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

In many ways, by modern standards, Paul wouldn't be considered a Christian, either...far too mystical. Besides, Paul never even read the Bible.

 

<b>RM95</b>: "Also, I thought I've read that it cost taxpayers more money to execute someone than it would to keep them imprisoned for life."

<b>RR</b>: Thank you for providing us with an unintended but textbook example of wasteful government spending!

 

What, executing people?

 

Well done Jeff! You make a fine Christian for a non-Christian. Maybe you should rethink that.

I might add that Paul himself was a murderer, who later became a strong voice of Christianity. (And yes, a somewhat controversial one.) King David was also a murderer.

Can you really imagine Christ condoning capital punishment? In fact he took a clear stand against it. (John 8)


rimbaud:
In many ways, by modern standards, Paul wouldn't be considered a Christian, either...far too mystical. Besides, Paul never even read the Bible.


You are so sarcastic!

 

Why even bother with a money wasting trial and expensive lethal drugs. Aren't there still horses and ropes in Texas???

Must of ya'll evidently don't know jack about her or her husband. She had been treated for mental illness before the incident.

 

desert -- just because she was treated for mental illness does not mean she did not know that what she was doing was wrong.

rimbaud -- i'm curious as to why you think paul was a mystic...paul is easily the Protestant's best friend (aside from Jesus, of course!) his writings were the ones men like calvin pointed to primarily in the reformation.

jeff --- my interpretation is obviously far different...most of ch. 13 is rendered entirely meaningless if we accept your interpretation of it. you quote correctly from ch. 12...but then he follows up in ch. 13 with "if you do wrong, be afraid, for he (government) does not bear the sword for nothing. he (government) is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment, but also because of conscience." it seems to me that ch. 12 speaks entirely of forgiveness on a personal level...but ch. 13 talks about God's vengeance through govt authority.

grizzled - i see nothing of christ's speaking on capital punishment in the Bible. i do not think that was what he was accomplishing in john 8. i do see jesus verify the validity of the teachings of moses, however....and moses wrote numbers which, in chapter 35, gives commands for the death penalty for those who murder.

 

This is based on Paul's assertion that the government is a Christian government. He writes in letters throughout the New Testament to various groups and communities that they should base their government on the Word of God.

He also wrote in 1 Timothy that women should "dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clotthes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God."

He continues that a woman should, "learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent...it was the woman who was decieved and became a sinner."

These were all Paul's instructions to various believers. If you take some, shouldn't you have to take them all?

 

Jeff,

I believe your understanding of Romans 13 (and other parts of the New Testament) is flawed. The comments are not "based on Paul's assertion that the government is a Christian government." There is no concept of a "Christian government" in the New Testament. It would be well over 200 years before there existed any so-called "Christian government," and that didn't much resemble anything found in the New Testament. Paul was writing to people in Rome as to how they should act under Roman rule. Paul's point is that the concept of government is established by God, and it was done so for the purpose of keeping order.

Peter would say basically the same thing:

"13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority,
14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men" (1 Peter 2:13-15 NAS95).

There's a difference between individual action and government action all through the Bible. Even the "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth" kind of stuff (in the Old Testament) wasn't intended to be taken to mean that any individual could exact revenge for some wrong done to them. It too was to be carried about under the jurisdiction of civil law (which just happened to overlap with religious law for the Jews in the Old Testament).

As far as "Though shalt not kill" is concerned, it seems to me that the better way to render the phrase is, "You shall not murder" (as in the New American Standard Bible, English Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and the New King James Version). The "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament" says that "You shall not murder" is "a more precise reading than the too-general KJV 'though shalt not kill.'" There is sometimes a difference between killing and murder, at least biblically.

Having said all of that, I will not be so bold as to say that I have any idea what should be done in the case of Andrea Yates, and I'm pretty sure no one else does either. I'm content to let the system in place work.

As far as rimbaud's comment that Paul never read the Bible, it depends what he meant. If he meant that Paul never read all 66 books that together we call "The Bible," he's correct. (It would be difficult to read the books that were penned following his death.) He was, however, we'll acquainted with the Old Testament scriptures. You can't read his writings and not come to that conclusion; he quoted from them frequently. As far as the New Testament is concerned, he wrote 13 (14 if you're of the mind that he authored Hebrews) of the 27 New Testament books. And as far as Paul being mystical, I don't see it---and I have read from his writings quite a bit. In fact, that's my "job." I'm currently teaching a class on Romans.

 

jeff --- my interpretation is obviously far different...most of ch. 13 is rendered entirely meaningless if we accept your interpretation of it. you quote correctly from ch. 12...but then he follows up in ch. 13 with "if you do wrong, be afraid, for he (government) does not bear the sword for nothing. he (government) is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment, but also because of conscience." it seems to me that ch. 12 speaks entirely of forgiveness on a personal level...but ch. 13 talks about God's vengeance through govt authority.

I think Jeff's take is essentially correct. The tenor of these passages is repeated again and again, on only in Romans, but in the whole of the New Testament. This is how we are clearly instructed to live under the New Covenant, which was the purpose for Christ coming and which makes the New Testament fundamentally different than the Old Testament, not incompatible, different. It's what makes us Christian. The book of Romans is all about this.

Chapter 13 is a little more challenging, but we must interpret scripture from scripture, right? So that is a good place to start. As Jeff pointed out, it is surrounded by, and includes verses proclaiming the basic Christian principles of love, forgiveness, compassion, charity, etc. But, it also includes verses like:

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
4 For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.

Sadam Hussein is a ruler. The Talaban were rulers. Stalin was a ruler. Surely this can't be justifying them? This was written by Paul to the Romans at a time when Christians were not persecuted, so was it simply for those Christians at that time? This doesn't quite ring true for me either. In later years Christians were persecuted and put to death, and Paul was likely one of them, but Christians still refused to rebel. We also know that Christianity became very strong during this time, and that the Roman Empire fell. So what is this saying? That love is stronger than hate? Are we really to turn the other cheek to this extent? I'm really not sure how to read this. Jeff is right, however, that in democratic countries, the people are the rulers. We control the laws of the land, so that makes it personal, and our responsibility, IMO.


grizzled - i see nothing of christ's speaking on capital punishment in the Bible. i do not think that was what he was accomplishing in john 8. i do see jesus verify the validity of the teachings of moses, however....and moses wrote numbers which, in chapter 35, gives commands for the death penalty for those who murder.

In John 8 a woman who was caught in adultery (therefore no question of guilt) was brought to him. The penalty under Moses law prescribed that the woman be stoned to death. Did Jesus say, "this is the law, we must follow it"? No. He said to the crowd, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her," and he personally said the he didn't condemn her. This is forgiveness. This is the spirit of Christ. It was the legalistic ones who didn't understand, or wouldn't accept, Jesus' teachings. Now I don't think that this means we should let all prisoners out of jail, but I do think that in this spirit we would and should treat prisoners a lot differently, with compassion. You can incarcerate and rehabilitate with compassion, but you can't kill with compassion, not people who don't want to be killed anyway. So I feel this speaks directly to capital punishment. Now, for Moses' law:

Romans 3
20 Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin. 21 But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus …
Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

This was the purpose of Jesus coming. This is a clear change in the way the law applies for us. Does this mean we can sin at will? Absolutely not. Read the fist 4 or so chapters of Romans. They are directly on point.

 

Grizzled, just out of curiosity, what denomination, if any, do you identify with? I'm partial to your views.

 

Traj,

As far as rimbaud's comment that Paul never read the Bible, it depends what he meant. If he meant that Paul never read all 66 books that together we call "The Bible," he's correct. (It would be difficult to read the books that were penned following his death.) He was, however, we'll acquainted with the Old Testament scriptures. You can't read his writings and not come to that conclusion; he quoted from them frequently.

As Grizzled rightly noted, I was just being sarcastic/silly and was reffering to the NT. Of course he did not read something that was put together a few hundred years after him. I also know that he was deeply entrenched in the OT, as statements such as these indicate:

Romans 16:25-6:
. . . according to the revelation of the mystery kept in silence for long ages but now revealed, and made known through prophetic writings at the command of God

Galatians 1:11-12:
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel preached by me is not the product of men. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but through a revelation about Jesus Christ.

And as far as Paul being mystical, I don't see it---and I have read from his writings quite a bit. In fact, that's my "job." I'm currently teaching a class on Romans.

This will be in response to Max as well. First I must state that, in general, I think that most early Christians would be considered too mystical for modern tastes. It must be understood that Christianity started as many other mystery cults did, used a lot of the same terminology, rituals, etc. This was when people were gathering in houses and apartments, not churches. The whole idea behind the mystery cults was that the "initiated" (in Christianity's case, the baptised/anointed) only could be exposed to the mystical mysteries contained within the cult.

Here are a few examples of mysticism:

1 Corinthians 2:6-8:
And yet I do speak of a wisdom for those who are mature, not a wisdom of this passing age, nor of the rulers of this age who are passing away. I speak of God's secret wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and predestined by God for our glory before time began. None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

"rulers of this age" type statements usually refer to spirit forces who rule the lower heavens. Origin and Marcion used the term in this way. A simlar term comes up in Ephesians 3:9-10, so that through the church the wisdom of God might be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavens.

1 Corinthians 2:11-13
For what person knows a man’s thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God

...

Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us from God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 12:4-11:

There are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit. . . . In each of us the Spirit is manifested in one particular way, for some useful purpose. One man, through the Spirit, has the gift of wise speech . . . etc. . . . But all these gifts are the work of one and the same Spirit, distributing them separately to each individual at will.

The last is most consistent with the so-called "gnostics." The rest are just examples of keeping things in the spirit worl...no one on earh can even pretend to understand God, etc. Everything Paul seems to know has come through his reading of the OT and his spiritual "revelations." People who have such things now can often be locked up and declared insane.

 

grizzled -- i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Biblical interpretation...i just don't think it's as black and white as you make it to be.

to me the parts of romans where it talks of the government bearing the sword are rendered entirely meaningless by that interpretation. does God justify hitler or hussein??? no....but does he "use" them for His purposes??? absolutely. see Cyrus! see Pharoh! paul had absolutely no concept of a christian government at that point. christians were scarcely organized at that point, and were quite the minority. Christ, himself, said "render unto Caesar," and it would be very hard to argue that Caesar's Rome was a glorification of God!

I don't believe the fact were democratic makes us any different. he punished israel at times for their actions as a nation...and they certainly weren't a democracy, despite the fact they were all held accountable. I don't believe that everything this government does is a product of its people, simply because we're a democratic nation. I don't belive God buys that either.

Ultimately, I don't believe Jesus came to speak on anything related to government affairs. He was about connecting with individuals and defeating sin. That's why he gave evasive answers on topics like that..brilliant answers, I might add.

Make no mistake about Moses' law...the law hasn't changed. Even today, all have sinned and falllen short...the rules of the game haven't changed. The law is still the law...it's just that Christ answers for our shortcomings now. God is perfection and He can't look upon imperfection...that's why we talk about Christ's blood covering our sins.

John 8 ..you're extrapolating from one circumstance...i do not believe Christ is saying capital punishment isn't right...if so, He's directly contradicting the OT, which He would not do. this was a particular incident where Christ intervened to make a point to the Pharisees. I don't think he's making a universal statement on the ability of nations to implement a death penalty for capital offenders.

 

rimbaud -- the Spirit he's talking about in that last verse is the Holy Spirit, part of the Trinity of God. Yes, it's very mystical, but it's certainly acknowledged in Christianity today.

I go to a fairly conservative but open-minded Presbyterian church...we talk all the time about how God reveals and talks to us all the time..through scripture...through circumstance...perhaps, through dream. I don't think anyone who appreciates the power of God would limit his ability to speak to any one of us in any way He chooses. Pat Robertson claims to have dreams where God reveals truth to him...he's not been locked up yet or deemed crazy by Christians.

God is shrouded in mystery,there is no doubt...but I also believe that if you approach Him with an earnest heart He reveals more and more of Himself to you....

we still drink his blood and eat his body once a month in my church...mystical enough for you??

i think you are correct in saying that the modern church may not appreciate the rituals of days gone by...but God speaks to different generations in very different ways. what appealed to people at the turn of the century is now turning people off about church...churches that are Christ-centered recognize that the very purpose of the church is not for the congregation, but rather for the rest of the world, and, thus, they adapt.

 

But do you *really* believe that it is his blood or is it just symbolic (even some Catholics seem to be going away from the literal transformation belief)? If the bread was "converted" into Christ's body, would you then make a reliquary in which to house the body of Christ? They did.

As to the rest of your comments, I understand what you are saying and agree with much, however, a few things:

Pat Robertson is considered by many to be a whacko...regardless, he is still within the confines of ~1700 years of organized, evolved Christianity. What would happen if someone stated today that God spoke to him, told him all of these truths, etc, and it had nothing to do with Christianity but was basically new...or even if he said God said Christianity was wrong? I think people would find him nutty. Different times.

Also, what are your thoughts on Paul (and others of the time) speaking of the spirit rulers who crucified Christ?

Anyway, my point was not to discredit Paul or anything going on now, it was just to state that Paul was more mystical (which, along with the "not read the ible" remark, was just trying to be silly). Even more conservative scholars that I have read have remarked that most of his events occur not on earth and there is little evidence for a straight Jesus as man interpretation within Paul's writings. It seems to me that the difference is that the conservative scholars either try to minimize its importance or dismiss it, while the liberal scholars tend to blow it up and run with it. The truth to Paul's mind, I think, lies somewhere in between and can only be understood through contextualizing him with his contemporaries - Christians, pagans, and Jews.

 

rimbaud --

i'm not sure there is room for a new revelation in Paul's "world" either...read Galatians...i believe it's either the first or third chapter that talks about how to verify truth through scripture...he talks about the writings as being complete, and most Protestants and Catholics use this as evidence of the fallacy of the additons made by the Mormons...Paul commends a group in another book for verifying the validity of those who preach by testing what they say against what is already written.

as for the "spirit rulers" who crucified Christ...you're gonna have to help me with this one...where are you getting that?

the story of communion intrinsically notes that it is symbolic. christ is still alive at the last supper when he introduces the concept of eating his body and drinking his blood...he says to do so in THE REMEMBRANCE of Himself after he's gone. Honestly, I'm not certain what the early Christians thought of communion (and i'm not quite sure how you know that, either!)...but again..God seems to speak to different generations differently. To me, it doesn't diminish the meaning of Christ, the cross and His resurrection to go either way on this issue.

to me, the most mystical thing of the Bible is the resurrection. christ's body..not his ghost..resurrected. that is extremely mystical to me. imagine st. thomas actually being able to feel the wounds...mystical, no doubt.

 

Relativist
Grizzled, just out of curiosity, what denomination, if any, do you identify with? I'm partial to your views.


Thanks. It's nice to hear that someone else has similar understandings. Feel free to join the discussion. I attend a community oriented non-denomination church. (I can describe it further if you're interested. Send me an email if you are.) I don't even like to call myself a protestant, just a Christian.


rimbaud
The whole idea behind the mystery cults was that the "initiated" (in Christianity's case, the baptised/anointed) only could be exposed to the mystical mysteries contained within the cult.


I agree with you that Christianity is quite mystical (see Acts), but I differ with you somewhat on this point. Early Christians weren't exclusive in nature. They were out talking to everybody and thousands "believed and were added to their number." And the mystical gifts weren't just for the baptised/anointed.

Acts 10
42 He commanded us to preach to the people and to testify that he is the one whom God appointed as judge of the living and the dead. 43 All the prophets testify about him that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name." 44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. 45 The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. 46 For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, 47 "Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have." 48 So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

So these people who the inner circle didn't even know, who were not even Jews but Gentiles, who had not even been baptised at the time, were given the Holy Spirit, based on the fact that they heard the word, and presumably believed it. This is one of the things, IMO, that clearly separates Christianity from what we typically understand cults to be.


MadMax
i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on Biblical interpretation...i just don't think it's as black and white as you make it to be.

I wouldn't say that I see it as black and white. Romans 13 is an example. I'm still not that comfortable with my understanding of it.

does God justify hitler or hussein??? no....but does he "use" them for His purposes??? absolutely. see Cyrus! see Pharoh!

This is a challenging point of view, one that gives me a knot in my stomach, but I agree. This doesn't mean that what they do is right, or that we should agree, or that we should not pursue legal means of addressing injustices that we see in them, and our own leaders. It just says, IMO, that there is a greater plan, one that we likely cannot understand. The early Christians spoke in ways that were very challenging to the rulers of the day, and spoke of injustices, but they didn't tend to break laws.

I don't believe the fact were democratic makes us any different. he punished israel at times for their actions as a nation...and they certainly weren't a democracy, despite the fact they were all held accountable. I don't believe that everything this government does is a product of its people, simply because we're a democratic nation. I don't belive God buys that either.

Ultimately, I don't believe Jesus came to speak on anything related to government affairs. He was about connecting with individuals and defeating sin. That's why he gave evasive answers on topics like that..brilliant answers, I might add.

I would agree with you that elected governments don't function in the exact manner prescribed by the voters and that there are other forces at work. But in democracies, the voters do bear responsibility. And citizens bear responsibility for their voices and actions.

Make no mistake about Moses' law...the law hasn't changed. Even today, all have sinned and falllen
short...the rules of the game haven't changed. The law is still the law...it's just that Christ answers for our shortcomings now. God is perfection and He can't look upon imperfection...that's why we talk about Christ's blood covering our sins.

Exactly. And this is why we should not try to live by works, but by faith. As Romans says, the law was brought to increase sin, and this makes it clear to us that we are all sinners and that the only road to justification is by faith. By faith one is forgiven and is given the spirit. As God has forgiven us, we are to forgive others, "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," "judge not lest ye be judged," Romans 2, etc. And we are to live by the spirit and by doing so we display the fruits of the spirit. So the law has not changed at all. But the way we live has. That is the New Covenant that Christ brought.

John 8 ..you're extrapolating from one circumstance...i do not believe Christ is saying capital punishment isn't right...if so, He's directly contradicting the OT, which He would not do. this was a particular incident where Christ intervened to make a point to the Pharisees. I don't think he's making a universal statement on the ability of nations to implement a death penalty for capital offenders.

Well, I don't think Jesus' actions contradict themselves. I think his is very consistent. I don't think he would do something he thought was wrong just to make a point. And I don't think he is contradicting the OT in with what he did. Did she sin? Yes. Does she deserve death? Yes. But so do we all. We are all sinners, who fall short. As you say, Christ came to take away our sins through faith. And he calls upon us to extend the same to our fellow man, even non-Christians. How else would the world know who we really are?

Mathew 5
44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.
46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that?
47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So these are things we should strive to do, but the only way to be perfect in the eyes of the father, of course, is through grace by faith.

 

Max: You make strong points and I'm probably still caught up in a nearly year-long debate over the death penalty I had in my 12th grade religion class.

Anyway, I just find it to be a stretch that you would interpret the government "sword" as the death penalty but also interpret that Jesus saving someone from a death sentence just means that we aren't allowed to do it but the government is. That seems to me to be a huge stretch.

In our country, we are the government. WE THE PEOPLE is what we live by. So, how can we separate ourselves from that? How can we deliniate between not throwing stones and carrying the sword of justice?

And, if Jesus really was saying "Let he who is among you cast the first stone" and "Turn the other cheek" and "If someone steals your coat, give him your cloak also," then shouldn't we stand up to our government and say that we must return love for hate and that we cannot cast the first stone?

I just feel like the government is as responsible to us as we are to them.

 

Jeff -- i respect your position..unfortunately it puts a stop on our argument....we just disagree at a fundamental level...tomato..tomahtoe but ultimately i arrive at that position because of the closeness in the text of ch. 12 and ch. 13...i mean, he immediately follows up the close of ch. 12 (with all its talk of forgiving your enemy) with the sword of the government in ch. 13...without striking out the entire meaning of ch. 13 there, i'm not sure what other conclusion can logically be drawn. and ultimately, i'm intrinsically going to suffer whatever fate God has planned for my nation, whether we're a democracy or not...I don't believe God changes the rules depending on the government structure of a nation.

grizzled -- when Christ talks of death, he generally speaks of eternal death, particularly as a consequence for sin. "the wages of sin are death," He said. i just don't think there is a direct correlation between that and a government imposing the death penalty as a means of keeping order. I think the story you refer to was the basic theme of the Pharisees trying to use a woman to entrap Jesus and to enhance their smug piety(just like they did when they tried to trap him about paying taxes). If Jesus made a wrong move, he could have the people up in arms and the Romans down on top of him, and these guys knew that. They were using a human being. Her failures were broadcast while they remained silent about their own. Her badness made them feel righteous...that's the heart of the story! Not about how governments should punish murderers! He forgives, no doubt...but I believe it is possible to forgive and still carry out a policy that benefits the common good. and our society deems that the death penalty saves lives as both a specific and general deterrant. Jesus gets credit for a lot of things...but he often doesn't get credit for the brilliance of his answers when cornered as He was here.

I heard these same arguments for Bill Clinton from church leaders during impeachment...we should all just forgive him because Jesus said we're supposed to forgive. It's an illogical jump from Jesus' words, in my opinion. It's a permissiveness from grace that Paul warns against on a personal level. What it ultimately leads to is an orderless society...something I don't believe God condones. There are natural consequences for actions in this world...whether God forgives in the afterlife upon true judgment is an entirely different matter. Whether or not you forgive the person is an entirely different matter...forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean a government should let someone go scott-free...and using your logic, that's where it gets you...and it doesn't mean a government shouldn't implement a policy that it believes best serves the common good (particularly in a society that is as diverse theologically as the U.S. is) You should love your enemies, Grizzled...but that doesn't mean that society shouldn't punish them if they break the law.

You don't need to post the "love your enemies" quotes...I know them...but the fact is, you can't erase Paul's words in Romans Ch. 13...they either mean what they mean, or they're rendered useless...and once you start rendering any part of the Bible as useless, you cast doubt on the entirety. It seems clear to me that throughout the Bible God addresses people as nations and people as individuals differently. I think that's exactly what you see here.

 

Sorry, now I disagree, and the historical record seems to disagree. From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

In the primitive Church it was otherwise; initiation into the Christian society consisted in two distinct acts, often accomplished years apart from one another. First, one became a catechumen by the imposition of hands and the sign of the cross; this was a kind of preliminary profession of Christian faith -- "eos qui ad primam fidem credulitatis accedunt" (Council of Elvira, about 300, can.xlii), which authorized the catechumen to call himself a Christian. Only by the second act of initiation, i.e. by baptism itself, was he authorized to call himself one of the faithful, and participate immediately in all the Christian mysteries, including the Eucharist.

and

Tertullian, however, uses it, and reproaches the heretics for obliterating all distinction between catechumens and the faithful: quis catechumenus, quis fidelis incertum est (De praeser., c. xli; P.L., II, 56). Henceforth, in the partristic writings and canons of councils we meet quite frequently the antithesis of catechumens and baptized Christians, Christians and faithful. Thus St. Augustine (Tract. in Joannem, xliv, 2; P.L., XXXV, 1714): "Ask a man: are you a Christian? If he be a pagan or a Jew, he will reply: I am not a Christian. But if he say: I am a Christian, ask him again: are you a catechumen, or one of the faithful?"

and

Finally, since the faithful have voluntarily sought membership in the Christian society they are bound to submit to its authority and obey its rulers. As to the rights of the faithful, they consist chiefly in the fullest participation in all the Christian mysteries, so long as one does not become unworthy of the same. Thus the faithful Christian is entitled to take part in the Holy Sacrifice, ..., to receive there the Body and Blood of Christ, and to receive the other rites and sacraments. .. In a word, he is a full member of the Christian society, and is such, regularly speaking, in perpetuity. ... Finally, if he persist in the observance of his baptismal promises, he will obtain eternal life, i.e. his original petition at the moment of baptism.


Ugh...I have to stop short...more later.

 

MM:
when Christ talks of death, he generally speaks of eternal death, particularly as a consequence for sin. "the wages of sin are death," He said. i just don't think there is a direct correlation between that and a government imposing the death penalty as a means of keeping order.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your point. Are you saying the woman deserved physical death but not eternal death? Either way, Christ spared her physical life, even though she may not have been a Christian. (Do you believe the death penalty is means of keeping order? No other Christian or first world country that I know of has it, and the debates I remember hearing stated that the death penalty was not a deterrent. I want to keep this discussion centred around the Christian response to the death penalty, so we can agree to disagree very quickly on these points if you want. )

I think the story you refer to was the basic theme of the Pharisees trying to use a woman to entrap Jesus and to enhance their smug piety(just like they did when they tried to trap him about paying taxes). If Jesus made a wrong move, he could have the people up in arms and the Romans down on top of him, and these guys knew that. They were using a human being. Her failures were broadcast while they remained silent about their own. Her badness made them feel righteous...that's the heart of the story! Not about how governments should punish murderers!

They are both important parts of the story. The Pharisees are an example of religious leaders who proclaim, and even follow the letter of the law, but whose hearts are hard, and who do not know the spirit of Christ. (see Mathew 23 - for other readers. I'm sure you know it MM) And we have many hard heated legalists today also. Christ's response is very important. We are told to be Christ like, so observing the way, and more importantly the spirit with which he deals with issues is key part of our learning. This event was no accident, Christ's time on earth and his death and resurrection were for known. This is all part of God's plan. This event happened for a reason and Jesus responded they way he did for a reason, and it was recorded in the bible this way for a reason.

He forgives, no doubt...but I believe it is possible to forgive and still carry out a policy that benefits the common good. and our society deems that the death penalty saves lives as both a specific and general deterrant. Jesus gets credit for a lot of things...but he often doesn't get credit for the brilliance of his answers when cornered as He was here.

Some societies considered genocide, cannibalism and other atrocities "good for their society." As Christians we ask and discern what the will of Christ would be, and with respect to capital punishment, this passage, as well as the many others that show the compassion and forgiveness of Christ, point the way.

It's a permissiveness from grace that Paul warns against on a personal level. What it ultimately leads to is an orderless society...something I don't believe God condones. There are natural consequences for actions in this world...whether God forgives in the afterlife upon true judgment is an entirely different matter. Whether or not you forgive the person is an entirely different matter...forgiveness doesn't necessarily mean a government should let someone go scott-free...and using your logic, that's where it gets you...and it doesn't mean a government shouldn't implement a policy that it believes best serves the common good (particularly in a society that is as diverse theologically as the U.S. is) You should love your enemies, Grizzled...but that doesn't mean that society shouldn't punish them if they break the law.

Yielding to temptation, as a Christian, is damaging to ones faith, yes. And yes I think Paul warns about this on a personal level. I also think that communities and power structures can stray. In Jesus day as today the biggest issues were, legalism, judgmentalism, "the yeast of the Pharisees" etc. (Matthew 23) Today the same problems exist. I believe that I mentioned above that I don't think that having compassion and forgiveness means we should open the doors to the jails. I spoke to this point in an earlier post in this thread. I might also add, on this topic of the separation of individual and government, that a Christian can't legitimately say, "I forgive you, but the big bad government is going to come kick you ass!" Either you believe in compassion and forgiveness, and it lives in your heart, or you don't really believe it at all. And if you believe it you have to stand by it and support it in whatever way you're called to do.

You don't need to post the "love your enemies" quotes...I know them...but the fact is, you can't erase Paul's words in Romans Ch. 13...they either mean what they mean, or they're rendered useless...and once you start rendering any part of the Bible as useless, you cast doubt on the entirety. It seems clear to me that throughout the Bible God addresses people as nations and people as individuals differently. I think that's exactly what you see here.

This goes both ways, of course. Your take on 13 makes all the other passages around it meaningless. You can't erase those. I don't think 13 says what you think it says, although I'll admit that I'm not sure what it is saying. While in some ways I agree with you that God addresses nations and people differently, I do not agree that God has two contradictory spirits, as you seem to suggest. The spirit which Christ directs the individual to live by is the one we should live by, in all facets of our life. That includes our actions and attitudes toward governments and other power structures.