Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Sweeping Generalizations

Brian wrote in his blog:
.
Even so, Paul tells the church in Rome (the seat of imperial authority in Paul's day) that the government "bears the sword" to "execute wrath for judgment sake" (Romans 13). In other words, the government wields the power to take life - and does so to protect the innocent. This passage has rightly been interpreted to sanction government's right to - in certain circumstances - impose the death penalty and wage war.
.
Rightly? That is an **opinion,** not a fact. Many other--very devout--Christians would strongly disagree with your interpretation (as do I).
.
Many professing Christians today, however, regard the Bible as little more than a conversation-starter, if that. Desmond Tutu appears to be in that camp. For these Christians, biblical allowance of the death penalty is neither binding nor authoritative.
.
What an insult to Tutu and all the devout Christians who choose to be pacifists as well!!!!!!!!!
.
How can you possibly justify such a sweeping generalization? It hardly seems "plausible" to me. ;)
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Sweeping Generalizations

In response to Sweeping Generalizations posted by paper_turtle:

.
Hey, Sister Turtle!
.
Romans, chapter 13, is one of my favorite passages in the bible.
.
How do you work that out in a democracy where the people are empowered by god?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Sweeping Generalizations

In response to Sweeping Generalizations posted by paper_turtle:
.
I read Brian's article and began a thread in response - but decided against it. I wouldn't want to be seen here as 'belligerent and obnoxious' for expressing opposition to the death penalty -- which Brian implies is 'sanctioned' by Paul (therefore the Christian church).
.
From his article: "Interestingly enough, ending the death penalty isn't (as yet) translating into a reduction of violence or bloodshed."
.
Nor has the continuance of the death penalty reduced violence and bloodshed, but rather encourages (and sanctions) it. Capital punishment has ~never~ been a crime deterent. The archbishop makes a good case here in the Christian Post, which Brian linked in his article: http://www.christianpost.com/article/200...
.
Paul's words here in Romans 12 seem to conflict with Romans 13: "17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody....19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord."

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Sweeping Generalizations

In response to Sweeping Generalizations posted by pink101:
.
"...where the people are empowered by god?"
.
Empowered by God? Or they assume the role of God?
.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - On the flip side

.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/200...
(quote) "A U.N. general assembly committee passed a resolution Thursday calling for a halt on executions - with the objective of abolishing the death penalty - but struck down provisions that protected the right to life of unborn children." (end)
.
Sounds a bit hypocritical, doesn't it. But isn't it just as hypocritical to call for a halt to abortion, but support capital punishment?

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Don't believe I insulted Tutu

In response to Sweeping Generalizations posted by paper_turtle:

Paper Turtle, I don't think I insulted Desmond Tutu. To disagree with someone is not the same as direspecting someone or tearing them down. I disagree with Bishop Tutu's position on the death penalty, and expressed that in my blog. I am within my right to do so - and you are in your right to disagree with me.