|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 28, 2009 9:24:23 GMT -8
i agree with that aspect of Jeffersons view. the words of Yeshua are much more relevant. we have turned into pauline christians.
thank you for telling me this. since most people are pauline christians, i argue my point from the writings of Paul. However, i will now argue my point through the teachings of Yeshua since you put more stock in him, as i do.
shalom- john
PS- are you a male or female. i just want to know so i know whether to put he or she, his or her. one of those tedious things that get on my nerves, lol
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 28, 2009 9:27:21 GMT -8
plus, Sha'ul often got a littleover the top (ie, in corinthians he boasted about himself, in galtians he said he wished a sect of people would emasculate themselves, in cor he said HIS advice (not the Lords) to couples was to mutually agree to periodically, but for a limited amount of time abstain from sex).
but Yeshua was for the most part very level minded (except when he entered the temple)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 28, 2009 12:58:40 GMT -8
I personally hold a Jeffersonian view of Christianity to be honest. I put a lot more stock in the words of Christ than the words of Paul and when in doubt I lean on the Gospel. yeshuafreak wrote: Click here for my thoughts on why I don't think this makes sense: Paul vs. the Gospels?
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Aug 28, 2009 17:07:27 GMT -8
I'm not particularly against the death penalty by nature. But if I had to guess, I'm pretty sure Jesus would be.
Think about the practicalities of the death penalty. Nobody should be an executioner for a living. That position simply should not exist. I don't believe a country or state or government should create a job position that nobody would allow our daughter or son or mother to do (obviously I'm a reluctant pacifist as well). Jesus would not kill someone. He wouldn't. I don't think most of us would be so daring as to argue against that. And I don't think Jesus would want someone killing someone else, even if the act was justified by the law (as a certain gospel story describes, Jesus prefers grace and mercy over judgment because we all deserve judgment--and juggment is reserved for God anyway). I'm not throwing the first stone, and I wouldn't want my child throwing the first stone, so I certainly don't want the government throwing the first stone.
I want a judge to tap the gavel, say "guilty of murder" and hand the perp over to Christians. We should be the go-to guys when it comes to men or women who society has given up on. Convicted killers need to know the power of God's love more than anyone else. And they've got a whole life sentence to learn.
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 28, 2009 19:38:55 GMT -8
I'm not particularly against the death penalty by nature. But if I had to guess, I'm pretty sure Jesus would be. Think about the practicalities of the death penalty. Nobody should be an executioner for a living. That position simply should not exist. I don't believe a country or state or government should create a job position that nobody would allow our daughter or son or mother to do (obviously I'm a reluctant pacifist as well). Jesus would not kill someone. He wouldn't. I don't think most of us would be so daring as to argue against that. And I don't think Jesus would want someone killing someone else, even if the act was justified by the law (as a certain gospel story describes, Jesus prefers grace and mercy over judgment because we all deserve judgment--and juggment is reserved for God anyway). I'm not throwing the first stone, and I wouldn't want my child throwing the first stone, so I certainly don't want the government throwing the first stone. I want a judge to tap the gavel, say "guilty of murder" and hand the perp over to Christians. We should be the go-to guys when it comes to men or women who society has given up on. Convicted killers need to know the power of God's love more than anyone else. And they've got a whole life sentence to learn. I find no fault whatsoever in this statement and give it my full support.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 29, 2009 19:55:03 GMT -8
Jesus would not kill someone. He wouldn't. I don't think most of us would be so daring as to argue against that. And I don't think Jesus would want someone killing someone else, even if the act was justified by the law Well, first off, from a Trinitarian perspective, one could reply that God is said to have killed people (cf. Gen. 38:7) and also asked others to do so, and so Jesus, as part of the Godhead, cannot be extricated from that. And some hold, as I do, that the Angel of the Lord in the OT is none other than the preincarnate Christ, and the Angel of the Lord is also said to have killed people, as in 2 Kings 19:35. Revelation 19:15 also gives us an image of a militant Jesus who will strike down the nations, etc... Whether this implies literal killing or not is hard to say, but, whether it does or not, Rev. 20 tells us that it is Jesus who will be the final judge of our eternal destinies, which is far more serious than merely killing someone. All that said, I love what you said here. This resonates with the gospel well.
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 30, 2009 14:56:56 GMT -8
I say that if we are going to have the death penalty, as Americans we owe it to ourselves to do it with some pizzazz. Non of this lethal injection crap, it is especially immoral because it requires medical staff most of whom have taken an oath to do no harm to actually kill the patient. I propose Nitrogen suffocating findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v47/ai_17374449/ It is odorless, colorless and because the nitrogen carries away the CO2 which is what makes people feel like their suffocating it kills them with them just getting slightly drowsy, then passing out and then dying a few minutes later. It is a mechanical setup so a non medical person who handle the whole operation. Also life monitoring equipment has reached such an advanced stage that the condemned could be pronounced dead without and MD having to intervene thus eliminating one of the more disgusting aspects of the death penalty. If on the other hand we as Americans are bloodthirsty old testament types who want revenge as opposed to justice. I propose that we increase the final reward as well as the final punishment. Picture this. Instead of a steak dinner as his last meal, the condemned is allowed to go swimming on the coasts of the big island of Hawaii and then eat whatever meal he wants including whatever ingredients he wants up to a maximimum of 500 dollars for incredients and 200 dollar catering fee. After this 12 course last delicious meal. The condemned will be pushed out of a helicopter into the lava lake on the big Island. The fall will be recorded and be available for $25 dollars Pay per view on Demand, and for 10 dollars for those American patriotic enough to subscribe to premium channels. It will be shown free to all of the victims family and be issued to them on both DVD and Blu Ray. It already costs multiple millions of dollars in legal fee to execute someone in America so I say why not do it with some style for a few thousand more!!! Its just a drop in the bucket. In addition, given Americans delight in torture porn (Saw, Hostel, Hills Have Eyes" movies I imagine that there will be a rather large market for the Pay Per view Death sequence, especially if interactive slo mo is allowed! So perhaps in death the inmate will help repay the costs he incurred life. We could also set it up so that the state absorbs all of the costs and that the victims families get a handsome royalty on the death video!!! Nothing more American than capitalizing on human suffering! Just read "The Jungle" by "Upton Sinclair. I do enjoy these Jonathan Swift style rants, and I hope that you take them in the good humored spirit in which I write them. Any Swift fans out there??
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2009 15:19:15 GMT -8
Yes, I'm a fan. I think Jonathan Swift came up on the abortion thread a bit.
I'm still a bit unsettled by the fact that you seem to see the Old Testament as something inferior to the New Testament.
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 30, 2009 16:09:22 GMT -8
1 Corin. 13:13"The three most important things to have are faith, hope and love. But the greatest of them is love." Is a very different message than the law we lived under via the old testament which specifically endorsed not only the death penalty but the death penalty for things that Christians would never kill someone for. Take Homosexuality. The most extreme right wing Christians I have seen (Other than the cult of Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas that pickets military funerals with signs that say GOD HATES F$*S) want to reform the homosexual and see them married to a good christian woman. Under the old Testament even the moderates would agree the only remedy for sodomy is Death!
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 30, 2009 17:00:56 GMT -8
that story has a great moral lesson but it cannot be used for theology or things like this because it has been proved that it was added to the goespel of John SHUT UP WITH THE OT CRAP! are you jewish? no! were you raised jewish? NO! YOU can only understand the OT in a western mindset, and therefore you are not going to understand it fully. the OT was endorsed by GOD, so you are calling God unjust here. plus, the whole point of the Torah WAS for justice. in 1500-1300 BCE people would kill you and your family, after they raped your daughters and wife, and took your property if you simply killed a person, even if it was involuntary manslaughter. so, God limited the punishment to "an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, life for a life." HE WAS LIMTING the punishment. since we live in a more advanced society, of course we are not going to take the full extant, and we are told that ethically we shouldnt anyway, but that doesnt make the OT unholy or wrong or contrary to the Gospel! look at this site: www.barukhyeshua.webs.com {NOTE: i have fixed the url]... i have only written two articles, but you should look at "ephesians, collosians and Torah." soon i will do a commentary on Romans, galatians, and hebrews- the only books in the Nazarean Codicil that even hint at an aolishment of the Law. However, Romans and Galatians were written by the misunderstood PHARISEE, Paul. if the thesis of these books were reinterpreted and understood, than those books do not teach the abolishment of the law. "i have not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill" Ro 3:31 "do we then abrogate the law by faith? GOD FORBID! rather we uphold the law!" as for hebrews, it was a sermon written by a scholar! (possibly James himself). If this is the case, than we could easily misinterpret this book. we barely have the milk right- how can we go on to eating the meat of hebrews?! as for the death penalty, i think we have understood that God allows it, but shuns it being done. Yeshua himself, the Son of God, who does no thing by himself, but only what he sees the father doing, says that people need to stop condemning others because in it we heap condemnation against ourselves. we can disagree with people, but do not condemn them. shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by yeshuafreak on Aug 30, 2009 17:02:45 GMT -8
i am not saying that Paul contradicts the gospels, but that we need to stop "paul said this, paul said that" and put a little bit more "Jesus said this, Jesus said that." and even still, we need not only talk about Jesus, but also teach the teachings of the one who sent him... "God sid this,. God said that."
shalom- john
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 30, 2009 17:11:53 GMT -8
I still say the Old Testament was rather bloodthirsty. I mean GOD IS GOD so if he wanted a more loving law and a more advanced society why didn't he simply establish it? HE IS GOD, FOR GOD's SAKE.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2009 17:41:37 GMT -8
Let's keep it civil, k?
John, This is really interesting to me because we have so many divergent views here. This is a great synopsis of the difficulty.
And I have a lot of agreement with what you're saying about the OT, although I know we see the relationship between the Mosaic covenant and the New covenant differently.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2009 17:44:04 GMT -8
i am not saying that Paul contradicts the gospels, but that we need to stop "paul said this, paul said that" and put a little bit more "Jesus said this, Jesus said that." and even still, we need not only talk about Jesus, but also teach the teachings of the one who sent him... "God sid this,. God said that." shalom- john If you are quoting from Matthew or Mark or Luke or John, you could just as easily say "Matthew said" or "Mark said" as I say "Paul". Either we refer to the human authors or the Holy Spirit behind them. The gospels were not written by Jesus.
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 30, 2009 19:31:01 GMT -8
Wonders if Yeshuafreak is affraid of Kaiser Sose as well?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2009 19:51:29 GMT -8
Don't provoke each other. Remember the fruits of the spirit, dudes, you know?
love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control....
Gal. 5:22-25
|
|
|
Post by krhagan19 on Aug 30, 2009 20:01:45 GMT -8
Josh, it was a joke in the friendliest of terms if you get the quotation. Note to Josh, Rent he movie "The Usual Suspects" watch it when the kids are not around as it is a fairy strong R, but its a great movie for adults!
|
|