|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted June 23, 2013 07:55 PM |
|
|
|
But the Inquisition isn't exactly you claiming to be a follower of Buddah is it now, Elodin? They are the frigging clergy, they have technical expertise and historical significance.
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 08:28 PM |
|
|
They wanted to control everything, the same thing that the Roman church was after in its entire existence, and used Christ as an excuse. They are those who will say to Jesus "Lord, did we not cast out demons in your name?" and He will say to them "I never knew you, depart from me you who work inquity"
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 08:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
@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."
Let's not overdo it here; things do not havbe gto be "authorized" to be done: would you argue that, in order to produce offspring you had to find an authorization in the Nt that would specifically authorize a specific way to get it done?
If it's not specifically FORBIDDEN ... well.
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. The gospel of Christ is the power of salvation.
Well, that's YOUR point of view, but CHRISTENING a baby is the same thinking of just forcing someone to salvation, so I'm delighted that you agree that it is wrong to force salvation in any form onto people, but that doesn't mean that whole generation may have believed otherwise.
Quote:
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.
"The state" is no independent entity. And shouldn't a true Christian, who claims to LOVE all humans do care a little bit more for the wellbeing of a soul? I mean, you care for a lot of things - for example the wellbeing of fetusses that are aborted - so how come suddenly "the criminal is responsible for his soul"? If you kill someone, you are responsible for ending his life, criminal or not, someone that you are supposed to love - which would mean that you SHOULD care about the wellbeing of his soul.
Quote:
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.
Here you fall back to the OT again - which is irrelevant. Relevant is only what JESUS said, because Jesus changed the rules. It certainly wasn't GOD to come up with loving thy neighbour, it was JESUS - who, by the way, is the decisive guy here, not God. God may have commended the Jews, but not the rest of the people. JESUS doesn't require any executions.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 08:51 PM |
|
Edited by Hobbit at 20:54, 23 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
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.
If you'll say that you're a follower of Buddah, then I have no reason not to believe you even if you act like no other follower of Buddah. Of course I can make an opinion about your actions (e.g. "You're a pretty wise follower of Buddah", "I can't believe what you're saying, especially when you're a follower of Buddah" or "I don't think you're following Buddah in the right way"), but I can't really say you are not a follower of Buddah.
Now, claiming to be the Emperor of the Universe would be wrong for one reason: being an Emperor is not any kind of personal belief. It's a legal, physical status, not the opinion, ideology, faith. You can claim that you're against abortion even if you're acting like you're not, but you can't claim that you're a woman if you have no woman body. Being Emperor is objective, while being an atheist, Christian or Pastafarian is, objectively saying, subjective.
Quote:
Jesus said many people claim to be Christians (followers of Christ) who are not in fact Christians.
But these people also can say that you're only claiming to be a Christian. Therefore all your arguments about Christianity would be invalid. Should we listen to the only one side? Which? Yours? Why if we have no reason to believe you that you're giving us facts, not only interpretations. The same goes for "the other side of Christianity" - we have no reason to believe them anything they say.
I think the wisest choice would be listening to the both sides and not ignore any of them just because someone said "They're not Christians".
Quote:
Civil punishment for murder has nothing to do with trying to get the murderer to repent.
That's exactly what "Killing someone won't make them repent" means. Therefore, death penalty is against Christianity because killing people is against Christianity.
Quote:
Murder is not the only sin.
Yeah, it's one of them. Others include e.g. theft and rape. Can a Christian be a thief or - even more - a rapist and still claim to be a Christian after he repents? Why can't he be killed if he's a thief or rapist and claims to be a Christian? Is being a Christian some kind of protection from death penalty?
What you're saying is that murderers have to be killed, but there are no Christian murderers. Therefore you say that a Christian should always be safe, but if he murders, he won't be a Christian anymore and we should kill him. So we'll always kill people that you think are non-Christians, and that's a double standard.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 11:29 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 23:31, 23 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
@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."
Let's not overdo it here; things do not havbe gto be "authorized" to be done:
Dude, YOU are the one who claimed there is New Testament Scripture that can be interpreted as kill heretics or torture heretics. I challenged you to produce such Scripture and you could not because no such Scripture exists. I showed the New Testament says to admonish heretics, not to kill them or torture them.
You also claimed that torture and killing was done to demonically possessed to save their souls yet the New Testament says to cast out demons in the name of Jesus.
Quote:
"The state" is no independent entity. And shouldn't a true Christian, who claims to LOVE all humans do care a little bit more for the wellbeing of a soul?
What exactly does me saying the soul is not the responsibility of the state have to do with me caring or not caring about the soul of a criminal? Stop mudslinging please.
Quote:
Here you fall back to the OT again - which is irrelevant. Relevant is only what JESUS said, because Jesus changed the rules.
I wish you had a clue about the Bible so we could have more intelligent discourses. The Old Covenant did not occur until Moses. Noah came before Moses. God's declaration to Noah was what he expects of the human race, not a part of the Old Covenant.
Pre-Moses God said the murderer must die.
During the Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant) God said the murderer must die.
During the New Covenant God says the state has the power of the sword to, as the minister of God, execute the wrath of God on evil doers for the good of the innocent. It is not reasonable to conclude that the power of the sword to execute God's wrath on evil doers does not mean capital punishment because the wrath God decreed to be executed on murderers has always been capital punishment. Paul himself was beheaded with a sword by Nero near Rome.
It is in no way rational to conclude the wrath of God carried out by the state via the power of the sword on a murderer is locking the murderer up for a few years. In fact that is contrary to what God has always stated his judgement on murderers is. Murderers are to die.
Now, I challenged you to present evidence that the inquisitioners were acting in accordance with the New Testament Scripture and you were unable to present any evidence at all to back up your claims. I did present evidence that the inquisitioners violated the New Testament Scripture and acted in direct opposition to the Scripture. In no way were their actions Christian and they were not acting "in the name of Christ" because the words of the New Testament condemn their actions, not bless them.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 23, 2013 11:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Paul himself was beheaded with a sword by Nero near Rome.
And that supports your point? How on earth do you believe what comes out of your mouth?
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 12:50 AM |
|
|
Ok, so when simple moral factors don't work with Elodin, let me talk using the Bible quotes.
Quote:
Pre-Moses God said the murderer must die.
During the Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant) God said the murderer must die.
During the New Covenant God says the state has the power of the sword to, as the minister of God, execute the wrath of God on evil doers for the good of the innocent. It is not reasonable to conclude that the power of the sword to execute God's wrath on evil doers does not mean capital punishment because the wrath God decreed to be executed on murderers has always been capital punishment.
And Jesus said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you... whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." (Mat. 5:38-39)
And Paul said: "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse... Repay no one evil for evil... do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I Will repay," says the Lord." (Rom. 12:14, 17, 19)
Strangely enough, even God before the Flood said: "Whoever kills Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." (Gen. 4:15)
So, it seems like God himself isn't sure how to act with us. Therefore, there's no "always death penalty for murdering" in Christianity's history - it differs from time to time. Now, what is more important for you: NT or OT? If OT, then it seems like death penalty is the right choice. If NT - it's quite opposite.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 01:41 AM |
|
|
The correct penalty for any sin is death, sooner or later we all die. Lucky for us that grace and faith can save us from that. In the end, whether we (believers) live or die, we are the Lord's.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 02:10 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 02:22, 24 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
Quote:
Paul himself was beheaded with a sword by Nero near Rome.
And that supports your point? How on earth do you believe what comes out of your mouth?
Actually, no words come out of my mouth when I type. 
Huh? That is showing that Rome used the power of the sword to execute criminals. Paul was tried in a Roman court of law because he was a Roman citizen. It was illegal to be a Christian under Nero and Paul was executed via beheading with a sword.
Quote:
And Jesus said: "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I tell you... whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also." (Mat. 5:38-39)
And Paul said: "Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse... Repay no one evil for evil... do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I Will repay," says the Lord." (Rom. 12:14, 17, 19)
Dude, that has to do with not taking personal vengeance, not with the state punishing criminals.
Now, let's look at another thing Paul said that seals the deal.
Quote:
Acts 25:10,11 says, "Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For IF I BE AN OFFENDER, OR HAVE COMMITTED ANY THING WORTHY OF DEATH, I REFUSE NOT TO DIE: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar."
The power of the sword is the power to kill, not the power to scold, or chastise, or lock up for a little while.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 02:19 AM |
|
Edited by markkur at 02:20, 24 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
During the New Covenant God says the state has the power of the sword to, as the minister of God, execute the wrath of God on evil doers for the good of the innocent.
Again I read "State" it's the people that decide and not a believer. So, even though a Christian is also a part of the state like everyone else I think (by the example of Christ) we're "supposed" to be an example of God's love, forgiveness and mercy.
Btw; Verse please?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 02:27 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 02:29, 24 Jun 2013.
|
@Elodin
So you actually take the position of defending the state law (of Rome) when it is that very law which, skip Paul, crucified your prophet? I mean, I can imagine you contemplating it as the destiny of Jesus to sacrifice himself and so on.. But you don't only believe it was his path, you also believe he was crucified by a just law. I must be missing something here, because if the law of Rome was just, where is the sacrifice?
Please note, this is all under the assumption you actually defend death penalty by making Rome as an exemplary state. (exemplary as in employee of the month)
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 02:33 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
During the New Covenant God says the state has the power of the sword to, as the minister of God, execute the wrath of God on evil doers for the good of the innocent.
Again I read "State" it's the people that decide and not a believer. So, even though a Christian is also a part of the state like everyone else I think (by the example of Christ) we're "supposed" to be an example of God's love, forgiveness and mercy.
Btw; Verse please?
Quote:
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Quote:
Act 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.
Act 25:11 For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.
God being loving and forgiving has nothing to do with criminals getting punished. God was loving and forgiving in the Old Covenant too, and before the Old Covenant. God is love. He has always been loving and forgiving. That does not mean God has never wanted crime to be punished.
Quote:
1Jn 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
Quote:
Isa 55:7 Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.
____________
Revelation
|
|
Drakon-Deus
Undefeatable Hero
Qapla'
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 02:41 AM |
|
|
So God ultimately wants the sinner to repent but in some cases the wicked must be destroyed. That's a fair game. Still I don't believe that anyone can be beyond God's love and grace in that way. The most clear example is Paul himself. If he could be changed in such a manner, I believe anyone can.
____________
Horses don't die on a dog's wish.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 02:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
@Elodin
So you actually take the position of defending the state law (of Rome) when it is that very law which, skip Paul, crucified your prophet? I mean, I can imagine you contemplating it as the destiny of Jesus to sacrifice himself and so on.. But you don't only believe it was his path, you also believe he was crucified by a just law. I must be missing something here, because if the law of Rome was just, where is the sacrifice?
Please note, this is all under the assumption you actually defend death penalty by making Rome as an exemplary state. (exemplary as in employee of the month)
NO, I say what the Bible says. The state has the authority to execute. It is possible for the state to abuse that power. For example, Rome executing people for being Christians.
God grants the state the power to execute so the state can be a "terror" to evil doers. The state is to be a minster of God's wrath to evil doers for the good of the innocent. Of course the state can abuse the power of the sword and deliberately execute those not worthy of death via unjust laws or deliberate miscarriage of justice but that does not negate the legitimate power of the state to execute.
____________
Revelation
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 02:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
God being loving and forgiving has nothing to do with criminals getting punished. God was loving and forgiving in the Old Covenant too, and before the Old Covenant. God is love. He has always been loving and forgiving. That does not mean God has never wanted crime to be punished.
You are actually saying God can only forgive things which don't matter so that you can call him forgiving but when it really comes down to it he actually punishes. This is so absurd I am lost, I actually can't contemplate how can a person convinces himself to such a thing so fast. Why was all that objection about OT not being binding then, if God is such a source of love in the OT too, why was it YOU who wrote how OT is not binding and how people that dont understand Christianity take it as a binding source when in fact NT overrode it...
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 05:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
God being loving and forgiving has nothing to do with criminals getting punished. God was loving and forgiving in the Old Covenant too, and before the Old Covenant. God is love. He has always been loving and forgiving. That does not mean God has never wanted crime to be punished.
You are actually saying God can only forgive things which don't matter so that you can call him forgiving but when it really comes down to it he actually punishes. This is so absurd I am lost, I actually can't contemplate how can a person convinces himself to such a thing so fast. Why was all that objection about OT not being binding then, if God is such a source of love in the OT too, why was it YOU who wrote how OT is not binding and how people that dont understand Christianity take it as a binding source when in fact NT overrode it...
Huh? God forgiving sins has nothing to do with the state punishing crime.
If you murder someone and later truly repent and turn yourself in to the cops the state is not going to care that you repented and that God forgave you. The state is going to punish you for violating the law, not for sinning.
The Old Covenant is not not binding on the Christians because Christians are not under the Old Covenant but under the New Covenant. And the Old Covenant is no longer in effect. Only the New Covenant is in effect.
My whole point was that before the Law of Moses (Old Covenant) was given God said murderers must die. When the Law of Moses was given God said murderers must die. In the New Covenant God says the state has the "power of the sword" and is the "minister of God" to "execute wrath" on "evildoers." There is no reason to believe that the wrath that God wants visited on murderers now is any different than the wrath that God demanded before the Law of Moses or during the Law of Moses. God has always demanded death for murderers.
The appeal to the Old Testament was to establish what the power of the sword means in relationship to the state having the power of the sword when it comes to murderers. The sword is not used to rehabilitate or to scold or imprison someone. It is used to kill.
____________
Revelation
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 09:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
@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."
Let's not overdo it here; things do not havbe gto be "authorized" to be done:
Dude, YOU are the one who claimed there is New Testament Scripture that can be interpreted as kill heretics or torture heretics.
WHAT? Where did I do that?
The inquisition was not supposed to KILL anyone; the inquisition was supposed to find the "heretics" that "hid" inside the folds of society or even church, make them confess, absolve them of their sins and then hand them over to the worldly authorities.
Where would the scripture forbid an activity like that?
You have to stop implying that the people thousand years ago were fools and had no idea about the Bible, what it said, what it not said, what it explicitly allowed and forbid, what wasn't mentioned and what not and so on, and it's one of your favorite Bible quotes, the one about Christians who are in fact none, wrong prophets and so on, that fuelled the inquisition, because it was supposed to be an instrument to find THEM (as seen by the Catholic Church).
Quote:
You also claimed that torture and killing was done to demonically possessed to save their souls yet the New Testament says to cast out demons in the name of Jesus.
Dude, that was an EXAMPLE for the way of thinking. They would do all that as well - the Church still does exorcisms and has done so for a long time, including the inquisition.
Quote:
Quote:
"The state" is no independent entity. And shouldn't a true Christian, who claims to LOVE all humans do care a little bit more for the wellbeing of a soul?
What exactly does me saying the soul is not the responsibility of the state have to do with me caring or not caring about the soul of a criminal? Stop mudslinging please.
MUDSLINGING? What the hell are you talking about?
You talk about "the state" as if it was the Roman occupiers, and the people the occupied Jews. But that's only the case THEN for the Jews. Times have changed. THE STATE isn't an occupying force. It's another name for a rightful government OF THE PEOPLE, and YOU are represented in it. It's YOUR government and YOUR state, and the POWER of the state, the authorities, are no impersonal force of nature that does what it has to. Laws are made by the people.
You are one of those.
You claim to love all people, the way Jesus said you should.
If that's true, why don't you care for the wellbeing of the sinners's souls and instead can't wait to see them killed asap - the state executes the death penalty in the name of the people, which means IN YOURS AS WELL - to end their time here?
Quote:
Quote:
Here you fall back to the OT again - which is irrelevant. Relevant is only what JESUS said, because Jesus changed the rules.
During the New Covenant God says the state has the power of the sword to, as the minister of God, execute the wrath of God on evil doers for the good of the innocent. It is not reasonable to conclude that the power of the sword to execute God's wrath on evil doers does not mean capital punishment because the wrath God decreed to be executed on murderers has always been capital punishment. Paul himself was beheaded with a sword by Nero near Rome.
It is in no way rational to conclude the wrath of God carried out by the state via the power of the sword on a murderer is locking the murderer up for a few years. In fact that is contrary to what God has always stated his judgement on murderers is. Murderers are to die.
No, in fact you are quite wrong. Because the state ISN'T the minister of God. It WAS the minister of God, with the Jews, as you you yourself are not tiring to tell everyone. But all other states are no theocracies, AND THEY MAKE THEIR OWN LAWS. They do not HAVE to do what God said to Noah, what God said to Moses or what Jesus said to whomever. They can make their own laws, they are not obligated to kill adulteresses or homosexuals, and they are not obligated to kill murderers, and the fact that you dare to suggest WE WOULD and WE SHOULD, shows that you are interpreting the Bible the way it fits into your agenda. Since when is THE STATE, as you like to call it, obligated to kill in the name of the Lord? And if you think it is, what's wrong with the inquisition?
Quote:
Now, I challenged you to present evidence that the inquisitioners were acting in accordance with the New Testament Scripture and you were unable to present any evidence at all to back up your claims. I did present evidence that the inquisitioners violated the New Testament Scripture and acted in direct opposition to the Scripture. In no way were their actions Christian and they were not acting "in the name of Christ" because the words of the New Testament condemn their actions, not bless them.
Dude, as long as they didn't kill anyone, YOU must prove that their doings were IN VIOLATION of the scriptures. I repeat, you have to stop to think that the people were complete fools a thousand years ago. They could read the Bible as well.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 02:18 PM |
|
|
In the OT God destroys cities with women and children in them so it has nothing to do with punishing of the criminals. You have this vague rhetoric of God is love, so since it is about love it can't be X or Y but what exactly is that love and how it works is a total mystery. If you are the example of Christianly love, supporting children to get executed so they wont cost much to the state, I'm certain we have very different definitions of the feeling.
I know you happen to believe you are proving things but all your defense is based on subjective presupposition and biased propaganda. Using a myth such as Noah's (which happens to be incompatible with evolution, geology and geography if we take it literally btw) to "prove" God supports death penalty is below my expectations of minimum rationality: You can also defend genocide like that since it was destruction of races, not individual criminals.
|
|
Hobbit
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 02:32 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Dude, that has to do with not taking personal vengeance, not with the state punishing criminals.
That's just a cherry picking - "This law is for regular people, but this completely different law is for the state". What's the difference? How can the state have a value-system which is completely different to people's value-system if the state is also made of people? Maybe you're refering to divine right of kings? Well, I assume that you're against "liberals" having such right, so it's not a good explanation - at least if we're not talking about double standards...
Quote:
God is love. He has always been loving and forgiving. That does not mean God has never wanted crime to be punished.
Um... Yeah, for me it does. For me forgiving sinners (that is: also murderers) is quite contrary to the death penalty. Can you explain how it isn't?
Quote:
The Old Covenant is not not binding on the Christians because Christians are not under the Old Covenant but under the New Covenant. And the Old Covenant is no longer in effect.
So you should not quote Old Covenant in this discussion. But you do quote - in fact you're using it to contrary what Christ said.
Quote:
There is no reason to believe that the wrath that God wants visited on murderers now is any different than the wrath that God demanded before the Law of Moses or during the Law of Moses.
There is a reason. Christ said not to repay death for death, God before Flood said not to repay death for death, there's no straight "death for death" law in the New Covenant and many Christians, theologists and biblists don't agree with you on capital punishment.
And no, God hasn't always demanded death for murderers. I already gave you some quotes about that.
Quote:
The sword is not used to rehabilitate or to scold or imprison someone.
Um... It can be used in such way. If I take a sword and say that you shall not do this or that, it doesn't necessarily mean I'm going to kill you. I can just scare you with sword and then imprison you.
____________
Horn of the
Abyss on AcidCave
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted June 24, 2013 03:14 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 15:20, 24 Jun 2013.
|
Quote:
The inquisition was not supposed to KILL anyone; the inquisition was supposed to find the "heretics" that "hid" inside the folds of society or even church, make them confess, absolve them of their sins and then hand them over to the worldly authorities.
Where would the scripture forbid an activity like that?
1) The inquisitions all together probably killed around 10,000 or so people.
2) I've asked you repeatedly for New Testament Scripture that acn be interpreted as saying to torture anyone or kill anyone because they are a heretic or demon possessed. You've made no attempt to present any.
3) I've quoted the New Testament saying heretics are to be admonished, not that they are to be killed or tortured.
4) I'VE quoted the New Testament showing the demon possessed are to be delivered by commanding the demon in to come out in the name of Jesus, not through torture.
5) It is impossible to MAKE anyone confess (in the sense of repentance confession) by torturing or killing them.
6) I've shown through quoting the New Testament that the gospel of Christ is "the power of salvation", not torturing and killing.
I challenge you once again: You said, "Where would the scripture forbid an activity like that?" Show New Testament scripture that authorizes torture or killing heretics or the demon possessed.
I already showed that it does not authorize such things and how it says to deal with heretics.
Quote:
If that's true, why don't you care for the wellbeing of the sinners's souls and instead can't wait to see them killed asap - the state executes the death penalty in the name of the people, which means IN YOURS AS WELL - to end their time here?
This is the second time you repeated the false claim that I don't care about the souls of sinners. I already asked you to stop mudslinging, referring to that claim about me, and yet you persist in making the claim. PLEASE STOP SAYING FALSE THINGS ABOUT ME. If you repeat the claim again I can only conclude rationally that you are deliberately, willfully, and maliciously lying about me.
The honorable thing for you to do is to either produce a quote of me saying that I don't care about the souls of sinners or to retract your false statement. I am waiting to see which path you chose.
Quote:
No, in fact you are quite wrong. Because the state ISN'T the minister of God.
You are in fact wrong. We have been discussing that the Bible says, and in particular what is said in Romans chapter 13. In the epistle to the Romans it says the state is the minister of God to execute the wrath of God on evildoers. It says the state does not "bear the power of the sword in vain." That is, there is a reason why God grants the state the power of capital punishment. By using the power of the sword against evildoers justly the state is also "the minister of God for good" to the innocent.
I'll repeat the passage in Romans for your convenience in refreshing your memory.
Quote:
Rom 13:3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil{works}. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Quote:
They can make their own laws, they are not obligated to kill adulteresses or homosexuals, and they are not obligated to kill murderers, and the fact that you dare to suggest WE WOULD and WE SHOULD, shows that you are interpreting the Bible the way it fits into your agenda.
You are once again repeating falsehoods. I've never said that adulteresses or homosexuals should be put to death.
I'll challenge you on this one too. Retract your false statement about me or provide a quote of me saying those people should be put to death, as the honorable thing to do.
Quote:
Since when is THE STATE, as you like to call it, obligated to kill in the name of the Lord? And if you think it is, what's wrong with the inquisition?
The state is obligated to punish those who prey on others, not to punish sin. And I've already shown from the Bible that heretics are to be admonished, not tortured or killed, and that the demon possessed are to be delivered through commanding the demon to come out in the name of Jesus, not through torturing or killing.
Quote:
Dude, as long as they didn't kill anyone, YOU must prove that their doings were IN VIOLATION of the scriptures. I repeat, you have to stop to think that the people were complete fools a thousand years ago. They could read the Bible as well.
I already have proved that torturing or killing heretics or the demon possessed not what the Bible said to do.
You continue to make the claim that "they could read the Bible as well," and yet you have fled from my requests for you to produce New Testament passages saying to torture or kill heretics or the demon possessed.
There is simply no New Testament passage that justifies the torture or killing of heretics or the demon possessed. I've already quoted the New Testament in regards to that.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
