Battle Talk ~ BR XI
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
This is the point at the party where Theo says... "dear, uh... honey-schnookums...? Uhm please put down the martini, we need to be going... no..no... honey don't put the cell phone in the toaster... honey... would please just... OK, now you really shouldn't have smeared lipstick on the neighbor's face... I have your coat now lets just get in the car... and maybe nobody noticed... Hey!! Come back here.... poopy-bear, where are you going?..... ".Primghar said:
Army of One
New member
:chuckle:Knight said:
JoyfulRook
New member
Ok. Nice to know you think he's dumb because he likes a fictional order in a fictional series instead of disliking him because of his theo/political beliefs. :think:Primghar said:
ApologeticJedi said:
I am pretty certain you are not interpreting this right. I am not sure exactly where you got this from, since you failed to cite it (it is found in several places). In Matthew 15 (also in Mark) Jesus says it. He is quoting God's command from the OT, but he is not commanding them that "he who curses father or mother, let him be put to death." He is pointing out inconsistencies in the Pharisees' logic and actions and in the Pharisees' judgment of the disciples. These verses do not prove that Jesus advocated the death penalty.
theo_victis
New member
Well then, he is a bit of a flip flopper. DANG IT! I already checked his book back to the library, so I cannot quote it right now. I will recheck it out to cite his argument. He states that this passage does not contextually speak of the DP.
Can you prove that it does?
My apologies. You know, it gets really easy to be negative and cruel when you are continually being attacked by crazy people like Novice, being told that you have multiple screen names. I forget that there are some people who are legitimately trying to reach a conclusion on this debate.
Anyways, for your comment. I guess I was not so clear, so I apologize. The exegesis is mine, the conclusion is not. My exegesis agrees with the conclusion that I got from Yoder.
I do not have the ability at this moment to name a commentator who agrees with me (or many that disagree for that matter) because I have, like I said, not looked into other commentaries. I beleive my exegesis is solid.
Copy and Pasting from homiletical writers (such as Scofield, Henry etc.) do not support your position because these scholars (the classics as you call them) commented without doing much exegetical work. This is why they are called homiletics (spelling ?).
Anyways, when I go back to school on monday, I will look up exegetical commentaries to see if I was really off base, and I also promise to ask my hebrew professor just for an additional source. Does that help?
Everyone ignores my posts...probably because you are scared of me, right? Or you just think I am drunk....If I was drunk, I would make a lot of typos.
Also, ApologeticJedi--I did not mean to offend you (if indeed I DID offend you)--I was trying to be funny....I will try harder next time and just make fun of myself and maybe that will make someone laugh. Seriously though, I love the first star wars trilogy.
So, once again, I am going to say how crazy I think it is that qualities both God and Jesus displayed are ignored, specifically, mercy and compassion. Consider this:
"When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened." (Jonah 3:10) Hmm...God showing compassion and NOT administering the death penalty to people that DESERVED it.
Can someone tell me what they think these verses mean in relation to the death penalty? :
"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:17-21)
Also, ApologeticJedi--I did not mean to offend you (if indeed I DID offend you)--I was trying to be funny....I will try harder next time and just make fun of myself and maybe that will make someone laugh. Seriously though, I love the first star wars trilogy.
So, once again, I am going to say how crazy I think it is that qualities both God and Jesus displayed are ignored, specifically, mercy and compassion. Consider this:
"When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened." (Jonah 3:10) Hmm...God showing compassion and NOT administering the death penalty to people that DESERVED it.
Can someone tell me what they think these verses mean in relation to the death penalty? :
"Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Romans 12:17-21)
JoyfulRook
New member
How is it merciful and compassionate to lock a convicted murderer up in a cage for life, a murderer who you think is already forgiven?Primghar said:
Dread Helm said:
I did not say anything about locking someone up in a cage for life or whatever. I was talking about giving someone the death penalty....I never mentioned prison in this post; I was merely asking where mercy and compassion fit in with execution. And I asked what your thoughts were on those verses, but....that is okay. Random questions work too...
ApologeticJedi
New member
theo_victis said:
That it speaks of the death penalty? It is a bit self-evident.
In context, God gave 3 commands prior to the flood. After the flood, the three commands get slightly altered.
Before the flood
1. Be fruitful and multiply, have dominion over every living thing that moves. (Gen 1:28)
2. Eat of any plant, save the Tree of Knowlegde of Good and Evil. (Gen 1:29)
3. Murderers should not be put to death (Gen 4:15).
Through this time the world became so wicked so fast, that God had cause to destroy it completely. Thus he teaches us truths about the principles he is about to inact. These new principles will mirror the previous commands.
After the flood
1. Be fruitful and multiply, and the fear of you shall be on every living thing that moves. (Gen. 9:1-2)
2. Animals are now also able to be eaten (Gen 9:3-4)
3. Murderers shall be put to death (Gen. 9:6).
I think you will find there were only three commands given to mankind before the flood, and they are each reworked in Genesis 9 after Noah gets off the boat into the new world. They are related for a reason.
theo_victis said:
I think you've confused what you did. You gave eisegesis not exegesis. Do you know how to tell the difference?
theo_victis said:
Can I make you a bet on what source your Hebrew professor will give?
ApologeticJedi
New member
Primghar said:
It is merciful and compassionate to:
1) Victims, who don't have to watch their justice get raped.
2) Society, who needs desperately to learn the truth about a death penalty in this life, to prepare them for a certain death penalty that awaits them in the afterlife should they not turn to God.
Anyone who refused to obey the law of Moses was found guilty from the proof given by two or three witnesses. He was put to death without mercy. So what do you think should be done to those who do not respect the Son of God?
Hebrews 10:28 (Drawing a correlation between the first and second death penalty.)
Hebrews 10:28 (Drawing a correlation between the first and second death penalty.)
There are times when you can only show mercy and compassion to one person or the other. It is important in those times to choose rightly, to show compassion to the victim, and not to the criminal. As the Bible says, "Let your love be without hypocrisy; hate evil". Do you hate evil? I mean do you really hate it?
ApologeticJedi
New member
Primghar said:
Ouch!ApologeticJedi said:
Why do only the nice people who follow all the rules receive mercy or compassion--that is not what mercy is about! That is not what compassion is about! If it were, we would just call it 'getting what you deserve.' I realize the tragedy in the victims situation, but being victims does not exclude you from being merciful.
"watch their justice get raped"??? What the h does that mean?
Your second point doesn't mean anything either. Prove to me that the death penalty IS, in fact, a deterrent--saying that it is does not make it so. Theo did a good job of explaining why it is NOT a deterrent, using statistics and scripture (proving the perpetual wickedness of man, which no number of executions can stop). I think it is far better testimony to forgive someone and show them mercy than executing them.
Do I hate evil? Do I really hate it? Yes, I do. You know what I love? Jesus.
JoyfulRook
New member
Well, Theo and your's argument seems to be that we should forgive murderers and not give them the Death Penalty. But the government was still ordained by God to punish criminals (fogiven or not). You also were talking about prisons very early on in this thread, and I assume you support life sentences for murderers. So my question applies directly to what you believe. Can you answer my question now?Primghar said:
As an aside, in the Bible Judges are forbidden to show mercy to criminals.
I finally and just finished reading theo's fourth round post. :banana: :banana: :banana:
Wow, that was long. However despite failing to completely abandon some of his arguments which I think Turbo has dismantled and shown to be hypocritical; he has broken new ground, and made some significant, and challenging points, which must be adressed and explained.
I have been waiting to see how he would develop the concept of forgiveness, and how several murderers became apostles and prophets in the Bible. It needs to be explained why they did not, in certain circumstances, perhaps confess, and surrender themselves to the governing authorities for judgment, and possible execution!
Turbo's post is almost due, and I will wait and see how he adresses, and responds to the cases of Moses and Paul and the adulteress woman, et.al.
Wow, that was long. However despite failing to completely abandon some of his arguments which I think Turbo has dismantled and shown to be hypocritical; he has broken new ground, and made some significant, and challenging points, which must be adressed and explained.
I have been waiting to see how he would develop the concept of forgiveness, and how several murderers became apostles and prophets in the Bible. It needs to be explained why they did not, in certain circumstances, perhaps confess, and surrender themselves to the governing authorities for judgment, and possible execution!
Turbo's post is almost due, and I will wait and see how he adresses, and responds to the cases of Moses and Paul and the adulteress woman, et.al.
theo_victis
New member
You are splitting up the chiasm in an unnessecary fashion. I think that the passage is speaking about dietary laws (a monistic-collectivised interpretation). You are compartmentalizing this when it does not need to be.
Besides, even if this passage is speaking of retribution I do not think it argues in favor of Turbo's interpretation that at the center of a godly government is the DP, this is eisegesis. It is not speaking about governments, it is a command in order to make sure that Noah could be fruitful and multiply.
Is being fruitful and multiplying at the center of a godly government as well?
See the logical flaw in his interpretation?
Wow, I am impressed by the little picture Turbo posted. I certainly support the DP now! However, he forgot to tell us WHY Christians should support the DP again...silly man. Now, I don't care who you are...Turbo's post was not "brilliant"! I mean, c'mon, BRILLIANT?? In what way? He said nothing brilliant.
Theo--I LOVE the part in your 4th post with the headline The Atonement. I LOVE IT! It was just brilliant, Patrick, brilliant!!!! (seriously, though, I did like it a lot and I thought you did a great job of explaining)
Theo--I LOVE the part in your 4th post with the headline The Atonement. I LOVE IT! It was just brilliant, Patrick, brilliant!!!! (seriously, though, I did like it a lot and I thought you did a great job of explaining)
Chileice
New member
Turbo, That's it? theo went to all that trouble to lay out a comprehensive argument and all you did was give smart aleck answers to his questions? That was hardly worth the time it took to read. I realize you laid some of that stuff out in earlier posts but that was the weakest post I've seen in this debate.
- Status