Andrea Yates Case is Waste of Money and Grand Standing by Rookie DA

Commendable research rimbaud, but when I said early I meant really early, as in the church in Acts. That's where the passage came from. I suspect what you've found was early corruption of the political church, which, of course, progressed to some spectacular levels, and still exists to some extent today.

 

I discussed this when I went to a religious school and the thought came up again today when my wife pointed it out. It seems that, in many cases, there is a dichotomy in Christianity that pits the teachings of Christ versus the teachings of Paul. This is not to say that the two are completely dissimilar, just that Paul's teachings were much more specific and geared towards societal behavior and law while Jesus' tended towards the cryptic and even, at times, anti-social (at least for his time).

The entire Lutheran denomination was based on the revelations of Martin Luther who discovered, as a Catholic monk (which is why Lutheranism bears such a striking resembelance to Catholicism in terms of liturgy), the verse, "By grace, ye are saved through faith..." This study caused him to not only translate the Bible but to nail his 95 theses to the church door, decry the selling of indulgences and eventually be excommunicated.

His discovery, of course, was found in Romans and was written by Paul. Somehow, through this discovery, he was able to determine that salvation didn't come through prayer to Mary and that we have a direct link to God through Jesus, yet he was unable to see that "love one another" applied to Jews as well because, as history would show, Luther was a horrible anti-Semite.

These types of variances in the reading and understanding of the new testament are what have always given me the most difficulty with the church as a whole. If turning the other cheek is a requirement, how can capital punishment be ok? If casting the first stone is a paradox we must come to grips with to understand our own sinfulness, how can casting that stone be just?

Are we not the same people who "can do all that I have done and even greater things"? Jesus said that even the LEAST of us can do what he did which included standing up to a system he believed to be unjust and yet we are beholden to the government we create even if we disagree?

Achem's Razor states, "All things being equal, the simplest explanation is often the best." It seems to me that we often overlook the most simplistic explanation to justify a way of life even if it might be inconsistent with what we see. This doesn't mean we are wrong, just that the challenge of determining what we believe sometimes means owning up to the fact that we may do the opposite of what our beliefs tell us to do as a way of preserving our way of life.

Culture has always weighed heavily on religion and that is the case today, otherwise women would still be sitting in the backs of churches wearing veils and not holding positions of authority over men. There is no crime in evolution, only in a lack of willingness to honor even the changes we make in our beliefs.

 

grizzled - it's clear we disagree at a fundamental level about this...fair enough. the only thing i would point out further is that i don't think the meaning i'm ascribing to Ch. 13 renders meaningless the rest of the surrounding text...I think Paul is making a very clear definition of governments and the need for order and how individual Christians should respond with love and compassion. it's , "statement A regarding character X....but don't forget statement B regarding character Y." statement A isn't rendered meaningless by statement B because they're conditionally different. But if you look directly at statement B and say, "well that can't be right, because look at statement A!" you've stripped the very meaning of the text.

as for the death penalty...it is, at the very least, a specific deterrant...meaning the person who killed will not kill again. i'm unsure as to whether or not it's a general deterrant...but i think the general public knows you'd rather not get caught murdering someone in the state of texas as opposed to anywhere else in the country. and i'm not real concerned with how other nations handle this subject....other western european nations set caps on number of hours a person can work in a week (namely, france)...those are entirely different cultures which are half the globe away.

one thing we can clearly agree on is salvation through faith in Christ...and it makes me VERY happy to read your posts on that!!! thanks for the fair discussion and God bless you!

glynch -- some people like to take one verse without considering surrounding text and twist them WAY past literal meaning...it's a sad reality for all religion...i would agree entirely with you that, in the case you presented, Christ would ask us to have compassion on the less fortunate...what i don't believe is that somehow government-mandated welfare is christian compassion on my part...if i don't pay my taxes, i go to jail!! that's hardly charity!

jeff -- at least you're thinking about these issues seriously....that's more than about 85% of the population, in my opinion!! i will be the first to admit that the church is a human institution that God works through....but being human, it has made tons of mistakes...and from time to time its authority has fallen into the hands of truly evil men....but at its heart, Christianity is anything but a religion (despite rimbaud's posts on the historical church)...Christianity isn't about man reaching to God (which is how i'd define religion)...it's about God reaching to man...I, like you, don't claim to have the Bible or all the mysteries of God figured out. But I do believe I'm sinful...and I do believe that, through Christ, I'm redeemed...not on my own merit, but on His.

 

Probably so. Maybe I think about it too much. I know what you mean and I basically agree even if I come to different conclusions as to how it should be applied. I'm all about discussion, though. I have learned as much from Christianity as I have from any other religion I've studied. They all offer truth, many in very similar ways. It's up to us to determine how to use that knowledge.

 

MM
I'll just agree to disagree at this point. We've both said our piece, we can let the reader discern from here. It's been a good discussion, and undoubtedly we've both said things that were right and both said things that were wrong. That's our plight as Christians, none of us understands the whole truth, and we all understand part of it. But through discussion and contemplation one can discern new understandings of the greater truth by their resonance/conviction in the spirit. At least that's how it works for me. You and I do come from opposite ends of the spectrum within Christianity, but we do both agree on the starting point, the cornerstone, the salvation by faith through the sacrifice Jesus made on the cross. May God bless you too MadMax!

 

grizzled -- we're probably not as much on opposite ends of the spectrum as you might think...particularly if Christ is your starting point. there's always room for friendly debate...but those debates shouldn't become the focal point of the faith...unfortunately, in a media-driven society, that's exactly what has happened.

 

MM
I didn't mean that we are on opposite ends of the spectrum in a worldly sense. Sorry if I gave that impression. I meant we are on opposite ends of the Christian spectrum, i.e. within the body of Christian believers. And I agree that angry media driven debate is not helpful, but good discussion and discernment is what helps us grow in our faith, and I thought that this was a good discussion. I enjoyed it.

 

I don't think that you can say that since "your" Christianity is but a percentage of all Chrisitanity. Keep in mind that Christianity (as an organized religion) has existed for some 1700 years, while your particular branch has existed for a little over 300. I say this not to belittle or minimize your faith, but to point out that you shoud not minimize the others and use yours as the main type, etc.

I think that too often (I am only speaking in general terms, not about you) Protestants can have a tendency to dismiss much of the history of Christianity as being irrelevant when it all still has lessons to teach.

Grizz,

I was going to post more earlier but as I said, I had to end abruptly...anyway, my point was that you were speaking in idealistic terms of Christianity in respect to "membership" and organization. From its true beginnings as a mystery cult (starting in the mid to late 1st century) it functioned as all the others - with needed induction process, etc. Also understand that my use and understanding of the word "cult" has nothing to do with the modern definition and should not be interpreted as negative. History shows that Christiaity was grouped with the cult of Mithras, Dionysus, etc...not just in type but in geographic location within Roman cities. This is not the time or place to go too much into it, but believe that I am not just speaking from opinion and I am certainly not trying to diminish or be negative.

 

rimbaud -- as i wrote that part, i thought you would respond that way!! my point is that ultimately Christ came to save us...we didn't reach up and even ask to be saved. Paul says we love because He loved us first. Not even the ancient church did anything first...for there is no church at all without God's gift coming first. In that sense, it's all about our RESPONSE to God...

 

Max,

OK, I understand your point...however, I must say that your definition makes just about every religion "not a religion" then, imo. God sent Mohammed, Buddha, Confuscious, etc...to all act as prophets/saviors without anyone asking. Before those figures, as with Christ, those religions did not exist.

I know you never spoke comparatively (keeping within Christianity), but I am curious now...how would you describe these other religions? In other words do you see them as the same type of reaction, or more institutional, etc. I am just curious.

as i wrote that part, i thought you would respond that way!!

I hope that is not a negative comment, as I certainly did not want to be construed that way. I'm not coming accross as antogonistic, am I?

 

rim -- no...not at all!! i don't think of you as being antagonistic (spelling??)...but i just think about counter-arguments to my posts usually as I go through them and post them...i guess law school did that to me! you do a great job of asking questions to me in a way that doesn't make me defensive...

i guess what i mean is that christianity is less about men getting to God then it is about God getting to man. there is no path to follow like buddhism...there is no sacrifice...Christ, himself, is the sacrifice...the only action is the acceptance of Christ and turning from your sin...and my view would be that even that comes from the grace of God...those words seem pretty clear in Paul's writings.

i recognize what you're saying about the "exclusivity of Christianity." but it doesn't seem to mesh at all with the work of the apostles directly after Christ's death....

chances are good, you won't offend me with your questions, rim. the Bible has stood up to questions for a long time now! i think it will still be influential, despite what conclusions you or I might reach here! the best way to learn more about yourself is to question your core beliefs.

 

Whatever happened to separating church and state? We all know that if Andrea Yates was a minority, then she would fry, so why all the debate? This b**** has no place in society. We are fighting so hard to stop terrorism, but yet b****es like this kill their kids. Total bull****. Death by lethal injection. Send her ass to death row.

All murderers are crazy, right? Has anyone ever met a sane murderer? That's what I thought. Hell, maybe we should try Osama or Milosevic as insane as well. Yates is a terrorist in her own right and deserves the same punishment as the Al-Qaida. Fry the b****.

 

baqui -- agreed that Biblical interpretations here are only to be argued on a personal level...they can not be used as policy reasons for the State of Texas, in my opinion.

i agree completely with you that the "anyone who murders her children is crazy" logic is ridiculous. anyone who slams jets into buildings and kills thousands is crazy too....but that doesn't mean they're incapable of contemplating whether the act they committed was right or wrong...and that's the ultimate test in the courts. and that's why i think ultimately, she will be convicted. i think she absolutely knew that what she was doing was wrong.

 

Good, I try to keep religious questions as neutral as possible, so that I can get an honest answer. I just sometimes have trouble reading the tone of responses. I understand your thought process and thought about it before I read your specific response. I remember the days when I was a lawyer-in-training.

the only action is the acceptance of Christ and turning from your sin...and my view would be that even that comes from the grace of God...

That further clarifies your position for me...now I understand. Of course, again, there are other types of Christians that do have to follow certain rules beyond accepting Christ as the savior.

i recognize what you're saying about the "exclusivity of Christianity." but it doesn't seem to mesh at all with the work of the apostles directly after Christ's death....

Which was my point...institutions were formed fairly early that became exclusive, despite any of the original ideas or teachings. Women played a bigger role in the very early days as well. Christ was a great liberator through his "curing of the woman with the issue of blood" miracle which did not really cure her of menstruation, but cured her of the "dirty" label she had had for years upon years.

Elaine Pagels, along with a German scholar whose name I forget at the moment, has done a bit of work on the "victory" of the branch of early Christianity that eventually became The Church/Catholicism (over all of the other literalists, symbolists, etc) and concluded that it won due to it's inherent hierarchy that blended well with the political power structure of late antiquity. Interesting to see that once the "first generation" died, Christianity was in the hands of politicians.

 

rim --

i guess i've just read different things about first generation Christians and the early-church...oh, well...thanks for the info..

by the way...i'm not still in law school...i've been out practicing since may, 2000...but i guess that means i'm still in training, anyway!!! i learn something new everyday!