BCITORGB wrote:
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

Let me try to clarify with a less polarizing example.

I as a good Christian, am driving down the road going to church, and I
am running late. In as much as it is very embarassing to get to church
late, and to have everyone turn and look at you as you walk in late,
and I being in a powerful automobile, I am driving 5 mph over the speed
limit. Now in my haste, I fail to notice one of our fine public
servants setting in his police car, on the road side with a radar gun,
checking the speed of passing motorist.

Now this police officer having gotten chewed out by his sargent for not
writing enough tickets recently, is in a bad mood. He sees me go flying
by, and takes it upon himself to come chasing after me with all those
embarassing light and sirens going. He finally catches up with me and
pulls me over just as I turn into the church parking lot. How
embarrassing!

He gets out of his car and strolls up to my window, and asks for
license and registration. I explain to him that I was in a hurry to get
to this very church, and is all this "License and registration" thing
necessary! I got here quicker, with the help of his escort, and now I
will be able to be on time. He does not think that is very humorous,
and he insists on my L&R. After a very long time, with people looking
at me with the police officer and all his lights still going, he
finally figures out how to fill out the form for writing a ticket. You
would think it was the first one he ever wrote.

When he got back to my window, and ask me to sign the ticket, I
protested that I was only going 5 mph over the speed limit. Couldn't he
just let me go this time? Especially since I was going to church, to
study a higher law about God's Love.

He having a bad day gave me a ticket, anyway.

Now should I have to pay the ticket? If I explain to the officer, or
the Judge, that I believe in a higher law, should the judge let me off
from paying. The officer was within the scope of his authority, and of
the civil law which says if a person is speeding, they get a ticket.
The judge is enforcing the law when he fines you $100.00 for speeding.
As far as they are concerned, I can take my higher law, and pound sand,
after I pay my fine.

They could have let me off, which would be benevolent, and charitable
if they had, but nothing says they must. That would not mean that the
civil law is bad if they had. The civil law was written to protect
society in whatever way the society choose that it needs to be
protected. That is not to say that there are not better laws, or even a
higher law, just that the current civil law is the regulating
authority. Can we change the authority, certainly, but in the meantime
we live with the civil law which may include capital punishment
depending on where we live!

Now if our discussion about capital punishment is whether it is the
best way to handle serious offenders of the civil law, that is a
different question. It certainly is one way, and what Jesus did, was
Jesus acknowledged it as a legal process of that particular civil
authority.

You ask what Jesus would do? Even in reference to His own death, being
God, He could have intervened to save himself from the civil
authorities that were going to crucify Him, and yet He submitted to the
claim of their authority, and suffered capital punishment! TnT