|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted June 23, 2013 08:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nah, the Bible can't just mean any old thing.
As I stated earlier, there are of course limits to interpreting a text. Yet, those limits are quite vague, especially when it comes to religious scripture that uses proverbs and metaphors so often.
The passages we've been talking about are very straight forward with no highly symbolic language like Revelation.
The Bible says anyone who hates does not know God. That is not difficult to interpret at all. Very simple, very easy. And I gave you verse in that same book of 1John that plainly indicate when John said "brother" he was talking about your fellow man, not a fellow Christian. Again, very easy to "interpret" if you actually read the book.
Quote:
If they couldn't, it was the religion that went extinct not the contemporary moral code of the age. No matter what you say about the inquisition, I'm sure their technical knowledge of the Bible was as good as yours, it was their job. Only, they interpreted the Bible according to their time.
Nah, the New Testament never tells any believer to torture or kill another believer or a pagan for any reason. There is nothing there that can be interpreted as such.
Quote:
I couldn't spot that argument at the moment, since this thing is over 60 pages now but as far as I remember my objection was more general, it didn't necessarily said brother refers to fellow Christian, you were jumping to a conclusion from a verse and I was objecting your conclusion wasn't the only possible one.
You claimed "brother" there could mean many things and implied it meant fellow Christian. It can't mean many things and can only mean "fellow man," as I have proved. A Christian can't hate anyone--fellow Christian or unbeliever. That is what the Bible says.
Quote:
And may I remind you, there are already contradictions among the texts included in the NT so that's not exactly a deal breaker.
No, there is not a single contradiction in the NT.
Quote:
Quote:
Paul's teaching lines up with the rest of the Bible where the punishment for many crimes was death. Remember that Jesus was executed by Rome and two criminals were executed with him. Rome used the power of the sword to execute.
So? Paul may be simply advising to execute the current law efficiently on evildoers whatever that current law is, if you take it as literal as the existing Roman law of the times, shouldn't it then apply to Roman Law in general.
Nah, Paul said the state is God's "minister" to execute the wrath of God on evil doers for the good of the innocent. Justice protects the innocent by getting rid of human predators.
Quote:
You still haven't answered the related question. If death penalty gets out of the picture, do you think Christians should demand it back based on what Paul wrote? I'm not asking if death penalty is compatible with Christianity here, I'm asking is it required?
I'm not sure what you mean by "demand." Christians should voice their opinions in politics like everyone else. If by "is it required" you mean does God "require" it, I think the answer is "yes." The Bible speaks about innocent blood crying out from the ground when justice is not done. God is not pleased when the wicked oppress the innocent and is not pleased with governments that allow this to happen.
God's idea of justice according to the Bible is that murderers are to die.
Quote:
Quote:
Also, please note, to be a Christian a person has to love God. That is the "greatest commandment" according to Jesus. So once again your claim can't be correct.
I'm not sure which of my claims are you referring to here. You have to love God, so you can't... ?
I'm referring to the fact that "brother" can't mean "fellow Christian" or the verse makes no sense. See, I lined out brother and replaced it with "fellow Christian." The verse is talking about a man who claims to love God but who hates "his brother," and John called him a liar--the man does not love God, and is thus not a Christian so "brother" can't mean "fellow Christian."
Quote:
1John 4:20
"If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother[fellow Christian], he is a liar: for he that loveth not his [fellow Christan] whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 09:11 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:43, 23 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Nah, Paul said the state is God's "minister" to execute the wrath of God on evil doers for the good of the innocent. Justice protects the innocent by getting rid of human predators.
How is that not your interpretation to begin with, and how is life imprisonment not getting rid of them?
Quote:
Nah, the New Testament never tells any believer to torture or kill another believer or a pagan for any reason. There is nothing there that can be interpreted as such.
This turned out to be a good example. The inquisition didn't order the killings themselves, they simply delivered the accused to where they knew for sure they were going to be killed.
So in practice, their interpretation allowed them to cause the killings without getting involved in terms of administration. That "wit" may seem familiar to you, since the Jewish clergy did the same thing to Jesus, asking the Romans to kill him.
Quote:
No, there is not a single contradiction in the NT.
Well, it's been a long time since I've read it and noticed some contradictions myself, so to be honest, I went Elodin style on this and googled it:
First site I ran into is stretching logic and I consider it biased, it comes up with 194 contradictions.
Here is that one
Another one seems more fair, comparing the contradictions with possible explanations and reducing them to 22:
And here is that one
So as long as your proof is the supposed contextual consistency (rationality  ) between the books included in New Testament, it does not count.
Quote:
'm not sure what you mean by "demand." Christians should voice their opinions in politics like everyone else. If by "is it required" you mean does God "require" it, I think the answer is "yes."
Yes, that was my question. What I was wondering was which of these positions you hold:
a) I support death penalty because of X reason and I see no contradiction with what my religion teaches.
b) I support death penalty because it's what my religion teaches.
I see that it's option b, or both.
In this case, it would be fair to ask this:
If things such as vengeance and holding a grudge are considered sins, the reason for death penalty can not be to feed such feelings of, say, a murder victim's family. And since there is a hell already, in which the murderers will get punished by all means eternally, it's also not about keeping the scale even. So, why should we kill the killers instead of putting them in jail? Why is that different than raping a rapist?
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 10:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well, that's why the inquisition always wanted their "delinquents" to admit to their crimes, confess and repent before they killed them.
The Inquisition was against Christ so whatever their motivation was, it did not come from a Christian viewpoint as it was in opposition to everything the New Testament teaches.
Never once was the church authorized to punish any sin. It is only authorized to dis-fellowship a person who claims to be a Christian but who continues to live in sin. And the dis-fellowshipping is to come only after several different attempts have been made by different people to bring the person to repentance.
Well, you are wrong here. The role of the inquisition was not to punish, but to SAVE the sinner. In theory, at least. Suppose there are strong indications for someone being posessed by the devil - people reporting strange things, maybe children have disappeared, whatever. Of course the guy denies everything. At this point, the soul of the guy is lost. It can be saved only when he confesses his deeds and repent them (and, remember, after a confession the clergy can ABSOLVE him from his sins).
So what they are doing is HELPING him to confess.
After he confessed and repents his soul is saved, and then the worldly institutions can judge and kill him.
At least that was the idea. (As with most everything things like that are bound to produce evil, pain and grief, but that's never kept anyone from playing with fire.)
However, your answer was a bit unclear. Am I right, when I dismantle your answer to the following gist why you are in favor of DP?:
NT says in Romans that the power of the state is supposed to act as an instrument of God's wrath against the "evildoers", so it's not wrong to execute them, and the matter of them repenting or not is more or less their problem, especially when there is "ample" time for them to repent between them being sentenced and the sentence being carried out.
So here then is the next question: If you are in favor of the state sentencing people to death for really heinous crimes, would you be in favor of a law saying that in case of a death penalty being handed out, with that judgement the execution time would have to be given as well. (The law would look like this: In case of a death penalty the execution has to take place not earlier than 2 years after calling it, but no later than 3 years.)
Which meant, the 2 years were "repention time" (on one hand and on the other of the time for everyone interested to try and collect new evidence, in case the person might indeed be not guilty and the prosecution got the wrong one).
Because, remember, the real question here was this: If human justice takes it upon itself to end the life of a person prematurely, it takes responsibility for robbing that person of time in which to repent - repenting being more than just the lip service, "forgive me, I've sinned" -, thereby condemning said person to hell even though serving life would fulfill the same purpose of punishment and keeping the evildoer from doing more evil?
In other words: is the death penalty not prone to be a lot more than just putting a person from life to death - isn't it condemning a person to eternal hell when human justice executes him before repenting? And isn't that supposed to be God's job?
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 12:23 PM |
|
|
Elodin, I think you didn't understand my point.
Let me put it this way: if there were some heavy metal listeners who killed, destroyed and raped across the whole country, would the explanation "They are not real headbangers, they just say they are, but I know better" be valid?
Oh, and about your posts:
Quote:
Sorry, but the New Testament is the authoritative source of Christiana doctrine and it says no murderer or person who hates knows God.
Quote:
The Bible never tells a government to turn the other cheek when a citizen is murdered. It tells the government to kill the murderer.
Quote:
Nah, the New Testament never tells any believer to torture or kill another believer or a pagan for any reason.
I'm confused. Can Christians kill or not?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 12:45 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:17, 23 Jun 2013.
|
What Elodin says is this: The song Heavy Metal listeners claim to listen has the words "You can't kill" So, if they are killing, they are not really listening to the song, they are just headbanging to it. Plus, he says, to murder and to execute death penalty are different things. You can't murder, but death penalty can be executed for murder.
The question on death penalty is above anyway, so let me tell the problem with the first conclusion: It treats to be a killer, something like being brunette or left-handed. That's why, some pages ago, I gave the example of a husband going berserk catching his wife cheating on him and committing murder. Unless they are psychopaths (which is really being sick btw, the looney liberals are right about that), people who kill are usually pushed into it for some reason. Now, that is never to say, since a reason exists, it can be justified, that is to say, you can not categorize it as a permanent quality (like being brunette or left-handed). And since it is not such a quality, it can not function as a decisive factor on judging if they really listened to the song. They were not in the mood of the music, to continue the analogy. So it's not a question of whether they really listen to the words or not in the first place. The reasoning here is not wrong because it's flawed, it's wrong because it's one-dimensional.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 01:16 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 13:26, 23 Jun 2013.
|
From what I understand:
1. If non-Christian is not a murderer, then it's good.
2. If Christian is not a murderer, then it's also good and proves that Christianity is good.
3. If non-Christian is a murderer, then according to the Bible he has to be killed (no matter what you say death penalty is equal to killing someone).
4. If Christian is a murderer, then according to the Bible he's not Christian anymore, so he has to be killed as a non-Christian.
So Christians can't be killed in the name of the law, but non-Christians can be killed if they act naughty?
And I'm talking about Elodin's explanation right now, I know that Drakon-Deus doesn't agree with that, so let this not be interpreted as an "attack" on Christianity or any other religion.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 01:31 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 13:32, 23 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
(no matter what you say death penalty is equal to killing someone)
Don't get me wrong, I am also against the death penalty, I'll give my reasons some other day, (to sleepy for it today by now), but there is a difference between murder and to kill, not every kind of killing categorizes as murder. Is it just semantics, I wish it was that easy.
Quote:
4. If Christian is a murderer, then according to the Bible he's not Christian anymore, so he has to be killed as a non-Christian.
I too think, that is the problem with the way Elodin thinks. But not because Christianity approves murderous members, I edited my reply to you and elaborated my objection.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 01:47 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:51, 23 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nah, Paul said the state is God's "minister" to execute the wrath of God on evil doers for the good of the innocent. Justice protects the innocent by getting rid of human predators.
How is that not your interpretation to begin with, and how is life imprisonment not getting rid of them?
It is not my "interpretation" because it is what the Bible says. Words have meaning and the verse must be understood in its context and with the background of the Bible's teachings, not as an isolated group of words randomly thrown together.
God decreed to Noah that murderers must die when mankind got a "reboot" after God's worldwide judgement.“Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he the man” (Genesis 9:6).
When God formed the nation of Israel God said murderers must die.
"Exodus 21:12 He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death."
"Numbers 35:33 So ye shall not pollute the land wherein ye are: for blood it defileth the land: and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it."
And now in these "last days" of man Paul said the state is "the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil" and that the state has "the power of the sword." Executing the wrath of God on murderers has always meant executing them. There is no reason to think that now the "wrath of God" means locking a murderer up for a few years and then letting him back out.
God said murderers are to die "by the hand of man" and the state is to be the agent through which that is done rather than by personal vengeance, which the Bible forbids.
Quote:
Quote:
Nah, the New Testament never tells any believer to torture or kill another believer or a pagan for any reason. There is nothing there that can be interpreted as such.
This turned out to be a good example. The inquisition didn't order the killings themselves, they simply delivered the accused to where they knew for sure they were going to be killed.
If I kidnapped you and gave you to a serial killer I would not only be guilty of kidnapping ( a capital offense in the Bible) but of murder.
Sorry, neither Jesus nor his apostles ever said to torture anyone or kill anyone or hand anyone over to someone else who would torture or kill them for being a heretic. The church has NO authority to punish sin. If you claim the New Testament says the church can torture and kill heretics quote the New Testament Scripture that authorizes it.
Quote:
So in practice, their interpretation allowed them to cause the killings without getting involved in terms of administration. That "wit" may seem familiar to you, since the Jewish clergy did the same thing to Jesus, asking the Romans to kill him.
Again, interpretation of what New Testament passages? Quote it.
All the church is authorized to do is disfellowship people who claim to be Christians but who persist in living a sinful lifestyle after a number of attempts have been made by different people to bring them to repentance.
There is no authority to torture them or kill them because of doctrinal differences or because of sin. None. Again, quote the New Testament saying otherwise since you claim there are passages that can be interpreted that way.
Quote:
Quote:
No, there is not a single contradiction in the NT.
Well, it's been a long time since I've read it and noticed some contradictions myself, so to be honest, I went Elodin style on this and googled it:
First site I ran into is stretching logic and I consider it biased, it comes up with 194 contradictions.
Here is that one
In other words you don't have the foggiest idea and are going to use a list from an anti-theist website that has no idea of what the Bible says either but loves to pull verses out of context to lie with. I'll take one claim, prove it wrong and your "source" will be proved to be merely a hate group making up a pack of lies.
Why can I speak so harshly about the website? Because I have proved their "contradictions" to be not contradictions on a number of occasions on these forums and elsewhere.
I don't have time at the moment to do that as I have other things to attend to but I'll do that latter today or tomorrow in another post.
Quote:
Quote:
'm not sure what you mean by "demand." Christians should voice their opinions in politics like everyone else. If by "is it required" you mean does God "require" it, I think the answer is "yes."
Yes, that was my question. What I was wondering was which of these positions you hold:
a) I support death penalty because of X reason and I see no contradiction with what my religion teaches.
b) I support death penalty because it's what my religion teaches.
I see that it's option b, or both.
Both.
Quote:
In this case, it would be fair to ask this:
If things such as vengeance and holding a grudge are considered sins, the reason for death penalty can not be to feed such feelings of, say, a murder victim's family. And since there is a hell already, in which the murderers will get punished by all means eternally, it's also not about keeping the scale even. So, why should we kill the killers instead of putting them in jail? Why is that different than raping a rapist?
Why should we kill the murder?
1) Justice.
2) God demands it.
3) Protection of the innocent
a) murderers escape even if given a "real" life sentence (as in never, ever get out, not "life" where they go free in 10 years.)
b) murderers can kill prison guards and other inmates
4) Cost. Taxpayers should not have to support someone who murdered a person at age 16 until he dies of old age at 105.
Oh, I have no problem with rapists being executed, or kidnappers being executed. Anyone worthy of being locked up for life is worthy of being executed.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 01:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
there is a difference between murder and to kill, not every kind of killing categorizes as murder.
I said "death penalty", not "murder".
Quote:
I edited my reply to you and elaborated my objection.
I'm not really sure if I understand you, because it seems like we're agreeing on this issue. But maybe I just can't read it properly right now...
What I want to say is that saying "He's a murderer so he can't be X, but Y" is just a way to cover X's butts and act like everything with X just has to be always right, therefore - to make X some kind of morally invisible Übermensch. And that's what I can't agree with. If someone from my ex-school killed people, I wouldn't say "He's not from our school, we have nothing common with him", nor would my ex-principle. We would rather say "Sorry for him, he just didn't understand us, I apologise for what he did". Sadly he still would be our graduate, no matter what we say, and I'm pretty sure it's the same with any religion.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 02:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
In other words you don't have the foggiest idea and are going to use a list from an anti-theist website that has no idea of what the Bible says either but loves to pull verses out of context to lie with.
Not that I really want to intervene at this point but you being the person who constantly quotes some yada-yada from religious sites for scientific truths are the last person in this forum who can complain against the practice of quoting biased sources.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 02:10 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:20, 23 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
4) Cost. Taxpayers should not have to support someone who murdered a person at age 16 until he dies of old age at 105
There is a lot to object in your post, starting with giving something abstract as justice as if it was a precise answer (which also dodges the point that according to your faith justice is served in the other world anyway). But as I said, I'm getting sleepy and right now is not a good time for me too. However, I couldn't wait to object to your number four. If someone is 16, he's just a kid clueless about whatever he did and defending his execution due to some budget is beyond my comprehension.
Also I noticed you again switched to the Old Testament as "word of God" when it fits your agenda. What happened to all that rationalization about NT overriding OT?
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 02:22 PM |
|
|
I must be missing something here but the last time I checked the Christian church is not running state/national laws.
<imo> When Christ said "render unto Caesar" he meant what is of and by the secular authority. Today the people decide the law and not the Church and I'm fine with that. Christ is the way, the truth and the life and I don't need the state to tell me so.
Jesus restored one of his capturer's severed ear, so he would not be in favor of decapitation, even if his own body was the price. Hint...the Cross. "Father forgive them for they know not what they do"
As much as many do not like it; Christianity and killing do not mix.
Those that live by the sword die by the sword" is not a commandment it's a fact of this world. Eye for an eye has ruled the secular realm more than the Church as fair justice for eons and many folks still think that way. It's easy to understand that; it's typical human knee-jerk reaction to the daily atrocities on this planet; but I still do not believe in my heart that killing any living human should be...planned or worse yet...mandated.
This is how I think soldiers are divided. There are combatants that want to be combatants and there are those that carry a weapon for many other reasons; forced to serve or are young and believe they must etc. However the folks that find themselves in an army where anything may happen is a much different proposition then people desiring front-line action, hate, revenge, etc.
I am under the New Deal and I've not read a bit o' text supporting killing anywhere in the New Testament. Even the historically hated RC-Church has got this right many times; when its saints did not burn others for their beliefs but instead; it was the Saints that were burnt for their beliefs.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 02:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I must be missing something here but the last time I checked the Christian church is not running state/national laws
Hence, we are not discussing the state laws in specific, of course they happen to come up, they are not irrelevant.
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 02:36 PM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 14:38, 23 Jun 2013.
|
The Inquisition in fact never burned anyone directly. What they did was to "conclude" if a given person was a heretic and if the answer was positive - they passed him/her to the state "asking it to be merciful" or something similar.
The point is, with the right semantics, even Torquemada can end up as a saint.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 03:19 PM |
|
|
|
Sorry, to be clearer, I wasn't talking about the inquisition, or any part of the greater Church in that manner, (which I see as a huge stain on Church history) but I was speaking of an individuals actions or <iow> the reasons why one was sainted. i.e. St. Francis
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 05:28 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 18:11, 23 Jun 2013.
|
On the "contradiction of genealogies."
As I noted earlier in this very thread, the gospels show Jesus from different "angles." Luke emphasizes the humanity of Jesus. Luke records the genealogy of Jesus from Mary's side, as that is the "human" side of Jesus, who had no physical earthly father.
Note that Luke 3:23 says "And when He began His ministry, Jesus Himself was about thirty years of age, being supposedly the son of Joseph, the son of Eli," again emphasizes that Jesus had no biological father and that is why Luke traced Jesus's lineage through Mary. He thus starts with Mary and works his way backwards all the way to Adam.
Matthew emphasizes that Jesus is the Christ, the promised King, the "son of David, and heir to the "throne of David." As such, Matthew traces the genealogy of Jesus through Joseph, the legal father of Jesus to establish the legal claim to the throne.
Jesus was descended from David on both Mary's side and Joseph's side (legally) and that perhaps confuses some people who were unaware of that fact.
Now, I dealt with the very first "contradiction" so I could not be accused of dodging one. I certainly am not going to go through all 194 of them though I have addressed many of them in this very forum if you want to dig through all of the religion threads.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 06:03 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Well, you are wrong here. The role of the inquisition was not to punish, but to SAVE the sinner.
Nah, if you claim the Inquisition is an action the New Testament authorizes then you need to quote the New Testament to back up your claim. Neither Jesus nor his disciples every authorized any such thing. Heritics were to be admonished, not tortured or killed directly or via conspiracy. Here is my proof of what the New Testament says. Now you present proof the New Testament says to torture or kill heretics "to save them."
Quote:
Tit 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
Neither torture nor killing is the power of salvation. Repentance can't be tortured out of someone. Killing someone won't make them repent. The gospel of Christ is the power of salvation. Again, I present my proof from the New Testament. You present yours.
Quote:
Rom 1:16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
Quote:
Suppose there are strong indications for someone being posessed by the devil - people reporting strange things, maybe children have disappeared, whatever. Of course the guy denies everything. At this point, the soul of the guy is lost. It can be saved only when he confesses his deeds and repent them (and, remember, after a confession the clergy can ABSOLVE him from his sins).
So what they are doing is HELPING him to confess.
Wrong. I present my proof from the New Testament. I expect you to present yours that the NT says torturing the demon possessed is the way to free them.
Neither Jesus nor the apostles when confronted by a demon possessed man said, "quick, boys, break out the racks and hot irons, let help this man be free of his demons!!!" Nope, not once. What did Jesus do? He commanded the demon to leave. What did the disciples do? They commanded the demons to leave in the name of Jesus Christ.
Quote:
Mat 17:18 And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour.
Mar 9:25 When Jesus saw that the people came running together, he rebuked the foul spirit, saying unto him, Thou dumb and deaf spirit, I charge thee, come out of him, and enter no more into him.
Mar 9:26 And the spirit cried, and rent him sore, and came out of him: and he was as one dead; insomuch that many said, He is dead.
Mar 9:27 But Jesus took him by the hand, and lifted him up; and he arose.
Luk 9:42 And as he was yet a coming, the devil threw him down, and tare him. And Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, and healed the child, and delivered him again to his father.
Luk 9:43 And they were all amazed at the mighty power of God. But while they wondered every one at all things which Jesus did, he said unto his disciples,
Act 16:18 And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour.
Mar 16:17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
But wait, Jesus, why no racks? Why no iron maiden, why no hot pokers? Why did you not draw and quarter him? Oh my, and Paul did not use torture either!! And Mark says to cast out demons in the name of Jeusus. He was not on the torture train either.  Party poopers!
Now, you show me where the New Testament says to torture or kill the demon possessed to save their souls.
Quote:
So here then is the next question: If you are in favor of the state sentencing people to death for really heinous crimes, would you be in favor of a law saying that in case of a death penalty being handed out, with that judgement the execution time would have to be given as well. (The law would look like this: In case of a death penalty the execution has to take place not earlier than 2 years after calling it, but no later than 3 years.)
Which meant, the 2 years were "repention time" (on one hand and on the other of the time for everyone interested to try and collect new evidence, in case the person might indeed be not guilty and the prosecution got the wrong one).
The state has no obligation to give the criminal a single day to repent. The state has no interest in the soul of the criminal or responsibility for his soul. The criminal is the only one responsible for his soul. I believe there should be sufficient time to file for an appeal. After the one appeal, if granted, the execution should be carried out post haste.
Quote:
In other words: is the death penalty not prone to be a lot more than just putting a person from life to death - isn't it condemning a person to eternal hell when human justice executes him before repenting? And isn't that supposed to be God's job?
God said execution for crime is man's job, as I've quoted numerous times.
Quote:
Gen 9:5 And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
Gen 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.
Now, does that say that God is going to manifest himself through a theophany and personally execute murderers? Nope it say God requires that murderers be killed by the hand of man. God gave man that responsibility.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 06:29 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Nah, if you claim the Inquisition is an action the New Testament authorizes then you need to quote the New Testament to back up your claim.
It's not his claim, it's the Inquisition claim. Have you read our (my or Zenofex's) posts or you just skipped some? Because we've already asked you about NT's authorization and the way Inquisition act.
There's no explanation in "I'm telling you that they weren't Christians" if they were named Christians and acted in the name of Christ.
Quote:
Neither torture nor killing is the power of salvation. Repentance can't be tortured out of someone. Killing someone won't make them repent.
That statement is actually a proof that Christianity is against death penalty...
Quote:
The state has no obligation to give the criminal a single day to repent.
...or that it has double standards... I don't know, I'm still confused. What's the difference between a murderer and a sinner? Is it just because a sinner can be still a Christian, so he shouldn't be killed, but murderers as non-Christians can?
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 06:59 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 19:17, 23 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
I'm not really sure if I understand you, because it seems like we're agreeing on this issue. But maybe I just can't read it properly right now...
What I want to say is that saying "He's a murderer so he can't be X, but Y" is just a way to cover X's butts and act like everything with X just has to be always right, therefore - to make X some kind of morally invisible Übermensch. And that's what I can't agree with. If someone from my ex-school killed people, I wouldn't say "He's not from our school, we have nothing common with him", nor would my ex-principle. We would rather say "Sorry for him, he just didn't understand us, I apologise for what he did". Sadly he still would be our graduate, no matter what we say, and I'm pretty sure it's the same with any religion.
You see, my objection to this is, although on surface you object to Elodin's categorization, your objection unintentionally does the same thing: It's not about members breaking the rules or not, it's about being a member or not. Actions can't sum you up when they are casual but faith is identity. Saying if X kills X is a killer and Christians can't be killers is one dimensional because usually killer is not an identity, it's a situation people find themselves in quite unexpectedly. Of course everybody is responsible for their actions, but the way Elodin puts it, being a killer is almost like being brunette or left-handed: You are that.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 07:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nah, if you claim the Inquisition is an action the New Testament authorizes then you need to quote the New Testament to back up your claim.
It's not his claim, it's the Inquisition claim.
I could care less what the Inquisition claimed.
Now I'll make a claim. "I am a follower of the Buddah. In the name of Buddah I declare myself emperor of he universe."
Now, according to your logic I am a follower of Buddah because I CLAIMED to be a follower of Buddah and I am the emperor of the universe because I CLAIMED to be the emperor of the univrse.
Please send your taxes (90% tax rate) to ElodinMasteroftheUniverse@universeismine.com
Quote:
There's no explanation in "I'm telling you that they weren't Christians" if they were named Christians and acted in the name of Christ.
Jesus said many people claim to be Christians (followers of Christ) who are not in fact Christians. Lip service does not make a person a Christian.
Quote:
Luk 6:46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?
Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 14:23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.
Joh 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.
Quote:
Neither torture nor killing is the power of salvation. Repentance can't be tortured out of someone. Killing someone won't make them repent.
That statement is actually a proof that Christianity is against death penalty...
Civil punishment for murder has nothing to do with trying to get the murderer to repent.
Quote:
Quote:
The state has no obligation to give the criminal a single day to repent.
...or that it has double standards... I don't know, I'm still confused. What's the difference between a murderer and a sinner? Is it just because a sinner can be still a Christian, so he shouldn't be killed, but murderers as non-Christians can?
I don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Murder is not the only sin.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
