Our Father which art in heaven" (Matthew 6:9). Of course, Jesus as a man had an additional relationship to God in a sense that no one else has ever had. He was the only begotten Son of the Father (John 3:16), the only One who was actually conceived by the Spirit of God and the only One who had the fulness of God without measure.
The Bible plainly states that there is only one Father (Malachi 2:10; Ephesians 4:6). It also clearly teaches that Jesus is the one Father incarnate (Isaiah 9:6; John 10:30). The Spirit that dwelt in the Son of God was none other than the Father.
The Holy Spirit is simply God. God is holy (Leviticus 11:44; I Peter 1:16). In fact, He alone is holy in Himself. God is also a Spirit (John 4:24), and there is only one Spirit of God (I Corinthians 12:11; Ephesians 4:4). Therefore, "Holy Spirit" is another term for the one God.
Hebrews 5:7
7 who, in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up prayers and supplications, with vehement cries and tears to Him who was able to save Him from death, and was heard because of His godly fear,
As a man he held to an separate consciences from God. So as the son he was completely human had no power and lived as a man, even prayed as a man. (in His flesh)
I do NOT believe in the Trinity, I don't believe the apostles believed in the Trinity and that it is bad logic. It was developed 325 years after Christ by "church" councils. The Holy Spirit didn't become deified until much later...
Definition of the Trinity - God is three separate and co-equal beings. (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and co-equal beings)
God is not three but God is one - not a compound unity but a absolute unity (always has been).
"Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD" (Deuteronomy 6:4).
LORD in all caps was the word that adonai was used in the place of YHWH because of the fear of taking the name of God in vain, the stop saying it at all and replaced it with adonai meaning lord.
"2 Now a mediator does not mediate for one only, but God is one." (Galatians 3:20).
"Before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour" (Isaiah 43:10-11).
"I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).
"Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any" (Isaiah 44:8).
"I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24).
"There is none beside me. I am the LORD and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:6).
"There is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else" (Isaiah 45:21-22).
"Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me" (Isaiah 46:9).
"I will not give my glory unto another" (Isaiah 48:11; see also Isaiah 42:8).
"O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth" (Isaiah 37:16).
There is only one God, who is the Creator and Father of mankind (Malachi 2:10). In the time of the Millennial Reign, there shall be only one LORD with one name (Zechariah 14:9).
"Seeing it is one God which shall justify" (Romans 3:30).
"There is none other God but one" (I Corinthians 8:4).
"But to us there is but one God, the Father" (I Corinthians 8:6).
"But God is one" (Galatians 3:20).
"One God and Father of all" (Ephesians 4:6).
"For there is one God" (I Timothy 2:5).
"Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble" (James 2:19).
Again, the Bible calls God the Holy One (I John 2:20). There is one throne in heaven and One sits upon it (Revelation 4:2).
The Old Testament speaks of God in terms of being one. Many times the Bible calls God the Holy One (Psalm 71:22; 78:41; Isaiah 1:4; 5:19; 5:24), but never the "holy two, the holy three," or the "holy many."
-
Says the man who was earlier insisting that he was right and the Vatican was wrong.
When you're done spouting lies, maybe you can enlighten me when exactly did I say that?
-
Trashman. That is a verse from the Bible. It is also an absolute statement. You cannot NOT agree with it. You cannot interpret it differently.
Well, obviously I can. If it was not possible, I couldn't have done it. Now please drop it. You're coming off as strong as the worst Jehovas Witnesses.
So are pastors. And how many extra books has the Catholic Church claimed to be Inspired works that in reality contradict the Bible? Many. How often does the Catechism contradict the Bible? Quite often. By that alone your point is shattered.
Eh? :wtf:
Well, if you're free to interpret the Bible as you wish, how can you then attack me for interpreting it differently? :wtf:
-
Says the man who was earlier insisting that he was right and the Vatican was wrong.
When you're done spouting lies, maybe you can enlighten me when exactly did I say that?
The Vatican position on the death penalty is that it is wrong. You insist it's not wrong and in fact have called for it to punish crimes several times in the past.
Do I really need to put that any more simply?
-
What did I say that's NOT Vaticans position? I never claimed otherwise.
-
:rolleyes:
Evidently I do have to put it more simply.
The Vatican says Catholics shouldn't support the death penalty. You support the death penalty. Therefore you claim you are right and the Vatican is wrong.
And if you go into some nonsense about not supporting the death penalty I'm have to insist you set in stone your position on the death penalty before continuing this charade any longer.
-
I'm not claiming I am right.
All I'm claiming that I am undecided in regards to death penalty itself. I'm "on the fence "so to say.
-
Well at least we've made some progress if you're on the fence now considering that your original position was pro-death penalty.
I'd reserved it for only the biggest offenders in cases with overwhleming evidence.
However getting us back to the point I was making earlier you invalidate your claim that priests are better suited to interpret the bible if you ignore the accepted priestly wisdom of the Vatican and decide to interpret it yourself. Your very action of being on the fence says "I'm going to interpret the bible how I see fit not some guy in a funny hat in the Vatican"
In other words despite your protests to the contrary you're doing pretty much what GOatmaster said you should.
-
Definition of the Trinity - God is three separate and co-equal beings. (The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and co-equal beings)
God is not three but God is one - not a compound unity but a absolute unity (always has been).
Interesting. Your definition of not-Trinity is more or less how I've always understood the Trinity. Your definition of the Trinity sounds a lot like what I understand the Mormons to believe.
Now Trashman, here's a lesson to you. This guy delved into Scripture for his understanding of Biblical things, and stating his argument for the ideas born out of that understanding. I would advise you to do the same. All you've done so far is tell me what you speculate, what your opinions, thoughts and ideas are, and what the priests have told you. You haven't used a shred of Biblical evidence to support your arguments, and that more than anything shows me you've allowed yourself to be misled by not reading and knowing the Word of God.
Trashman. That is a verse from the Bible. It is also an absolute statement. You cannot NOT agree with it. You cannot interpret it differently.
Well, obviously I can. If it was not possible, I couldn't have done it. Now please drop it. You're coming off as strong as the worst Jehovas Witnesses.
Well I darn well better. Self-proclaimed Atheists, agnostics, Muslims, etc. are one thing. But you sir, you claim to be a Christian. And you are going around talking to people as if you had the slightest idea what that means when you don't, and your words betray that you don't. Do you have any idea the kind of image you are giving Christ with the way you talk, the way you act?
You say there are very few people you are comfortable sharing your religion with. Well, hear this right here and right now: Everyone on this message board that knows of you as a Christian is looking to you for a definition of what that means, and my how you've led them astray. Whether or not by choice, you sir are a False Teacher. As a Christian, in the name of all that is good, I demand you to correct that.
That last verse I posted, Romans 10:9-10, is a VERY key and central piece of following Christ's teachings. To say you don't believe it is to say you don't believe Christ's sacrifice was sufficient. This is something you need to correct, or at the very least, stop telling people you believe.
Call yourself what you will, but if you don't believe in Christ's sacrifice, you are not a Christian, and to say that you are is to mislead others.
So are pastors. And how many extra books has the Catholic Church claimed to be Inspired works that in reality contradict the Bible? Many. How often does the Catechism contradict the Bible? Quite often. By that alone your point is shattered.
Eh? :wtf:
Well, if you're free to interpret the Bible as you wish, how can you then attack me for interpreting it differently? :wtf:
Where in that did I say you're free to interpret the Bible as you wish? There are parts that are somewhat up for debate as to their meaning, but there are parts that simply cannot be stated more simply, which are the very parts you have time and again attempted to reinvent and reimagine in a way to suit your own opinions.
Sorry to take this so off-topic, guys, and i would have much rather talked to Trashman about all the parts of these posts not related to the Death Penalty, but I simply couldn't let such a public misrepresentation stand without publicly denouncing it.
I hope this nonsense is finished, one way or another. Trashman, respond in private please.
And for the record, it's not that you don't agree with me. It's that you don't agree with the Bible. And not just my "interpretation," but key parts that are plainly and simply stated and are not open to interpretation at all.
-
Interesting. Your definition of not-Trinity is more or less how I've always understood the Trinity. Your definition of the Trinity sounds a lot like what I understand the Mormons to believe.
I am Oneness Pentecostal :)
My definition of the Trinity goes back into the "catholic" church history - not Mormon
Hermeneutics and Christology is vital to the understanding of who God is and what His sacrifice means to us.
I study them ALOT - even listen to debates in my spare time PM me if you want a link
I've witnessed to many people in my walk with God and they give me the same answer as you have... They don't believe that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are different persons in a so called Godhead (state of being deity) - But rather God was manifested in the flesh, to humbled himself as a human and give himself for our sins and ALL of the Godhead is in him as I believe... but insist on calling it "the Trinity" for tradition sake.
"For in him (JESUS) dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead (STATE OF BEING GOD) bodily (MAN)" (Colossians 2:9)
That's why when I want to talk to the Father I need to look no farther than that of Jesus :)
Hear O' Israel the LORD our God is and always will be ONE!
-
God sucks.
Ancient Religions FTW.
-
@jdjtcagle - So you're basically saying that Jesus was God's avatar rather than a separate being?
-
if jesus was gods avatar and was born today he would be in Guantanamo awaiting the death penalty
-
However getting us back to the point I was making earlier you invalidate your claim that priests are better suited to interpret the bible if you ignore the accepted priestly wisdom of the Vatican and decide to interpret it yourself. Your very action of being on the fence says "I'm going to interpret the bible how I see fit not some guy in a funny hat in the Vatican"
In other words despite your protests to the contrary you're doing pretty much what GOatmaster said you should.
Yes, priests ARE better suited to interpret the Bible. Not to say that ordinary folk can't do that to - most of the stuff in the Bible is pretty clear anyway. If I want to interpret a huge scientific formula I'd go to a physicist. If I want to interpret a C++ code I see a programmer. I CAN do those thing myself and get then done accurately, and the programmer of physicist can very well make a mistake, but that doesn't happen very often.
However, you should have noted that I never claimed my interpretation is more correct than that of G0aty here or the church. My whole point was to prove that different interpretations CAN be made.
Speaking of which, after talking to the priest today he did confirm two things:
- all sins are NOT equal, alltough no sin is insignificant. As he put it "The small sin is nothing more or less than the greatest sin after the big sins."
- Churches stance is that catholics shouldn't (not mustn't) support death penalty. Being for death penalty doesn't make you a non catholic.
@ G0aty
Well I darn well better. Self-proclaimed Atheists, agnostics, Muslims, etc. are one thing. But you sir, you claim to be a Christian. And you are going around talking to people as if you had the slightest idea what that means when you don't, and your words betray that you don't. Do you have any idea the kind of image you are giving Christ with the way you talk, the way you act?
You say there are very few people you are comfortable sharing your religion with. Well, hear this right here and right now: Everyone on this message board that knows of you as a Christian is looking to you for a definition of what that means, and my how you've led them astray. Whether or not by choice, you sir are a False Teacher. As a Christian, in the name of all that is good, I demand you to correct that.
You can take your self-righteous air of superiority and shove it where the Sun doesn't shine.
You presume I don't know the word of God and my religion and at the same time you yourself are an infallible instrument of God. Now, I'm just as secure in myself and my beliefs as you are in yours, if not more. Yet I don't go attacking you, claiming you to be non-christian, a deceiver or whatnot and demanding apologies or conversion.
You know why? Because it's not nice. It's not my place to do so. Because I don't consider myself infalilble. And because I'm don't have the habit of trying to force myself on other people.
So why don't YOU stop telling other people what to believe, eh?
Where in that did I say you're free to interpret the Bible as you wish? There are parts that are somewhat up for debate as to their meaning, but there are parts that simply cannot be stated more simply, which are the very parts you have time and again attempted to reinvent and reimagine in a way to suit your own opinions.
And I disagree again. How hard it is to understand that simply because YOU can't fathom a different interpretation it therefore cannot exist. and gee golly, what do you know, MY interpretations happens to be exactly the same as the official one of the church. I may be wrong in many thing, but in this? Highly unlikely.
-
Yes, priests ARE better suited to interpret the Bible. Not to say that ordinary folk can't do that to - most of the stuff in the Bible is pretty clear anyway. If I want to interpret a huge scientific formula I'd go to a physicist. If I want to interpret a C++ code I see a programmer. I CAN do those thing myself and get then done accurately, and the programmer of physicist can very well make a mistake, but that doesn't happen very often.
However, you should have noted that I never claimed my interpretation is more correct than that of G0aty here or the church. My whole point was to prove that different interpretations CAN be made.
Churches stance is that catholics shouldn't (not mustn't) support death penalty. Being for death penalty doesn't make you a non catholic.
So you're saying you think your interpretation is more likely to be wrong than that of the Vatican or the priest you spoke to but you're going to remain on the fence anyway?
Why would anyone willingly hold onto an opinion that they believed was more likely to be wrong?
-
Human nature. We all do or have done it at one point i'd wager. I know i have well against my better judgement. :)
-
Yeah but did you spend 10 pages of an internet discussion then trying to prove that you were correct to hold that view?
-
@jdjtcagle - So you're basically saying that Jesus was God's avatar rather than a separate being?
That's a good question - No Jesus is not God's avatar because that would abolish the need for a separation of the Father and Son that is clearly in the bible. Trinitarians maintained that Father, Son, and Spirit are three eternally distinct persons within the one essence of God. They maintained the two truths that God is one and that Jesus is God, but did so at the expense of redefining "one" to mean a "unity" of three persons within the one essence of God. Such a redefining of monotheism brought the church to the borders of Tritheism. While it retained its belief in monotheism on a semantic level, it abandoned monotheism on the conceptual level. This interpretation of the bible tries to explain separation taught within the bible without upholding biblical Monotheism.
So how do you reconcile the passages where Christ speaks (separately from the Father) and the passages where Christ is explained (to be God)?
It's because of His humanity. Let me attempt to show you what the scripture says. (there is ALOT)
Now I will readily admit that on the surface Jesus does seem to speak of himself and the Father as if they were two persons. In fact, I would say that the first indication of Trinitarian thought began with Philip in John 14 when he asked Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father" (v. 8). Jesus had been speaking of God in a distanced way all this time, and poor Philip thought that he was speaking of another person. But, notice Jesus' response. He almost sounded as if he were puzzled when he said, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?" (v. 9). Jesus was saying that he himself was the one that Philip was asking for.
One reason that Jesus so often spoke of God in the third person is that he did not want to appear unto men as God, but he wanted to appear as a man just like one of us, as we read in Philippians 2:5-8 -
Philippians 2:5-8, NIV:
5. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6. Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7. but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross!
But that still leaves the question: Why does the New Testament make a distinction at times? The answer to this goes back to the dual nature of Jesus. In the capacity of being fully man, He was distinct from God. Not just distinct from the Father but from being God at all. This is why we can see references to the God of Jesus Christ (Matt. 27:46; John 20:17; Eph. 1:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.%2027:46;%20John%2020:17;%20Eph.%201:17;&version=50;)). This is obviously not the God of God. It is the God of a man. Jesus is called a man over and over (Acts 2:22; 13:38; I Tim 2:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%202:22;%2013:38;%20I%20Tim%202:5;&version=50;)). As a man, there were things He did not know (Mark 13:32 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2013:32;&version=50;)), there were things He could not do (Mark 6:5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%206:5;&version=50;)), He could only be in one place at one time (John 16:7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7;&version=50;)), He could be tempted (Heb 4:15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Heb%204:15;&version=50;)), He could thirst (John 19:28 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:28;&version=50;)), and He could die (John 19:33 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2019:33;&version=50;)). So from this point of view He was distinct from God, and could be spoken of that way. But from another point of view He was fully God and could be called such (John 20:28; I Tim 3:16; I John 5:20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:28;%20I%20Tim%203:16;%20I%20John%205:20;&version=50;)). When we see a separate reference it is always something like: "God the Father and our Lord Jesus Christ." What you never see is: "God the Father and God the Son." It is always God and man, Spirit and flesh, God the Father and the Son of God. As I Timothy 2:5 puts it, "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
Don't let duel nature confuse you... you can't split Jesus down the middle and see to natures. Oneness theology does not see the Father-Son distinction as a distinction between Christ's two natures does not mean that it precludes us from seeing the Father-Son distinction as a result of God's acquisition of a human nature. It goes without saying that the acquisition of genuine human nature affected God's manner of existence. What made the one uni-personal God the "Son" in Oneness theology is the fact that He united human nature to His divine person, personally existing as man. What we distinguish, then, is not Christ's divine nature from His human nature, but rather God's normal manner of existence as God from His human manner of existence as man (made possible only because of the acquisition of the human nature in the incarnation). The distinction is not one of natures, but rather personal manner of existence--and that manner of existence is only different because of the acquisition of the human nature. What we are pointing out, then, is the cause of the distinction, not the location of the distinction.
Isaiah 9:6
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Please ask any question and I would love to help you understand "Oneness Theology", such a broad topic allows questions for more scriptural clarity. :)
Here's a graph
[attachment deleted by ninja]
-
Actually it's probably easier to grasp if you stay away from the scriptural back up for what you're saying and simply give me the interpretation. I'm perfectly willing to assume you can back it up but it gets in the way and makes it harder to understand when you try to.
To summarise, Jesus has no independent spirit/soul/whatever (Unlike say Gabriel or any other angel.) He has no separate existence in heaven but on Earth he has to take on characteristics of the human body he is using and thus is separate from God in a way he wouldn't be in heaven.
Right?
-
Yeah but did you spend 10 pages of an internet discussion then trying to prove that you were correct to hold that view?
If that's what you think I was doing, you need glasses...desperately.
-
Sorry, but I can never give the simple answer... :P
Alright, the testimony of Scripture is that Jesus had a humans spirit. On the cross Jesus said, "Father, into your hand I commit my spirit" (Luke 23:46). Was Jesus giving the Father back His Holy Spirit? How could Jesus' divine Spirit separate from Him? Death occurs when the spirit separates from body (James 2:26), but if the Divine Spirit separated from Jesus He would cease to exist. If God did not actually become a man, with all that that entails, we end up with a picture of Jesus’ humanity being nothing more than that of a suit that God put on. So yes, He had two spirits (one Divine and one human) and He did exist in heaven as God, but took on a separate consciousness with an independent human spirit in the incarnation as man which is a mystery to understand of itself...
1 Timothy 3:16
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifested in the flesh,
Justified in the Spirit,
Seen by angels,
Preached among the Gentiles,
Believed on in the world,
Received up in glory.
Still God, but existed as a man - rather than God in a man suit.
Did I do it this time? :-P
-
Yeah, think I've got it this time. :)
If that's what you think I was doing, you need glasses...desperately.
So what were you doing? Rather than name calling how about you clearly explain what you have been up to. Seems to me you've spent 10 pages trying to claim you are justified to be on the fence.
-
I wasn't trying to justifying anything. I was merely discussing the pros and cons of a subject from different viewpoints. A person is prefectly capable of talking on a forum without trying to shove his view on things into everything.
Speaking of which, I don't feel the need to justify my views to anyone, let alone on a forum.
Now, if you were my friend and we taking a long walk so we have a few hours to kill then then would be something.
-
Actually after your first post you do have to justify your views. You get one post to state what your views are. After that if you're continuing the debate you're just spamming unless you justify your argument. I've explained exactly why before but if you aren't prepared to justify your views the debate goes like this.
Person 1 : My view
Person 2: My view
Person 1: You're wrong but I'm not justifying my view
Person 3: My view
Person 1: You're wrong but I'm not justifying my view
Person 4: No person 1, you're wrong. Here's a long list of why you're wrong.
Person 1: You're wrong but I'm not justifying my view
Admin : Person 1 you're trolling and/or spamming. Welcome to Banination, population : You
-
However getting us back to the point I was making earlier you invalidate your claim that priests are better suited to interpret the bible if you ignore the accepted priestly wisdom of the Vatican and decide to interpret it yourself. Your very action of being on the fence says "I'm going to interpret the bible how I see fit not some guy in a funny hat in the Vatican"
In other words despite your protests to the contrary you're doing pretty much what GOatmaster said you should.
Yes, priests ARE better suited to interpret the Bible. Not to say that ordinary folk can't do that to - most of the stuff in the Bible is pretty clear anyway. If I want to interpret a huge scientific formula I'd go to a physicist. If I want to interpret a C++ code I see a programmer. I CAN do those thing myself and get then done accurately, and the programmer of physicist can very well make a mistake, but that doesn't happen very often.
However, you should have noted that I never claimed my interpretation is more correct than that of G0aty here or the church. My whole point was to prove that different interpretations CAN be made.
From absolute, not-open-to-interpretation passages, you mean.
Speaking of which, after talking to the priest today he did confirm two things:
- all sins are NOT equal, alltough no sin is insignificant. As he put it "The small sin is nothing more or less than the greatest sin after the big sins."
What's the difference between small and great sins except in the eyes of men? Does God treat them differently? In what way? We already established Purgatory doesn't exist. So how, then?
- Churches stance is that catholics shouldn't (not mustn't) support death penalty. Being for death penalty doesn't make you a non catholic.
It means that you don't agree with the Pope, which is what Kara's been saying.
@ G0aty
Well I darn well better. Self-proclaimed Atheists, agnostics, Muslims, etc. are one thing. But you sir, you claim to be a Christian. And you are going around talking to people as if you had the slightest idea what that means when you don't, and your words betray that you don't. Do you have any idea the kind of image you are giving Christ with the way you talk, the way you act?
You say there are very few people you are comfortable sharing your religion with. Well, hear this right here and right now: Everyone on this message board that knows of you as a Christian is looking to you for a definition of what that means, and my how you've led them astray. Whether or not by choice, you sir are a False Teacher. As a Christian, in the name of all that is good, I demand you to correct that.
You can take your self-righteous air of superiority and shove it where the Sun doesn't shine.
Actually, that's what I've been saying for you to do with your false teaching. And I'm not being self-righteous. I am not confident in my own righteousness. I AM confident in my knowledge of Scripture, ans have affirmed what I believe with many other Christians, both catholic and otherwise, and just can't see how Romans 10:9-10 can be interpreted any differently than it's stated in the Bible.
You presume I don't know the word of God and my religion and at the same time you yourself are an infallible instrument of God. Now, I'm just as secure in myself and my beliefs as you are in yours, if not more. Yet I don't go attacking you, claiming you to be non-christian, a deceiver or whatnot and demanding apologies or conversion.
You know why? Because it's not nice. It's not my place to do so. Because I don't consider myself infalilble. And because I'm don't have the habit of trying to force myself on other people.
I never once said I was infallible. I just know Scripture, know that not all things are relative, know that certain things are definitive and cannot be reinterpreted, and that doing so is to make it the product of one's own imagination instead of letting it be the Word of God. What you are doing is called twisting Scripture to suit your own ends. You already have a set-in-stone idea of what is right, which is that Sins are not equal, and that stealing candy cannot possibly net the same punishment as murdering someone. So, instead of looking to Scripture to find out for sure what is correct on the matter, you're taking Scripture and rewording it, reinventing it, "reinterpreting" it, whatever, to make it look like God supports you, something false "Christians" are notorious for in history. I can cite examples, but I believe THAT would not be nice.
So why don't YOU stop telling other people what to believe, eh?
Because, sir, it is beyond me to continue to allow people like you to give people like me a bad name. You take away God's power to work in these peoples' lives by setting up all sorts of preconceived notions for them by which they base their interaction with all Christians. Either change your name or change your actions. If you're going to say you're a Christian, that is, "Little Christ," act like Christ and believe in Him. John 3:17 states that God didn't come into the world to condemn it, but to save it, yet here you are trying to condemn anyone who is beyond your personal idea of what is redeemable. That's not a Biblical view at all, and I point this out to you very firmly and very definitively, yet you refuse to correct yourself based on the words of the God you claim to believe, and instead reinvent His words to suit yourself. I've not asked you to change anything based on what I've said alone, FYI.
Where in that did I say you're free to interpret the Bible as you wish? There are parts that are somewhat up for debate as to their meaning, but there are parts that simply cannot be stated more simply, which are the very parts you have time and again attempted to reinvent and reimagine in a way to suit your own opinions.
And I disagree again. How hard it is to understand that simply because YOU can't fathom a different interpretation it therefore cannot exist. and gee golly, what do you know, MY interpretations happens to be exactly the same as the official one of the church. I may be wrong in many thing, but in this? Highly unlikely.
If the Catholic Church interprets Romans 10:9-10 differently than the way those two verses are written down, they are flat out WRONG. There is no other way for a sentence like that to be interpreted. It is a very solid and absolute statement. That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. There is no other way to interpret that. That's like reinterpreting somebody's street address. Now here again I demand you stop this foolishness.
And yes, I meant that in the Biblical sense of the word. That is, one without knowledge of God.
-
Now that your on the topic, I would like to challenge you on the interpretation on Romans 10:9-10 :)
I would also like to start a new thread so I ask an Admin to split this thread before I start.
-
Actually after your first post you do have to justify your views. You get one post to state what your views are. After that if you're continuing the debate you're just spamming unless you justify your argument. I've explained exactly why before but if you aren't prepared to justify your views the debate goes like this.
No, I don't have to justify my view. I can very well try to justify someone elses. As long as I'm contributing something to the discussion it's neither off-topic or trolling.
Unless you're using some totally different dictionary that is..
The only thing I was defending was the fact that Church does make distinction between sins.
****
I just know Scripture, know that not all things are relative, know that certain things are definitive and cannot be reinterpreted, and that doing so is to make it the product of one's own imagination instead of letting it be the Word of God. What you are doing is called twisting Scripture to suit your own ends. You already have a set-in-stone idea of what is right, which is that Sins are not equal, and that stealing candy cannot possibly net the same punishment as murdering someone. So, instead of looking to Scripture to find out for sure what is correct on the matter, you're taking Scripture and rewording it, reinventing it, "reinterpreting" it, whatever, to make it look like God supports you, something false "Christians" are notorious for in history. I can cite examples, but I believe THAT would not be nice.
Yeah, yeah. Well you see I'm confident I know Scripture, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree and leave it at that. Because from my POW you're the one reinterpreting things (however I will still refrain from calling you a false christian).
Because, sir, it is beyond me to continue to allow people like you to give people like me a bad name. You take away God's power to work in these peoples' lives by setting up all sorts of preconceived notions for them by which they base their interaction with all Christians. Either change your name or change your actions.
As I said, from where I'm standing I could say the same about you. And I'm not changing anything. You can fume till you're blue in the face.
If the Catholic Church interprets Romans 10:9-10 differently than the way those two verses are written down, they are flat out WRONG.
AHA! And then you have the gall to call me out for not agreeing 100% with the Church. :lol:
***
Mah, whatever. I'm taking the last escape pod out of the burning wreck this thread has become. I see absolutely no reason to continue anyway. Have fun.
-
Ah yes, the familiar "I'm leaving the burning wreck" speech, all the time forgetting who brought the matches in the first place. :rolleyes:
I think now is a good time to point out the basic nonsense you've been talking during this thread. Lets look at your early posts.
I'd avoid bashing capitol punishment as a whole.
I'd reserved it for only the biggest offenders in cases with overwhleming evidence.
I have absolutely no objection to death penalty
I'm well aware of the core philosophy of Christianity. And I'm willing to forgive and give a dozen second chances...but up to a point.
Even Jesus stressed the importance of children.
A man who who molested and killed a dozen children? Sorry, thats way above my tolerance treshold. Burn him. Kill him.
And now you claim you're on the fence over capital punishment? What the **** would you say if you were for it? :eek2:
If you are on the fence it's obvious you've had a change of heart since the start of this topic. That's good. I'm sure both myself and GOatmaster will be glad that at least something came out of this nonsense. But to claim you've always been on the fence is hugely dishonest and I doubt that anyone else is likely to believe you.
-
this has turned into a quotation game, one between what has been said here in the virtual world and what was purportedly said within the scriptures.........
when we base our arguments on a text that has been so heavily manipulated and adulterated by the church and the ruling classes we set our feet in very shaky ground , from the old to the new testament we see two diffrent gods.
where in the old testament its " do as i say or ill nail you to the wall and you will burn in hell"
to the new testament ..... "you are responsable for the death of my son , now do as i say or you will burn in hell"
the scriptures have no value and in the way we choose to use them and interpret them we do exactly what they were intended to do , we make devisions and sub devisions within humanity , and give away our only true power to those who control...........
we are responsable for our actions, not to be judged by a "god" in our final hour,
we can command with respect and love , not with fear and threats,
i am not against belief in an higher purpose but i am against religion and its fascism and lack of respect for humanity
-
Fair enough but that's not what this is about.
The point is that people who profess that the scriptures ARE the literal word of God then try to claim that they can be used to justify something completely contradictory to the points made in said scriptures. Whether the bible is actually correct or not is a completely different argument.
This argument was all about why some people who say they are true can't follow them.
-
Exactly.
-
mmmm the only words of god i can think of in the bible are the ten commandments and then we only have moses word for that............
people who use scripture to base there arguments on are always on a hiding to nothing and people basing moral arguments using the ideology of the catholic church should slap them selves,
the catholic church is one of the most immoral and despicable organistions in the world , it is corrupt, unforgiving and misguided in its extremes
-
Kara - Please check your PMs :)
-
Ah yes, the familiar "I'm leaving the burning wreck" speech, all the time forgetting who brought the matches in the first place. :rolleyes:
One final retort before I go....you so like to bait me, don't ya? :lol:
Well yes, once a discussion reaches it's pretty obvious end I either leave or say the "burning wreck" metaphor and then leave. You got something against that? I Mean, I could just leave without saying anything but it's not really polite. Common curtesy dictates I should inform the other party that he shouldn't bother with more posts directed at me since I most likely won't bother to look at them.
And no, I don't play with fire. Or matches. Or dangerous things in general.
If you are on the fence it's obvious you've had a change of heart since the start of this topic. That's good. I'm sure both myself and GOatmaster will be glad that at least something came out of this nonsense. But to claim you've always been on the fence is hugely dishonest and I doubt that anyone else is likely to believe you.
I'm on the fence regarding the "correctnes" of my view.
Alltough I still say "pop the bastards". You do realise one doesn't have to be 100% certain in his view to have that view.
-
I'm happily ignorant of both religion and politics. Yay indifference wins! Is this over yet? Crime and punishment, they should both be equally weighed automatically, be it deliberate or accidental. And yep i'd have that apply to my friends, family, spawn, and myself. It would teach people to be less idiotic on roads. Attentive whiles't operating hazardous equipment and dealing with dangerous situations in general.
-
One final retort before I go....you so like to bait me, don't ya? :lol:
Actually I'm calling you out (yet again) on the basic cowardice of responding to several posts and then saying you're leaving in an attempt to gain the final word.
If you can't be bothered to respond simply don't respond, just say you're leaving and leave.
Not this fake "I'm leaving but first I'm going to say a bunch of stuff and you shouldn't waste your time replying cause I won't be here" ****. That's just a cheap debating trick and I doubt anyone here is stupid enough to fall for it.
-
There is a difference between ending a discussion on a subject and directing your replies at a given member. Once a discussion participant leaves the discussion doesn't have to end, however it does take a different tone - you don't direct your replies at the one who left, you generalize them.
And I don't recall not answering. So no cowardice there.
But if you want me to be honest then fine - here it is. One of the reason I end up leaving discussions is basicely you. The other two are boredom and the realisation that the discussion isn't going anywhere. Take it as you wish.
-
And I don't recall not answering. So no cowardice there.
:rolleyes:
You're not even reading my posts properly before replying now are you? That's the second occasion where you've replied as if I said the direct opposite of what I actually did say.
-
I guess this thread is kinda dead. I would just like to close with the following two quites, directed mainly at Trashman:
"2 Peter 1:20-21
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,
for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
- No, the Bible is not open to interpretation.
2 Peter 2:1-3 But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.
Trashman, you have been deceived. I can tell by your complete lack of specific Scriptural support for your arguments, and the fact that your greatest attack to my statements, backed up with absolute, uninterpretable quotes from Scripture is "Oh, well I interpret it differently, too bad." I will PM you about this very soon.
-
The fact is, Jesus is our only judge :)
I know that your are only defending what you believe to be right, but let's do it without damning people to hell... :p
This is an open discussion forum on a topic that is up for debate, post your side of it, back it up with scripture, and let God do the talking.
I don't agree with Trashman but that gives me no right to call him deceived - I must only acknowledge that I know what "I" must do to be saved. I know what I believe and will teach the good news to everyone that is willing to listen -without- cramming it down there throats (which I'm not saying your are Goat, only from experience on my part.) Above all, I must take into consideration that when a professing Christian is wayward in their scriptural teachings that I must seek to educate while respecting their convictions... Some receive it gladly in the spirit of finding truth and some wont.
Acts 18:24-26
24Meanwhile a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, came to Ephesus. He was a learned man, with a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. 25He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and he spoke with great fervor and taught about Jesus accurately, though he knew only the baptism of John. 26He began to speak boldly in the synagogue. When Priscilla and Aquila heard him, they invited him to their home and explained to him the way of God more adequately.
Here is someone who knew only the baptism of John and not baptism in Jesus name which was and still is a critical doctrinal teaching of applying the blood of Jesus to our life, through faith and obedience - Priscilla and Aquila heard his teaching invited him to their home and "explained" to him the way of God "more" adequately. :)
Titus 3:5
5 not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit,
-
The fact is, Jesus is our only judge :)
I know that your are only defending what you believe to be right, but let's do it without damning people to hell... :p
This is an open discussion forum on a topic that is up for debate, post your side of it, back it up with scripture, and let God do the talking.
Praise the lord. The god squad has arrived. But at least it's the type that just talks down at you in a superior condescending manner. As opposed to having a suicide bomb strapped to it's back. I look forward to you seeking to educate me and save my damned soul. In the lord's name.
No I'm just jesting with you. In the spirit of free speech. After all I can do what I like. Jesus is my only judge ;).
-
:P
-
Oh you're no fun at all :).
-
This thread is a big tl;dr, so let me get this straight.
Are the religious folks trying to claim government/legal systems and religion mix?
-
Are the religious folks trying to claim government/legal systems and religion mix?
God is the only judge. :rolleyes: Pay attention man :).
-
I'll take that as a yes.
I'll attempt a long-winded reply tomorrow, if time permits.
-
Not really. There are two sides. Those who think that being a Christian means you shouldn't be pro-death penalty (especially if you are anti-abortion) and who are Trashman.
While I'm all for separation of church and state I think you can point out that something a Christian is arguing for goes against his own religion as well as the secular arguments against it.