Tink says:
===============
The fact that he showed them a higher
law, and exercised soverign charity toward the woman is another issue.
He did not deny the right of the civil law to exercise capital
punishment, which would support the equal right of the civil law today
to also exercise capital punisment. This would be in conflict with the
liberal stand against capital punisment, and support the conservative
position today, which gets to the heart of your contention regarding
the issue of capital law today.
=================

I'm trying to follow you're reasoning here, but I think you got it
twisted. Let me try to untangle and you'll correct me if I got it
wrong.

He did not deny the civil law, you say. I'm no expert, so I'll take
your word for that. But, clearly, from your interpretation, he thought
the civil law was nuts. As you say, "he showed them a higher law."

I have to think that you believe his advocacy of the "higher law" was
the right thing. Which, now that I've untangled it all, leads me to
conclude that you think the "higher law" is the better law. And, of
course, that's the essence of my question. Faced with a public policy
option, "What would Jesus do?"

Answer: "Enact policy that is congruent with the higher law." Remember,
we're not talking about obeying or not obeying civil law. we're talking
about making civil law that is consistent with "What Jesus would do."

So my question to you, Tink, is: "would you vote for a politician who
would enact civil laws that are consistent with the higher law or one
who would contravene the higher law?" As a Christian, I think you have
an obligation to do the former. In the case of capital punishment, you
have not convinced me that Jesus would advocate the imposition of the
death penalty. If you think he would, let me hear your arguments.

frtzw906