siddharta

15Woe unto him that giveth his neighbour drink, that puttest thy bottle to him, and makest him drunken also, that thou mayest look on their nakedness! Habakkuk 2:15 (King James Version)

Here's the thing. You gave your daughter a punishment in order to help her. The death penalty doesn't help the criminal, who for all you know might be innocent. It doesn't help society, because the person might just as easily be quarantined from society in prison. In England, for instance, there is no capital punishment and do you know, the majority of police officers don't even carry guns. Let's be honest. The purpose of the death penalty is retribution. Whatever arguments we fabricate, the reason we all like it is because we know that a murderer "deserves it." Well so do I. Thank God we don't all get what we deserve. For the sake of getting back to the topic, I agree that people who abuse children should be removed from society, but to protect society, not to simply slake our thirst for blood . . . right guys? Whatever exceeds what is necessary to protect society lowers us to the level of criminals ourselves. And I agree they should be removed from society as well.. Christ said that anyone who causes on of these children to sin would be better off to tie a millstone around their necks and be thrown into the sea...and He was simply speaking of someone who might cause one to stumble. He isn't speaking of all of the other things that happen to one who is treated in the manner that I am about to discuss. Here is an example of our criminal justice system at work and how it protected society because of what you have suggested we subscribe to. At least 20 yrs ago maybe longer, a man picked up girl who was hitchhiking (I believe) she was between the ages of 14 and 16..he took her to a deserted road in the middle of nowhere California, brutally raped her cut off her arms right below the elbow and left her for dead in a field by this road..the girl lived. She pulled herself through this field by her bloody stumps to the side of the road and was discovered by a couple driving on the road during the day. She saw this incident through to trial, the man was tried and sent to prison. He served his time...the girl, her family, friends and the majority of the state of California appealed with the parole board and the courts to not release this man. This man should have had to spend the rest of his life in prison for what he had done to that girl. But they had to let him go. After all he had served his sentence. This man who had been quarantined from society after such a brutal crime and it probably hadn't been his first and the others may have even died..who knows, had to be let go. He skipped the state of California and went to Florida. One evening a man was walking down a street and had a camera with him. He looks into this lit window (curtain pulled closed) and video tapes the silhouette of a man stabbing a woman over and over and over..I saw this on the news, shown for all the country to see. The man killing the woman was none other than the man who had raped the young girl so many years back, in California. He went to prison for that..the woman he was stabbing..died. Tell me how protected was society from this man? And how rehabilitated was this man? I for one don't feel I should have to pay taxes to house such grotesque things as the man who did this while he spends the rest of his life or not in prison for taking another person's life. Prisons are good and they serve a purpose...but so does the death penalty. And it has nothing to do with seeking retribution for the actions of the person who is facing the death penalty. It has to do with consequence befitting of the crime. I don't believe that every situation is the same and that others may even rehabilitate to never commit a crime again. Forensic psychiatrists however can pretty much profile an individual and determine whether or not a criminal after incarceration would be a repeat offender. And a just a side note on something you said...for the most part we usually DO get what we deserve. The men who harmed this child by beating him...should be in jail and they should have long sentences. It was brutal and sadistic. Thanks for letting me ramble on..I'll get off the soap box now....smiles Blessings What you are pointing out is that our criminal justice system is faulty and unable to appropriately determine who is or is not dangerous. You are talking about criminals who were let go, and who were let go, may I point out, under the constraints of a system that would have allowed them to be executed. Thus having the death penalty available did nothing to keep these criminals off the streets, did it? Had they been kept in prison, as I am suggesting, nothing would have happened such as the tragedy you describe. Keeping the man in prison would have appropriate and was necessary, killing him utterly excessive and not in keeping with the new covenant. Your example nicely illustrates precisely what I am trying to say--that criminals are only dangerous to society when they are released back into society. Too many innocent people have died after being falsely convicted. Somehow, most every other developed nation has done away with the death penalty. If there aren't enough prison cells, our tax dollars would be well-spent to build a few more. Should we kill people we just don't have room for? As for getting what we deserve, every person on this board deserves to burn, but in Christ we've been saved. In that case, none of us will be getting what we deserve. As for the death penalty being biblical, the Bible also mandates death for those who commit adultery. Or, at least, those were the laws given to Israel, along with the thing about an eye for an eye. That's the OLD COVENANT. What does Jesus do? When he finds the woman caught in adultery, he spares her. This verse was aptly quoted previously: "You have heard that it was said, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:38-39) Furthermore, we are called to forgive others as we ourselves have been forgiven. The old rules no longer apply.

Here's the thing. You gave your daughter a punishment in order to help her. The death penalty doesn't help the criminal, who for all you know might be innocent. It doesn't help society, because the person might just as easily be quarantined from society in prison. In England, for instance, there is no capital punishment and do you know, the majority of police officers don't even carry guns. Let's be honest. The purpose of the death penalty is retribution. Whatever arguments we fabricate, the reason we all like it is because we know that a murderer "deserves it." Well so do I. Thank God we don't all get what we deserve. For the sake of getting back to the topic, I agree that people who abuse children should be removed from society, but to protect society, not to simply slake our thirst for blood . . . right guys? Whatever exceeds what is necessary to protect society lowers us to the level of criminals ourselves.

Then you disagree with Jesus, who said this in Matthew 5:38, 39-- Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. How do you reconcile this? I am just curious. I think I know what you meant, but the way you said it can be misleading for new or immature believers. Marnie, there is no need for me to reconcile this. I know what I meant, you know what I meant....and no I do not disagree with Jesus. He also said that he did not come to bring peace but a sword. Why do you think that is? Let's put this another way the law of the land is in place for a reason..supposedly..Christ says to turn the other cheek. He also says to obey the laws of the land. So put the laws to practice, in the right way, at all times and perhaps there would be less who break such laws and less cheeks would have to be turned. Revelation 19:15 Now out of His mouth goes a sharp[g] sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. I look forward to the day when justice is wielded on all of mankind. For the unknown crimes against innocent people are many and go unpunished. But those that are made known today, let justice be done. Does this make me uncompassionate? Maybe you will think so, God knows my heart. A note to "new or immature believers"...if you are wondering what I mean by this and have questions feel free to PM me. Blessings You will notice that it's God enforcing justice in Revelation, against the corrupt governing authorities. Vengeance belongs to God, to us he has commanded peace. We may suffer, but that's basically been gauranteed to us anyway. That being said, anyone who uses their position in God's church to abuse anybody needs to be separated from the rest of society. That's not retribution, that's just protecting our kids.

Reasoned arguments for God's existence, such as those based on science, or apologetic arguments, make the same mistake as atheism: they presume reason rather than revelation as the ultimate standard of truth. Belief in God stands by faith alone, and this is a gift from God. Science studies only physical reality, only concrete physical relationships with causes explained and predicted by unchanging natural laws. It studies just what is in front of it. The things about God that make him God are not physical. He did not leave oily fingerprints on his creation. Personally, I don't think there is any other way that life could come about, but that is because of my faith, and my faith is a gift from God. ID theory is the contemporary re-mix of the teleological argument for God's existence. It goes back to Aristotle. The teleological argument borrows science to an extent only to observe that life is complex. Any inferences made from that point forward are philosophical. There are no better or worse for being philosophy/theology, but these inferences simply do not belong in the category of "science." Science depends upon the ability to make predictions from past observations. Creation in the past cannot predict anything about what will happen to physical reality in the future. That depends solely on divine revelation, which unavoidable falls beyond the territory covered by science. Many scientists base their worldviews on naturalism, but many do not. Many are Christian. Science in and of itself really can't say anything about God because, as I said, it studies only the things of this world, physical matter. The rest is all philosophical inference, aided in some cases by the Holy Spirit. This is why God gives us faith. Only in very rare cases does anyone experience God before one allows for some modicum of faith. Our job is to testify as to our own experience of God. Fallacious arguments which do not base faith solely on revelation from God will never help anyone to come to know our Savior. That is what He does, and He's better at it than any of us are.

Sure. I apologize. Thanks for your thoughts. Peace.

By romantic, do you mean sexual? Because that's not how I mean. But if in heaven we no longer have a special connection to that person, it seems that when the first spouse dies one should emotionally have to detach oneself from the relationship. Of course I don't believe it, and you rightly recognized my sarcasm. But saying that marriage is only for procreation is a common argument against homosexuality. If we believe that, then it makes sense that there is no marriage in heaven and no special friendships either. But if that isn't true, then it seems odd that we would be deprived of that bond in heaven.

MKJV For you who were offended, forgive me, according to the Scripture. For you who believe that it has been God the Father who has maintained the Truth of the Word through the generations, despite the frailties of His servants, know that this type of argument will never cease. When I prepare to speak the Word, I will continue to pick up my UBS Greek New Testament and Greek Lexicon, check it against Strong's Concordance, the NKJV, the NASB, Robertson's Word Pictures, Wuest's Word Studies, even the KJV from time to time, as well as many other helps, and speak from the Word under the direction of the Living Word. Those of you who wish to continue to live in the past will not disturb me with name-calling. If the KJV floats your boat, paddle away. By the way, when I used the phrase "cult of the KJV", it was not my intent to imply that those who hold that view were in the same category as Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses, and I sincerely apologize if I gave that impression. No problem rfw, consider yourself forgiven . And when you prepare to speak God's word may he continue to bless you and guide you into all truth. I'm not calling you names, and even though I may be living in the past with the KJV, people who I preach to are still getting saved. Can I just observe that the earliest forms of the English language didn't exist until 5 or 6 centuries after Jesus? Here's what it looked like: M

PLEASE tell me you're being sarcastic. your response is so ANTI BIBLICAL it isn't even funny. Sure. I'm just wondering, will our spouses just be friends? Who else are we supposing we would have a romance with?

That is why we should not be very attached to our spouses. We are only meant to use one another for procreation, and when a spouse dies, we should not worry about whether we will see them in heaven or not.