Protestantism

» paper_turtle - Sweeping Generalizations

In response to Sweeping Generalizations posted by Migisi:

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.

Thanks, Migs; my sentiments exactly.

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."

YES!!!! When Phil asked about Romans 13 in his response, I also read Romans 12:17-21, and noticed just what you have pointed out.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Brian Tubbs - On the flip side

In response to On the flip side posted by Migisi:

If the price of halting abortions was to also halt capital punishment, Migisi, I would agree to that arrangement. I would pay that price.

That said, I think there are some differences. An individual sentenced to death (at least in the US and in many other nations too) has gone through a lengthy, trial process in which he or she had the benefit of counsel, a jury of his/her own peers, and an appeals process. An unborn baby, by contrast, is guilty of no crime, has no advocate or counsel to represent him or her, has no jury, and no trial process.

» Brian Tubbs - Deterrent

In response to Sweeping Generalizations posted by Migisi:

Capital punishment has ~never~ been a crime deterent.

Well, it deters the individual executed from ever committing a capital or violent crime again.

» Brian Tubbs - No conflict between Romans 12 & 13

In response to Sweeping Generalizations posted by Migisi:

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.

» paper_turtle - Don't believe I insulted Tutu

In response to Don't believe I insulted Tutu posted by BrianTubbs:

You said the former Bishop apparently regarded the Bible as little more than a conversation-starter,

In other words, you seem to be saying he obviously doesn't pass **your** test for being a Christian. My dictionary says to insult is to treat with scorn. Your remark about Tutu in relation to the Bible seems scornful, indeed. You didn't need that comment to make it clear you disagree with Tutu. And, with all due respect, how would you know how Tutu regards the Bible? Have you had tea with him recently?

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Of Extreme Interest

.
It is of EXTREME interest the way we have this tendency to interpret what someone else says according to our preconceived mind set. Brian's article is a great example. Further more, the opening text for the 13th chapter of Romans is another point in the issue.
.
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God." Read the entire chapter:
.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?sea...
.
The text can be interpreted that no matter what government is in place, it was put there by god and no person should ever act against it. (Hitler; Tojo, Stalin, Caesar?) Of course, it can be interpreted to mean the government under which you are presently existing, like ours here in the United States for example. YOU know, the government Of the People, By the People, and For the People.
.
So, Romans 13 is out the window as a tool for telling Americans they are to kautau to whomever we have representing our interests in the seats of government. They answer to US. When we get that part straightened out in our minds, we can dispense with Brian's argument 100%. It can not float based on the bible.
.

.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - On the flip side

In response to On the flip side posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I sense that you believe that our legal system is fair, flawless, and outside political and monetary influence. Believe me, it is NOT any of the above.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Don't believe I insulted Tutu

In response to Don't believe I insulted Tutu posted by paper_turtle:

.
You said the former Bishop apparently regarded the Bible as little more than a conversation-starter... In other words, you seem to be saying he obviously doesn't pass **your** test for being a Christian.
.
That's the inference I got too.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Of Extreme Interest

In response to Of Extreme Interest posted by pink101:
.
The text can be interpreted that no matter what government is in place, it was put there by god and no person should ever act against it.
.
That popular interpretation has ALWAYS troubled me a lot - as if the God of the Israelites is pulling the levers in every voting booth in the US. Hmm.
.
If this IS the correct interpretation, then we had NO divine authority to remove Saddam - who, by Paul's inference, was ordained by God.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Deterrent

In response to Deterrent posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Well, it deters the individual executed from ever committing a capital or violent crime again.
.
The foreknowledge that he could, and likely would, be executed did NOT deter him from committing that 'capital' crime, did it. Hence, execution is not a deterent, but simply an after-the-fact act of revenge.

-- posted by Migisi