|
Tink says:
=============== Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without transgression of the law, throw the first Stone" ================= I don't know if those were his "exact" words, and I'm certainly no student of theology, but wasn't the whole point of that scene to show/explain the NO ONE is without sin ("transgresion"?). Hence, if I interpret right, no one ought to cast any stones. I further read that to mean that no one or no society ought to be casting stones or otherwise killing other humans. Do I think I've interpreted correctly? Tink says: ================= the sick and hugry, he healed them and fed them. ================== From his example, I have to think he would have liked to notion of "being one's brothers keeper" and that he was big on the notion of charity. He clearly felt that the sick had a right to be healed. Now Tink, doesn't this speak to the notion of univeral health care and assistance to the needy where required? On these two counts, Tink, I think Jesus qualifies as a left-winger. Remember, lefties love you.... we're very charitable. frtzw906 |
Tink says:
=========== Now I would like to ask you a question, Jesus told us not to proselytize, but we are to witness. What does each mean, and what is the difference? Would this have any bering on my statements about God's love on RBP? ============= I'm a 4th or 5th generation atheist/agnostic. I'm not a good one to ask what a concept like "witness" means. Further, I don't take the words of Jesus as an injunction. What does it mean to you? When JW's come to my door, (to witness, I presume) I treat them with respect but firmly tell them they are wasting their time with me. I'll give them about 2 minutes and then I politely excuse myself. This is an intrusion, like telemarketing, but I sense these a very well-meaning people so I generally give them more respect than I'd give the average telemarketer. Nonetheless, like the telemarketer, I'd rather they didn't witness all over my front porch. frtzw906, who has never met an atheist who ever wanted to fly planes into office towers. |
"BCITORGB" wrote in message ups.com... Tink says: =============== Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without transgression of the law, throw the first Stone" ================= I don't know if those were his "exact" words, and I'm certainly no student of theology, but wasn't the whole point of that scene to show/explain the NO ONE is without sin ("transgresion"?). Hence, if I interpret right, no one ought to cast any stones. I further read that to mean that no one or no society ought to be casting stones or otherwise killing other humans. Do I think I've interpreted correctly? Tink says: ================= the sick and hugry, he healed them and fed them. ================== From his example, I have to think he would have liked to notion of "being one's brothers keeper" and that he was big on the notion of charity. He clearly felt that the sick had a right to be healed. Now Tink, doesn't this speak to the notion of univeral health care and assistance to the needy where required? On these two counts, Tink, I think Jesus qualifies as a left-winger. Remember, lefties love you.... we're very charitable. frtzw906 What the....? Now there's an argument about whether or not the Jesus that appears in the stories in the Bible was left-wing or right-wing?!? If Jesus was right-wing, does that mean the good folks that crucified him were left-wing?!? |
KMAN:
==================== What the....? Now there's an argument about whether or not the Jesus that appears in the stories in the Bible was left-wing or right-wing?!? ============= KMAN, I'm always intrigued by the fundies and their take on public policy. Inevitably, it's a right-wing stance. Notwithstanding that I profess to be fairly ignorant of most things biblical, I do get the general impression, if one were to ask "What would Jesus do?", he would come down in favor of most public policies advocated by those on the left side of the political spectrum. I'm asking Tink what he thinks. [Aside: given all that biblical stuff about tossing the money lenders ifrom the temple, feeding the poor, healing the sick, brother's keeper, etc etc,, I find it hard to believe that Jesus would have been a huge George Bus fan.] frtzw906 |
KMAN asks:
=========== If Jesus was right-wing, does that mean the good folks that crucified him were left-wing?!? ================== Of course I'm arguing that he was left-wing. So, if you like, those who crucified him "may" have been right-wing. We do know, that they were not keen on people speaking their minds and creating waves for the government. Kinda like homeland security, I reckon. frtzw906 |
BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says: =============== Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without transgression of the law, throw the first Stone" ================= I don't know if those were his "exact" words, and I'm certainly no student of theology, but wasn't the whole point of that scene to show/explain the NO ONE is without sin ("transgresion"?). Hence, if I interpret right, no one ought to cast any stones. I further read that to mean that no one or no society ought to be casting stones or otherwise killing other humans. Do I think I've interpreted correctly? Tink says: ================= the sick and hugry, he healed them and fed them. ================== From his example, I have to think he would have liked to notion of "being one's brothers keeper" and that he was big on the notion of charity. He clearly felt that the sick had a right to be healed. Now Tink, doesn't this speak to the notion of univeral health care and assistance to the needy where required? On these two counts, Tink, I think Jesus qualifies as a left-winger. Remember, lefties love you.... we're very charitable. frtzw906 frtwz, This promises to be interesting! and hopefully charitable! To lay some ground work, so that we are on the same page, and understanding that some of this has been discussed before. Labels are very difficult to follow, and have switched ends of the political spectrum many times, and add to that we are on different sides of an adjoining border, with apparent political disparity in abundance. To say the least, it is sometimes difficult to follow. Now I don't mean to play word games with the words liberal and conservative, just to say lets keep them in the corner of our eye. If we have a misunderstanding it may be a good place to start to sort things out. Add to the political label difficulties, that there have been as many, and maybe even more religions label changes, we are trying to see through some pretty thick fog, while sludging along, pulling our kayak fully loaded, through some nasty mud flats. To say I can see clearly now would be a serious understatement, and unless we maintain a good sense of humor, the trek through the mud flats will eat our lunch. First, briefly, I will approach the discussion from a "religous" viewpoint. Jesus teaches us to be charitable, I don't know that anyone has any particular claim that he taught us to be stingy and mean. Where is the liberal claim to exclusive right to being charitable. And would that mean the opposite of conservatives. And so we quickly come to a deadend, by approching from a religious viewpoint, you cannot make clear distinctions that would separate the issues into distinct and debatable packages. Now from a political viewpoint, you as a liberal are claiming that Jesus taught charity as advocated and practiced by you and other liberals. And of course Conservatives make the same claims. Now we have apples and apples that can be compared, distinct packages that are debatable. Am I making sense, and is my basic logic sound? You say that the liberal philosophy concerning capial punishment is in agreement with Jesus' teaching about "Throwing the first stone." Briefly, capital punishment, Jesus said, "Let him that is without transgression of the law, throw the first Stone" ================= I don't know if those were his "exact" words, and I'm certainly no student of theology, but wasn't the whole point of that scene to show/explain the NO ONE is without sin ("transgresion"?). Hence, if I interpret right, no one ought to cast any stones. I further read that to mean that no one or no society ought to be casting stones or otherwise killing other humans. Do I think I've interpreted correctly? First off I would point out that I avoided using the Sin word inorder to protect tender and sensitive ears that may have been listening to our discussion. The word sin has many aspects, and way beyond our discussion here. The issue with the men who brought the woman caught in adultery, was that she was breaking a specific civil law. The application to our day, and the civil law today, is then more apparent, and the application more clear, though limited. It is said that when confronted by the men, that Jesus squatted down and wrote in the sand. Tradition has it that he wrote the first ten laws of the civil code of the day, laws that we call the Ten Commandments. When faced by what they read, and His challenge "Let him that is without...", they all left the scene of the confrontation, leaving Jesus and the woman. Whereupon Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you." Tradition would also have it that this woman was Mary Magdalene who became one of his most ardent followers. I went into this short description of the scene inorder to set the stage since you have acknowledged that you are not a Bible scholar, and I don't want to take your understanding or misunderstanding for granted. Also I am well aware of the difficuties when a statement is taken out of context as we were made well aware of in the ongoing saga or K&r! Contextually, the men brought the woman to Jesus because they were trying to trap Jesus into denying the authority of the civil law in order to have grounds to arrest Him. They were not the least bit concerned about the woman or her transgression. According to the civil law, there were hundreds of ways a woman could be charged with adultery, including just looking at another man than her husband. When we say adultery, we have certain agregious activity in mind, but for the Jew of that day, the charge of adultery was a convient way to get rid of a wife who did not have your dinner ready when you got home from a hard day of being religous at the temple. The penalty of a such spurious charge of adultery was death by stoning! A rather harsh penalty for a late dinner, but, never the less the legal penalty according to their law. The men brought the woman to Jesus figuring that he would deny the legal claim of adultery with the resulting stoning. Jesus, in fact, did not deny their claim based on the law, but instead acknowledged it, by saying, "Let the stones fly". 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. There were many other issues being addressed in this great story, which probably included the point that noone is without sin. However that is not the only point, and certainly not the point regarding the issue of capital punishment today. I would love to examine those other points with you at some time in the future, but let us not be distracted at this time. I will stop babbling at this point and let you comment, and keep the second issue of your post until later. TnT |
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Since you obviously don't get to define how God manifests himself, God does, I'm making no such definitions. God can manifest mimself in any way He chooses. However, there is no documentation in the Bible of God manifesting Himself in any way that is deemed to be Himself. All manifestations are as something else - a man, a burning bush, etc. You don't get it, you never will. Mike |
On 2-Mar-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:
Canada [...] prove that Really? Please provide a reference that clearly proves that guns in Canada have been confiscated as a result of registration. If it hasn't, which I doubt, it will. So you are making your claims based on predictions of the future now? Funny, you were giving that as an _example_. Since when is something that may or may not occur in the future an example? More lies and bull**** from weiser. You don't ever bother with the truth, do you? Mike |
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message ups.com... BCITORGB wrote: By the by, I am in shock and awe that the US is no longer executing children! Welcome to the 20th century. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:40 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com