Protestantism

» pink101 - The Set-Up

In response to After-the-fact posted by Migisi:
.
In your crap-shoot, an innocent person can be (and have been) convicted on circumstantial evidence, mistaken identity, poor lawyering, etc.
.
Actually, the worst instance of an innocent person has to do with the set-up where there is a fall guy. It's a terrible thing; but, many an innocent person is convicted on trumped up evidence.
.
It looks like Oswald and Sirhan may have been the fall guys in the JFK and RFK murders. Patsies suckered into a trap.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Might surprise you to know....

In response to After-the-fact posted by Migisi:

....that I am NOT a diehard supporter of the death penalty. I used to be. Not any more. I still believe it to be an appropriate option - to be used in certain situations. But I don't believe it should be used casually or frequently. And, I have no problem with a person convicted and sentenced to Death Row having years of appeals available to him. A rush to "justice" rarely results in justice.

You may not believe me, but I am a moderate on this issue - as I am a moderate frankly on a lot of issues.

» Brian Tubbs - Back to Tutu

For Paper Turtle and ANYONE ELSE who thinks I'm slamming Desmond Tutu, I want to make clear - once again - that I admire his commitment to social justice. And his courage.

Back during the days of apartheid, there was a savage practice routinely carried out by African National Congress mobs and insurgents called "necklacing." Desmond Tutu, though he was sympathetic with the ANC's push for an end to apartheid, opposed this heinous practice. (The same can't be said tragically for Winnie Mandela). Tutu, in fact, risked his life to save a man from the fate of being necklaced.

So, I believe in giving credit where it's due. Desmond Tutu deserves a great deal of credit for being a consistent voice for love, reason, and social justice. I admire that - very much.

Yet, I should still be allowed to disagree with him theologically - and express that disagreement here at Suite101.

» Migisi - Done that

In response to Done that posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I shouldn't have to justify myself or my experience to you, but I've worked closely with lawyers in local politics, in business and associations,
.
How much experience have you had with lawyers working CRIMINAL cases? We're talking about capital punishment here - not setting up nonprofits or campaign organizations. Corporate and nonprofit lawyers can make mistakes, but those mistakes usually don't cost someone their liberty or life (just a whole lot of money). But enough about lawyers, ay? How about we focus on the ethics of execution.
.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - What Migisi "senses"

In response to What Migisi "senses" posted by pink101:
.
I hear ya. You and I both know the corruption first-hand.
.
A cop in a Chicago suburb has ~just~ become a 'person of interest' in his 4th wife's sudden disappearance. She went (ehem) 'missing' a month ago - not a trace. The cop's 3rd wife died of an 'accidental' fall in the bathtub - so said the cop, and the coroner accepted his word. There's now a renewed interest in wife #3's death. Her body was exhumed and re-examined by two independent coroners. Both have concluded homicide. Guess what? The cop's still a free man. No indictments.
.
Now, imagine if this scenerio involved you or me. We'd be in lock up... automatically presumed guilty until we could prove our innocence.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - What Migisi "senses"

In response to What Migisi "senses" posted by Migisi:

.
We get the Chicago news here in Kalamazoo.
.
They guy's name is Peterson, isn't it?
.
I see him on the tube. He sure is confident.
.
I know a lot of cops and have visited with many of them in their homes with their families. In fact, I think I told you that in an F.O.P. meeting I was "voted" into the "family".
.
Some of them are the best of people. Some of them are the worst. A lot like every one else.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Tragic Case

In response to What Migisi "senses" posted by Migisi:
Migisi, I agree. That's a tragic case, and it's a pitiful shame if this guy is truly guilty and has thus far gotten away with it.

» paper_turtle - Romans 12 & 13

.
Romans 12
17 Repay no one evil for evil. Have regard for good things in the sight of all men. 18 If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. 20 Therefore " If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him a drink; for in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
.
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience's sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God's ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
.
8 Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. 9 For the commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not bear false witness," "You shall not covet," and if there is any other commandment, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." 10 Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
.
11 And do this, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we first believed. 12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand. Therefore let us cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. 13 Let us walk properly, as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in lewdness and lust, not in strife and envy. 14 But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.
.
.
.
Brian contends that Romans 13:1-7 gives governments the right to kill. He also states there was no contradiction between Romans 13:4 and what is said in Romans 12:17-21:
.
Romans 12 deals with individuals and the church. Romans 13:1-7 deals with the state.
.
There are two entities who have the right to make life-and-death decisions: God and Government. The former's right to do so is absolute and beyond contestation. The latter is given that power in certain circumstances only.
.
According to the Bible, that is.
.
.
To say that Romans 12 is about individuals and Romans 13:1-7 is about the state implies a double standard--one for individuals and one for governments. But governments are made up of individuals, and all individuals are called to follow the same code of conduct--no matter what hat they might be wearing. What is wrong for individuals is wrong for people acting as a group, in any role or function.
.
A double standard in weights and measures
is an abomination to the Lord. (Prov 20:10)
.
No servant can be the slave of two masters; for either he will hate the first and love the second, or he will be devoted to the first and think nothing of the second. (Matthew 6:24)
.
.
.
I think we need to consider Romans 13 in its historical content. Paul was writing to Roman citizens who had deep concerns about having to obey a government which paid obeisance to pagan gods. They were afraid if they obeyed Roman law they would be offending God. Paul is telling them they needn't worry.
.
AND I believe its very important to remember that every time a follower of The Way prayed to God or met for worship with other followers he or she was breaking the law of the land. The punishment for that was death.
.
If Roman followers of The Way were breaking the law by adhering to their faith, then obviously Romans 13 cannot logically be interpreted on a totally literal level.
.
Furthermore, the "sword" mentioned in Ro 13:4 is not, IMO a literal sword, nor was it intended to justify killing.
.
For a sword, take that which Spirit gives you-the words that come from God. Give yourself wholly to prayer and entreaty; pray on every occasion for the power of the Spirit. (Eph 6:12)
.
For the word of God is alive and active. It cuts more keenly than any two-edges sword, piercing as far as the place where life and spirit, joint and marrow, divide. It sifts the purposes and thoughts of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12-13)
.
.
Far from looking at these words as nothing but a conversation piece, I take them very seriously. We are called to defend ourselves with the gifts of Spirit, and not the sword, which is of flesh, the product of lust and deceit and all manner of evil.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

PS--Phil: I'll address your question re Ro 13 later today.
PT

-- posted by paper_turtle

» paper_turtle - Authoritative?

.
In post 17 Brian wrote:
.
My reasons for saying that are Tutu's own public statements concerning a number of issues as well as his public affiliations. He is on the liberal/"progressive" side of the Anglican community and an active leader in the South African Council of Churches and the World Council of Churches. These organizations are not known, PT, for being staunchly committed to biblical authority. That's not a slam. It's a statement of fact.
.
I don't see it as a fact, but as your interpretation. Just what does it mean to be authoritative? You stated your perception of Tutu's view of the Bible thusly:
.
He seems to be, based on his own statements and affiliations, of the opinion that the Bible starts the conversation, but doesn't end it. In other words, we can look to the Bible for wisdom and guidance, but it doesn't complete the journey or necessarily render the final word. Our own conscience in communion with the Holy Spirit must do that.
.
Now, I'm surprised. Don't you also talk with God about what you read in the Bible? Don't you ask God to help you discern the truth within the words? Tutu read his Bible and took very seriously the passages which call us to work for peace and justice for all people. He took very seriously the passages which called for the liberation of those in bondage, the feeding of those who are hungry, and so on. He used the Bible as his authority for how he should conduct his life. Is this not having respect for the Bible as an authority?
.
Simply because it doesn't agree with your particular interpretation does not make his commitment to peace and justice any less inspired by the same God who inspires you.
.
If we are not supposed to ask God for help, insight, and inspiration, then why bother to pray at all? Why have minds which can think things out?
.
I took issue with your statement for several reasons-one of which is that your space at Suite 101 is supposed to be representative of ALL Protestant denominations, not just yours. I stand by my inference about your statement. Migisi arrived at the same conclusion. And, out of curiosity, I asked a few of my friends (liberal and conservative) what the Bible as a conversation piece meant to them. To a person, they all expressed perceptions which are in line with what I said. Since your space is supposed to speak to a broad audience (including those pesky Anglicans ), and since it behooves you to develop a regular readership, I would think you would want to present your ideas in a way which conveys _at least_ neutrality.
.
In post 23 Brian wrote:
.
Paper Turtle made no effort to discern that or discover that about me, but instead came after me no-holds-barred (not much "peace and love" in her tone) for daring to publicly criticize Bishop Tutu. Frankly, I am surprised.
.
I admit I was angry when I posted my response, but (as you yourself have pointed out on other occasions) we all get angry sometimes. And while I was blunt and emphatic, I don't think my words were either hateful or violent. If I offended you, I do apologize.
.
Interestingly, if the three of you (Migisi, Phil, and Paper Turtle) discredit Paul and/or challenge that he speaks for Christian doctrine, then YOU are merely fueling my point that opposition to the death penalty involves reducing the Bible's influence or authority on the issue.
.
We all disagree with your ****interpretation**** of a passage in the Bible and therefore we are challenging the Bible's authority? Sorry, but that just doesn't wash.
.
Tutu on the Bible:
I don't preach a social gospel; I preach the Gospel, period. The gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ is concerned for the whole person. When people were hungry, Jesus didn't say, "Now is that political or social?" He said, "I feed you." Because the good news to a hungry person is bread.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - What Migisi "senses"

In response to What Migisi "senses" posted by pink101:
They guy's name is Peterson,
.
Yeah. Drew Peterson - missing wife is "Stacy". Not the other Peterson - Scott, who was convicted in 2004 of killing his fullterm pregnant wife "Laci".

-- posted by Migisi