The Left has become dangerously unhinged.
- Thread starter glorydaz
- Start date
No government has the right to make (up) laws.
Good laws are discovered or revealed, not made.
It actually one of the worst things about our form of government. There's not guarantee of stability.
Fair enough.
You're right. Putting someone to death (wrongly or justly) is an irreversible act.
But the problem isn't the penalty. It's the system that enforces the penalty.
If you have a system that struggles to process crime, and as a result has to deal with an extremely high crime rate, and it wears on the people, then it is guaranteed that a high number of innocent people will be caught up in that system.
On the other hand, if you have a system that efficiently deals with crime, and as a result does not have to deal with a high crime rate, then even though there will be innocent people that unfortunately get caught up in that system, the number will be significantly less than the above system, and the resulting system will not wear on the people.
Our current system is the former. It wears down the people. Don't agree? When was the last time you went to the DMV in your town? How long was the line? How long did it take for them to get to you? 10 minutes? 30 minutes? an hour? two? How long do court cases take? I can tell you right now that I started the annulment process for my marriage back in March, and it's now August, and my marriage still has not been annulled, and there has been very little contact from the lawyer (lawyers are one of the root causes for a system that wears down the people, but that's a discussion for another time). I just want to move on with my life, but I can't, because the system is slow and ponderous, and is hindered by it's own sluggishness. Criminal court cases take months, if not years or even decades.
That's not efficient. At all. And because of its inefficiency, there are a higher number of people caught up in it who are innocent.
The other half of that problem, and what causes a feedback loop, is that the punishments for the crimes do not fit the crimes. Steal a car? Prison time. Beat up a neighbor? Prison time. Shoot up a school and not kill oneself? Prison time. And most of the prison time isn't even served. 12 months prison sentence? The criminal might serve 6 months of that time and get out for good behavior. All of which are preceded by months if not years of court dates and trials and more, and then when a punishment is finally given, the public has forgotten who the criminal even is, let alone what he did. There's not fear instilled in the people by the government, which is one of its responsibilities, to put fear in the hearts of criminals. So you have more criminals, which slows down the system, which results in more innocent people being caught up and longer court cases, which means punishments aren't handed down swiftly, which means that the people don't fear the government, which means more criminals, which slows down the system, etc... ad nauseum.
But...
If you have a criminal justice system (such as the one given in Exodus 18), where the burden put on the people is light, and punishments that are appropriate for crimes, death penalty for adultery, murder, rape, etc, corporal punishment for assault and physical injury, and restitution for theft, and all punishments are given within 48 hours of the crime being committed, then would-be criminals are deterred from committing a crime, because they know if they're caught, they will be punished severely and quickly, so you have less crime, which means fewer innocent people are caught up in the system, and then more resources can be devoted to other crimes, and so more criminals are caught and punished, more criminals are deterred, less crime, fewer innocent people caught up, etc... ad nauseum.
If you imprison a man, regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty, then criminals are not deterred from committing crime, because the punishment is not swift. Ecclesiastes 8:11
A 5 year prison sentence cannot be carried out swiftly. A flogging or execution or repayment can be carried out in 5 minutes or less.
So your argument is that, because we can't reverse the punishment if we get it wrong, therefore the punishment is wrong?
You can't reverse time to make up for the time a person spends in prison, so by your reasoning, prison sentences are wrong as well. So maybe we shouldn't punish criminals at all, because, oh, we might punish the wrong person.
:mock:
:vomit:
But that's a moot point, because God never tells any government to imprison its criminals as punishment for their crimes. The only governments in the Bible that do so are wicked governments.
Of course it's about authority. God, the ultimate authority on right and wrong, commands the governmental authorities to punish criminals swiftly. Who are you to say that we shouldn't?
God tells them to. Who are you to say that they shouldn't? Objecting to God's word is a terrible idea. You don't have the authority to tell governments what they should and should not do to criminals.
You do realize that the entire conversation is still there to read, right?
... And reaffirmed the law.
Look, TH, I know you think that God must have gone through counseling back in the inter-testament period, and so he's much nicer than he was before Christ came. But you're deluding yourself.
God's righteous standard has never changed.
If a criminal is convicted of murder, he is to be put to death. If a criminal is convicted of theft, he is to pay restitution to his victim. If a man is found to be lying in a court case, then he should be punished by restitution, corporal punishment, or execution, whatever is at stake in the trial.
That's what God says to do, and that's what governments should do, regardless of what TH thinks.
Please provide scripture where God required a human sacrifice in the Old Testament to pay for their sin.
I'll wait.
Does "Do not murder" apply equally everywhere? or does it apply just to Israel?
Moral laws are not bound by national borders or circumstantial conditions.
They are absolute.
Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not commit adultery.
Do not bear false witness.
It's always wrong to do those things. And therefore, the punishments for them are also absolute.
Sure seems like that's the case, as twice now you have said that the requirements for justice changed when Christ came.
The main purpose of the Law was to bring man to God, to show him that he could not live without God.
The law is for the lawless. It's not for the righteous. The world is lawless, therefore it needs the law, to bring them to Christ. If you take away the law, then no one will come to Christ.
If you remove the death penalty, then criminals will not have any respect for eternal death.
If you remove corporal punishment, then criminals will not have any fear of the whip in hell.
If you remove restitution, then criminals will never understand that injustice must be balanced with justice, and that their commission of injustice will be met with the enforcement of justice.
Right. And yet, righteousness is part of God's nature, not part of His relationship.
God's righteousness has not changed, even though His relationships have.
God's standard for righteousness remains death penalty for capital crimes, corporal punishment for injuries in the commission of a crime, and restitution for theft.
That's what scripture says.
Christ's sacrifice was so that all could have eternal life. It wasn't so that people could get away with their crimes.
Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John(though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples),He left Judea and departed again to Galilee.But He needed to go through Samaria.So He came to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph.Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied from His journey, sat thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour.A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, [JESUS]“Give Me a drink.”[/JESUS]For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food.Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.Jesus answered and said to her, [JESUS]“If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.”[/JESUS]The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water?Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?”Jesus answered and said to her, [JESUS]“Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again,but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.”[/JESUS]The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.”Jesus said to her, [JESUS]“Go, call your husband, and come here.”[/JESUS]The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, [JESUS]“You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”[/JESUS]The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet.Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.”Jesus said to her, [JESUS]“Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father.You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him.God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”[/JESUS]The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.”Jesus said to her, [JESUS]“I who speak to you am He.”[/JESUS] - John 4:1-26 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John4:1-26&version=NKJV
I see no pardon here...
Did you instead mean the adulteress whom the Pharisees brought before Jesus?
I stick to what Scripture actually says, not what I want to believe it says.
Again, what prohibition? (See passage above.)
And if there is sufficient deterrent, then those who are afraid of death will not commit the crime. Which is why it's important to have an appropriate punishment for crimes.
Prison is not appropriate, nor is it sufficient, nor swift, nor painful (except to the citizens whose tax money is sent to keep them alive and well taken care of).
It's a lack of punishment that moves men to sin.
Again, I point to Ecclesiastes 8:11 as my proof.
Wait, are you saying that they sinned because they didn't fear death?
----
One more question I'd like to ask.
Why did Jesus say "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do"?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Of course they do. They derive their authority from God and are answerable for how that authority is used.
The problem is in revealed. Who determines what that looks like? Across cultures and faiths man fashions very similar laws, especially on fundamental truths and protections.
Actually, it's what stabilizes it. Other governments have fallen to civil war where we have managed peaceful transitions and revolutions in our thinking and actions as a people. Not that we haven't come perilously close to undoing it from time to time.
I didn't only note the irreversibility problem, but sure. Then it's a problem for us. Because as hard as we've tried, even going beyond eyewitness accounts required in antiquity, we've gotten it wrong. People have made mistakes that cost others their lives. Even honest mistakes. And therein lies the inherent problem and my objection. We take what we have no right to take and cannot compensate the individual in any sense for that taking.
I'm cutting out the system critique and popular misconceptions about it. I disagree and we can take that up elsewhere if you want. I've written on it at length in other threads and I'm ready to defend the best system going, flaws and all, but not here for the sake of space and to remain on point.
I know this will sound crazy to you, but we literally couldn't field enough judges and prosecutors to do what you want to do with our population. We actually have restitution in addition to other punishment for property offenses. I'm just taking a few points as asides here...and when you have the DP for rape you mostly if inadvertently encourage rapists to kill their victims, which is one reason we took that off the plate a while back. It helped. As horrible as rape is, I suspect most of the victims would prefer to live beyond it. Capital punishment for adultery is a really bad idea for any number of reasons, though I understand its utility when it was the rule of law.
I don't agree that being imprisoned isn't punishment. I doubt anyone in prison agrees with that either.
Sure it can. The day you're imprisoned should come swiftly. Heck, by your scale one really quick, hard lash is more meaningful that ten over a few minutes. Or, it's a scale argument that I think fails when you start picking at it.
No and I've told you more than that. Rather, because the DP is uniquely irreversible, because there is no recompense for the failure AND because when we take an innocent life we inadvertently do that which we have no right to do, understanding that I object to it. I'm pretty sure I've set those out prior.
It helps if you wait for an answer. I know you were dying to use the mock and vomit emoji, but you jumped the gun and the shark with that one. Otherwise, answered above.
God tells you that governments derive their authority from Him. Christ told his subjects and Paul told early Christians to obey and render. That was Rome they were speaking of and it wasn't in line with Mosaic law either.
I'm also omitting the "Who are you" attempt to make it about me as a king instead of some guy giving an opinion, which is all I actually am. A reasoned and considered opinion, hopefully, but nothing more. I don't even have puffy sleeves, let alone a sceptre.
Look, I haven't pressured you once on taking all the time in the world to make whatever points you want to make, but I'm not going back over conversations that go on a bit unless you point to something with a quote.
Look JR, I know you'd rather make this about me, because then you can do the emojis and hand wave dismissal, but it isn't and I've answered on this point prior. You're misrepresenting me. So make your case or not, but leave off making mine and getting it wrong. God changes how we relate to Him. He's done it a few times. And the impact of that can be remarkable.
Ask the woman who was to be stoned. Ask Paul.
You left out the woman caught committing adultery. Christ looked right at her and knew she was guilty. Remember that stoning?
I don't either.
Still isn't about me.
You're saying that God didn't require blood for blood and a life for a life in the OT? Or are you laboring under the impression that the law wasn't a purely moral instrument? If not I think you can pull that together without a map.
Moses didn't bring down the tablets to take them back to Egypt. They were the law of His people. He set them apart. He also used them to teach the world a number of things, including our inability to meet the law.
Take that one up with Jesus and the woman he sent on her way with an admonishment. I'm fairly certain that wasn't the proscribed punishment. And so are you.
Without a law there is no criminal. Without a moral law there is no sin. So the law creates both the sinner and the saint. It is therefore a thing for both, as without it they cannot be defined and distinguished.
That's a fine declaration, but there's no objective truth in it. A man must respect and believe in eternality first. And a man who does that shouldn't be found within the camp of murderers outside of a failing on the point he must recognize without the penalty attaching to it.
Again, restitution is a part of most criminal offenses involving property, to the extent it is possible.
Mercy is a part of His nature too, and where that mercy meets justice we find grace and the once unfathomable thing that follows it.
I believe you believe that. I just think you're wrong on the point.
If you want to know what I believe I'll tell you. If you want to use it for a, "No! This is what it means." I'm not interested. Let me know. I'm also fine with, "I don't read it that way. To me it is..."
Take your time.
He answered and said to them, [JESUS]“Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God commanded, saying, ‘[Whoever commits a capital crime], let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘[Insert Town's position here]’ Thus you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying:
‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me.
And in vain they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
”[/JESUS] - Matthew 15:3-9 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew15:3-9&version=NKJV
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:think:
a re-writing of John 8
life would be so much simpler if we could just do our own scriptural translations, wouldn't it?
genuineoriginal
New member
Where was the adulterer?
Leviticus 20:10 10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. |
Jesus was not a witness, so He was not allowed to throw the first stone according to the Law.
Deuteronomy 17:7 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. |
Lon
Well-known member
:think: Interesting with a rendering of Jesus as your moniker...
Hmmm. I said Christians do not stone homosexuals, so I'm sure why you'd say I'm incorrect? We don't. Jews don't either, but that's another discussion. I think you got lost on the main point I was making on this one. I was saying Christians do not follow Jewish law. We 'learn' from how Jews applied such, and we can follow some of what they did and were told to do, but my point was ever that Christians do not follow what Jews were instructed to do. Some do, they are called Messianic Jews, orChristians under the law, or some such, but most of us Protestants adhere to Grace and Christ alone (part of the 5 Solas).
If a group sets itself under the Law again, they are Judaized according to Galatians (thank you for reading it). All Protestants, if they remain so, are ruled by grace Ephesians 2:8-10
:up:
Galatians 2:16 is Paul's first summation of the Gospel: "...a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ..."
Galatians 3:1-3 emphasizes and expands that faith is different than works (following the Law) and that gentiles shouldn't do it.
Galatians 4:6-7 develops the idea further: not slaves (having to obey laws) but sons, born(again) to live by a new nature that desires to please God (one that no longer needs to fret so about the Law, but live under the freedom of Grace).
Galatians 5:1 then boldy: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery."
Note with me, then, that Galatians 6:1 says to 'correct gently' which is different than being reprimanded for law infractions. It produces the kind of person that 'wants' to be the best that God planned him/her to be.
Thank you again for reading through Galatians. For me? 5 minutes or so is all it takes to read it through.
-Lon
eider
Well-known member
Quite a different moniker to any others..........
Incorrect, of course..... European features, blonde hair and beard.
Why? I have studied historical Jesus for many years...... I still wait for any to question the accuracy of that pic, but they never have....... :idunno:
If some members here got to rule the World, our high streets might look like the Appian Way after an uprising, Lon. But I understand that your Creed would do no violence to them.
No Lon......living as you do, as described above, which I feel sure that you do, it would be better if you would desert the word Protestant altogether. I live in England, and our history is filled with the most outrageous actions taken be people who called themselves Protestants.
However, the 507, adjusted to suit this age would be fine for any to follow. Those with agendas can mock the idea of neighbours owning Oxen etc, whatever, but the principle of being neighbouringly, caring, offering support etc, is right there. Tassels on clothing? Just another form of uniform and identification, and I'm reminded of the gowns and clothes worn at many of our Western ceremoniies...... If Christians ignore the bulk of the 507 then they are going to be in trouble.
I've listed some verses from it for another post.......
Paul...... my studies show a man who knew so little about Jesus the man that he never wrote one story or anecdote about him, for any examples of conduct etc..... Sure, he mentioned Jesus at the last supper but he clearly either didn't know, or didn't really care about Jesus's lifetime.
...... and he was a contract buster, and..... .... I can't really say more about Paul here, not if I want to stay on.
Lon...... that's the most effective 'get out' clause for doing just about anything whether bad or good.
No Lon...... Paul insisted that Christians obey the laws..... hang on.... Romans 13:4 in direct contrast to Galatians 5:1, and Romans 13:1 requires lawfulness.
I can understand the concept of living a peaceful life in high integrity, never cheating, lying, deceiving, stealing, hurting etc..... no offence to you but JWs have that reputation around here..... but such a life is a lawful one.
It took me quite a long time. I can't breeze through documents, but have to read very slowly for fear of missing anything. Clearly Paul had been away and others had spoken against his way of thinking, and he needed to turn the people back to his mindset.
{1:7} .............. there be some that.......... would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Folks had been rubbishing him....
{1:13} For ye have heard ..... how..... I persecuted the church of God,wasted it, profited in the Jews’ religion
.....and other missions clearly didn't believe in or trust him..
{2:9} And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given
unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
It reads as if Paul had been totally defamed because of what he had done before, different actions, and he needed to press the 'I'm innocent because...' button.
{2:19} For I through the law am dead to the law, that Imight live unto God. {2:20} I am crucified with Christ:
nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and thelife which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.{2:21} I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness [come] by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
Look at this........ imagine saying this to any judge from the dock..........
{3:13} Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written,
Cursed [is] every one that hangeth on a tree:
In fact, as I read on I perceived a man who was in a tight corner making excuses and giving reasons for his acquittal.
If I would be a Christian, it would surely have to be a Messianic Christian. In some ways I think that the JWs are a kind of Messianic Christian because they wouldn't break a law knowingly. Around here they are trusted by anybody who has ever got to know them.
I never read Galatians as a study before, because I don't trust Paul or have that much interest in him. As a student of HJ my interest falls away not long after gospel reports.
Well there's your problem.
You're not a Christian (and it doesn't seem that you're a Jew either). You reject Paul's writings as inspired by God.
No wonder you're such a mess.
eider
Well-known member
I would have thought that a Christian would see the above conditions and jump for joy at the chance to convert same? But I rather think that you don't think like that, do you Judge Rightly?
Now....... have you figured out an answer to my post to you yet? Here is a slightly shortened version, and I've got to tell you, Judge Rightly, that so far it does look a bit of a mess.....
Moving forward, let's just see if I have got your opinions sorted, OK?
You support capital punishment for Murder, Kidnap, Death by criminal negligence, Adultery, Sodomy, Bestiality, Incest, Rape, Human sacrifice, Manslaughter during crime and abortion and your opinion is linked to the Old Testament laws because you quote the above from the bible in a jpeg pic..... yes?
You do accept that Jesus wanted ALL of the law (507) to be kept excepting for sacrificial practices (106). You quoted Jesus thus:-
For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. - Matthew 5:18
You're not sure why the sacrificial laws should be excluded , but Jesus said:-
Matthew {9:13} But go ye and learn what [that] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.
Matthew {12:7} But if ye had known what [this] meaneth, I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice.................................
And so, in review, you have a list of crimes with sentences from the OT laws, you accept that Jesus supported ALL the laws............
BUT........ you wish to ignore or dismiss other laws which Jesus supported, nearly 500 of them, is that correct?
But........ you wish to ignore death sentence crimes like practicing witchcraft and more, is that correct?
But....... the vast majority of the OT laws you think were only written for Israelites, even though Jesus supported them all, and you have quoted Jesus on this.
Let's just take it from there, OK?
Lon
Well-known member
:liberals: Isn't it a black and white? My vision must be going. I can't see it definable to any specific race. I liked it because of that. It doesn't seem blonde haired, blue-eyed, or European to me particularly.
I was talking to one MAD on here about half a year ago, who said they don't believe in that sort of thing either. It is pretty much an O.T. sentiment and so there is an inconsistency, I think, between doctrine and practice at that point.
There is a good heritage from the Protestant movement as well as a good hammering out of doctrine that is biblical and that which is not. I agree there are those who abused and abuse the gospel, the scriptures, the Body, etc. When a people lose sight of God, they either go liberal or legalistic or something in-between. Perhaps 'Protestant' cannot rise above desertion. I've heard some poor theologians from Britain, but there are many brilliant ones, some passed on, some still with us, as well.
It depends upon what you mean by 'abandon.'
Here are two songs that come to mind (full of scripture like Ephesians 2:8&9 MercyMe Matthew West
I had no rules when I was a teen. None. Why? Because good kids want to do good. There was no rule to break because they were completely unnecessary. Grace is being able to live, not according to an old nature, but according to a new nature. 2 Corinthians 5:17
It is my humble opinion, that Paul understood the difference between grace and coercion. My kids are excellent kids. They are all adults and not one of them rebelled. Why? I'm convinced it is specifically the difference between coercion and grace. Discipline verses punishment, etc. I'm also convinced it is because of Grace, love, forgiveness, and mercy (I wasn't a perfect parent and they weren't perfect kids).
:nono: I have to disagree. I'm proof of 'good' for such a "get out" clause. I had no rules, as I said. Why? Because I exceeded my parent's expectations and never missed. You'd think it was because I was "following rules." :nono: It was, specifically, because my nature wanted to please my parents and exceed their expectations. The law of love, then, overtook and surpassed the law of obedience, discipline, and coercion. It depends, then, on us, and what we desire. Trying to put me under 'restriction' when I have liberties others do not, is more about the persons involved than the restriction. There was no need to have a curfew or restriction upon me. At times, that liberty helped me do things for other people that I would not have been able to do under laws and restrictions.
I disagree. That specific verse is talking about consequences of bad decisions (breaking a law), and not anything to do with losing my adoptions as God's child. If you can EVER find a verse that talks about you losing your adoptions status, please show it to me. After many long years of reading the bible and even struggling a bit with the Law, I've never found that verse where I am no longer God's child. Never.
I'm not quite catching your contrast with JW's or what you mean specifically.
Here was my original statement (for convenience) in which you responded, if this helps:
Do you really think that "The Woman Taken in Adultery" was placed in the New Testament for the express purpose of familiarizing the readers with the finer points of Mosaic jurisprudence concerning adultery, as described in Dueteronomy and Leviticus?
Does anyone think that Jesus' response would be to advocate that the woman be stoned had the Pharisees presented him with the witnesses and/or the adulterer in person?
eider
Well-known member
:liberals: Isn't it a black and white? My vision must be going. I can't see it definable to any specific race. I liked it because of that. It doesn't seem blonde haired, blue-eyed, or European to me particularly.
I was talking to one MAD on here about half a year ago, who said they don't believe in that sort of thing either. It is pretty much an O.T. sentiment and so there is an inconsistency, I think, between doctrine and practice at that point.
There is a good heritage from the Protestant movement as well as a good hammering out of doctrine that is biblical and that which is not. I agree there are those who abused and abuse the gospel, the scriptures, the Body, etc. When a people lose sight of God, they either go liberal or legalistic or something in-between. Perhaps 'Protestant' cannot rise above desertion. I've heard some poor theologians from Britain, but there are many brilliant ones, some passed on, some still with us, as well.
It depends upon what you mean by 'abandon.'
Here are two songs that come to mind (full of scripture like Ephesians 2:8&9 MercyMe Matthew West
I had no rules when I was a teen. None. Why? Because good kids want to do good. There was no rule to break because they were completely unnecessary. Grace is being able to live, not according to an old nature, but according to a new nature. 2 Corinthians 5:17
It is my humble opinion, that Paul understood the difference between grace and coercion. My kids are excellent kids. They are all adults and not one of them rebelled. Why? I'm convinced it is specifically the difference between coercion and grace. Discipline verses punishment, etc. I'm also convinced it is because of Grace, love, forgiveness, and mercy (I wasn't a perfect parent and they weren't perfect kids).
:nono: I have to disagree. I'm proof of 'good' for such a "get out" clause. I had no rules, as I said. Why? Because I exceeded my parent's expectations and never missed. You'd think it was because I was "following rules." :nono: It was, specifically, because my nature wanted to please my parents and exceed their expectations. The law of love, then, overtook and surpassed the law of obedience, discipline, and coercion. It depends, then, on us, and what we desire. Trying to put me under 'restriction' when I have liberties others do not, is more about the persons involved than the restriction. There was no need to have a curfew or restriction upon me. At times, that liberty helped me do things for other people that I would not have been able to do under laws and restrictions.
I disagree. That specific verse is talking about consequences of bad decisions (breaking a law), and not anything to do with losing my adoptions as God's child. If you can EVER find a verse that talks about you losing your adoptions status, please show it to me. After many long years of reading the bible and even struggling a bit with the Law, I've never found that verse where I am no longer God's child. Never.
I'm not quite catching your contrast with JW's or what you mean specifically.
Here was my original statement (for convenience) in which you responded, if this helps:
Thankyou for the time that you took to answer me.
I really need to review all of the above and think about it.
I think that I do understand what you say about desiring to do versus coercement, and I do know that JWs HAVE to do their Lord's bidding. I once mentioned to a JW elder about the JW's local reputation for honesty, etc, and he did exactly reply ,'We don't do it for you.' and this does show that JWs MUST do it, so that struck a chord within as I read your post. Even so...,.. JWs are honest and true which is a rarity these days. I wouldn't couldn't knock that.
I'll come back when I've digested all and thought upon all.
I apologize for the delay.
We shall see.
Incest is a form of Rape.
Human sacrifice is a form of murder.
Abortion is murder because it's a baby, and it's always wrong to kill a baby, because babies are made in God's image and likeness.
The image is a screenshot of a resource that I use whenever the topic of criminal justice comes up.
All of the law by those who were and became Jews before, during, and up to the one year period (not that He wanted it to be one year, just that that's just how long it was until God cut off Israel) after His earthly ministry.
Incorrect.
I do know why.
The world is not Israel, though Israel is (now) part of the world.
The symbolic laws (ie, sacrificial, ceremonial) were ONLY for Israel. They were (and are) what set Israel apart for nearly 4000 years now.
But they have no moral value.
Um... What?
It's the symbolic laws that no longer apply (not ignored, that implies that we don't need to learn about them, but we do).
Witchcraft is one of them, yes. I'm guessing you'll next ask me why, but I'll wait for that.
No, I said ALL of the laws, both moral and ceremonial were for Israel, but that ONLY THE MORAL LAWS are ALSO for the rest of the world.
In other words, the Moral laws are for everyone (except for the BOC, which is not under any law, but that's another can of worms which I'll wait to open), and the symbolic laws are only for Israel.
Your move.
We shall see.
Incest is a form of Rape.
Human sacrifice is a form of murder.
Abortion is murder because it's a baby, and it's always wrong to kill a baby, because babies are made in God's image and likeness.
The image is a screenshot of a resource that I use whenever the topic of criminal justice comes up.
All of the law by those who were and became Jews before, during, and up to the one year period (not that He wanted it to be one year, just that that's just how long it was until God cut off Israel) after His earthly ministry.
Incorrect.
I do know why.
The world is not Israel, though Israel is (now) part of the world.
The symbolic laws (ie, sacrificial, ceremonial) were ONLY for Israel. They were (and are) what set Israel apart for nearly 4000 years now.
But they have no moral value.
Um... What?
It's the symbolic laws that no longer apply (not ignored, that implies that we don't need to learn about them, but we do).
Witchcraft is one of them, yes. I'm guessing you'll next ask me why, but I'll wait for that.
No, I said ALL of the laws, both moral and ceremonial were for Israel, but that ONLY THE MORAL LAWS are ALSO for the rest of the world.
In other words, the Moral laws are for everyone (except for the BOC, which is not under any law, but that's another can of worms which I'll wait to open), and the symbolic laws are only for Israel.
Your move.
eider
Well-known member
You quoted Lev 20. 11-21 to justify executions.
You quoted Lev 20.2 to justify executions for same.
You quoted Exodus 21. 22-23 to Justify executions for same.
You used the picture to justify executions for committing same because there isn't anything in the NT!
No U-turns now...... no hiding now.
Don't duck and dive over this..... you picked the laws that you like and want to enforce if possible, and you ignored the rest, with no real justification for your proposed policy.
But you're picking the above laws and others that you would like to enforce with Capital punishment!
They got excluded at the beginning of this conversation! The remaining 507 remain on the table!
Please tell us that in your World you would allow witchcraft to be practiced.. Yes or No?
And you think that your choice of laws are the moral ones, and the other 490 odd laws are not moral laws? Yes lor No?
What a mess.........
But since you have insisted so many times that this law and that law were only intended for the Israelites, allow me to propose that ALL the OT laws were only intended for the Israelites, which means that now you HAVE to quote from the NT only to justify your wish to execute folks .......... over to you.......... NT justification for all these executions, please.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
JR, it's a waste of your time and energy to 'debate' with posters like the one you're posting with. If he denies the writings of the Apostle Paul which were wholly inspired by the Holy Spirit, then, he denies the written word of God and has made his 'choice.'
Without the inspired writings of the Apostle Paul, we have no 'Gospel of the grace of God.' Therefore, we would have no way of knowing what God has planned for those who, hear the Gospel and place their faith in the risen Christ. The 'ascended Lord Jesus Christ' chose Saul (Paul) as the Apostle to the Gentiles. It was Paul who first shared the 'Grace Gospel' with the Jews and they rejected it. Hence, Paul went to the Gentiles with the message of God's grace, forgiveness, and eternal life. Those 'gifts' were offered to whoever hears the 'Gospel' and places their faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ, thereby, guaranteeing that person eternal life, etc.
God demands faith. That's the way it's always been.
God demands faith. That's the way it's always been.