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

"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.

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

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

Tink..... AAaaaaarrrrhhhhggggg!!!!

I don't kow why you keep doing this, but it makes no sense. You've gone
to great lengths to present a scenario that has nothing to do with the
question I asked.

Let's keep it simple, OK? Let's accept that JC, and you, and I, and
every citizen are subject to civil law. OK? That's a given. And even if
we feel that the civil is stupid, it's a given. Further, it may not
measure up to a "higher law", it is still a given. Are we agreed on
that?

OK, if we're OK with that, let's turn to the writing of laws, not the
obeying of laws. Can we agree that that's why we elect politicians?
That is, our politician "make" the law. Am I correct?

OK, the question regarding "What would JC do?" has NOTHING to do with
obeying the law. We ask "What would JC do?" when it comes to MAKING
public policy. Once such example might be capital punishment. Think of
JC as a congressman. Which way would JC vote on this issue.

Please, Tink, let's not discuss whether or not you or JC
would/should/can/must obey civil law. That has nothing to do with the
point being discussed.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink..... AAaaaaarrrrhhhhggggg!!!!

I don't kow why you keep doing this, but it makes no sense. You've
gone
to great lengths to present a scenario that has nothing to do with
the
question I asked.

Let's keep it simple, OK? Let's accept that JC, and you, and I, and
every citizen are subject to civil law. OK? That's a given. And even
if
we feel that the civil is stupid, it's a given. Further, it may not
measure up to a "higher law", it is still a given. Are we agreed on
that?

OK, if we're OK with that, let's turn to the writing of laws, not the
obeying of laws. Can we agree that that's why we elect politicians?
That is, our politician "make" the law. Am I correct?

OK, the question regarding "What would JC do?" has NOTHING to do with
obeying the law. We ask "What would JC do?" when it comes to MAKING
public policy. Once such example might be capital punishment. Think
of
JC as a congressman. Which way would JC vote on this issue.

Please, Tink, let's not discuss whether or not you or JC
would/should/can/must obey civil law. That has nothing to do with the
point being discussed.

frtzw906

Fair enough, Jesus would most likely do now what He did then. He did
not do what the religious/political leaders of his day thought He
would/ could/ should do then. So I expect that we would be surprised
today as well. Then, He recognized the need for civil laws in a society
made up of less than perfect humans, and so I expect that he would
support and vote for laws now, that would regulate the behavior of men
now for the well being, peace, and safty of society at large, with
laws that they could understand and enforce. This may or may not
include capital punishment, depending on the social structure of that
specific society.

There was no attempt then to enforce the higher laws on society at
large, and I do not expect that He would do differently now, at least
not until we are willing to change the nature of society at large,
acknowledge Him not as a politician, but as Lord, and we his subjects
are changed as well at the core of our nature. That has not happened to
date, should in the future, and at that time I would expect to see the
enforcement of the higher law.

By the way was that a foghorn I heard at the first of your last post?
Hopefully the fog is clearing. Though if you had ask your real question
in the first place, I would have been able to answer more directly,
without having to plow thrugh so much other "stuff." But then sometimes
we have to plow to find what we are really asking. I do not know that
you want to be, where you find yourself, after the fog clears, that is
another issue. TnT

Tink says:
============
Though if you had ask your real question
in the first place, I would have been able to answer more directly,
without having to plow thrugh so much other "stuff.
============

Sorry, Tink, my question WAS clear to begin with and there was nothing
you had to plow through. But it appears you either still don't get it,
or you don't want to get it, or you're jerking me about, or you're not
interested in pursuing the discussion. At this point, if we were in
court, you'd be designated a hostile witness.

Look: I'll try to be as simplistic about this as I can. Let's pretend
that you and I are going to write a book called "JC Goes To
Washington". It's about a young politician who runs as an independent
and gets elected to the House of Representatives. Now, Tink, here's the
hook in our book: every chapter will be about a different public policy
issue. Of course there'll be a whole interesting assortment of
characters -- trade unionists, industrialists, NRA lobbyists, a host of
politicians button-holing our hero in the corridors of power etc. JC,
our hero will listen to all sides of the issues (remember, one issue
per chapter). Then, at the end of each chapter, he'll have to decide
which way to vote. Of course he'll vote based on HIS teachings (a
"higher law"). So, at the end of each chapter we'll know where JC
stands on these issues.

Is that so hard to magine Tink? Are you game?

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
============
Though if you had ask your real question
in the first place, I would have been able to answer more directly,
without having to plow thrugh so much other "stuff.
============

Sorry, Tink, my question WAS clear to begin with and there was
nothing
you had to plow through. But it appears you either still don't get
it,
or you don't want to get it, or you're jerking me about, or you're
not
interested in pursuing the discussion. At this point, if we were in
court, you'd be designated a hostile witness.

Look: I'll try to be as simplistic about this as I can. Let's pretend
that you and I are going to write a book called "JC Goes To
Washington". It's about a young politician who runs as an independent
and gets elected to the House of Representatives. Now, Tink, here's
the
hook in our book: every chapter will be about a different public
policy
issue. Of course there'll be a whole interesting assortment of
characters -- trade unionists, industrialists, NRA lobbyists, a host
of
politicians button-holing our hero in the corridors of power etc. JC,
our hero will listen to all sides of the issues (remember, one issue
per chapter). Then, at the end of each chapter, he'll have to decide
which way to vote. Of course he'll vote based on HIS teachings (a
"higher law"). So, at the end of each chapter we'll know where JC
stands on these issues.

Is that so hard to magine Tink? Are you game?

frtzw906

Game on!

First though, I regret that I was not able to get back to you sooner,
but felt I should try to address some of the other pressing issues, and
hope they can work things out. In addition, my truck blew a steering
hydraulic line today as if our recent discussion about breaking down
brought a subject lesson to light. Luckily I was not going down the
highway at the time, and was able to find a nice sunny flat parking lot
to work under the van. Seems that the Lord had figured my daily
schedule different than I had. One of those surprises I mentioned
before.

As to your question being clear, it may have been to you, and I
suspected what you were wanting to get to. I did not mean to be
evasive, but I did desire for a clear statement so that there would be
no future misunderstanding. I did not mean to jerk you around, or
indicate that I am not interested or willing to delve into these
issues, as difficult and sensitive as they may be. So I apologize for
any misunderstanding now and in the future if I take a step in my logic
that is not clear. Feel free to stop me if I am not clear, and
sometimes simple is good.

JC goes to Washington, and I am His news media spokesman. You ask me
what He is up to, and I with my inside info try to keep you informed.
Does this work for you?

If so, Why don't you start the first chapter. TnT

Tink says:
===================
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.
===================

Fair enough. Let's not talk about liberal vs conservative. Let's not
try to define "charitable". Let's keep it at the level of specific
public policy options (and the politicians that advocate them).

Faced with a public policy option, I maintain that you, if you're the
Christian you claim to be, need to ask of that option: "What would
jesus do?" And then, you need to vote for the politician who can best
implement that option.

frtzw906

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===================
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.
===================

Fair enough. Let's not talk about liberal vs conservative. Let's not
try to define "charitable". Let's keep it at the level of specific
public policy options (and the politicians that advocate them).

Faced with a public policy option, I maintain that you, if you're the
Christian you claim to be, need to ask of that option: "What would
jesus do?" And then, you need to vote for the politician who can best
implement that option.

frtzw906

Fair enough, and yet many issues arise in your question. If I try to
determine my action based on someone elses action, there is an
assumption that I am intimately aware of that person. For example if I
say "What would frtwz do?" and I don't really know frtwz, then I could
not answer how he would respond to a given situation. So for you to
ask, "What would Jesus do?" you assume that I know what Jesus would do.


Now for you to use this approach to support a particular policy there
is also the assumption that you know what Jesus would do in this
particular situation, and that you would be able to determine that my
answer to what would Jesus do is correct or incorrect. Otherwise I
would be able to mislead you as to how Jesus would respond, and you
would not know the difference.

Now if I believe that I know what Jesus would do, and I vote for a
particular politician that I say will implement that option, how can
you then complain about my choice, if you on the other hand have no
basis to question my understanding of what Jesus would do.

You say you are not a religious person, that you do not believe in
Jesus, that you don't know Mim in a personal and intimate way, then how
can you know what He would do, or question what I say He would do. You
can either get to know Him, or not depend on the answer to that
question, "What would Jesus do? Or blindly follow what I say He would
do!

As far as myself, I ask the question all the time in many situations.
For example the other day I told you about pulling people out of the
traffic. First I determine that I did not think that Jesus would leave
them setting out in the traffic. Then I offered them water, and finally
I said I would witness to them. Now I heard the corporate grunt of
horror at my last comment. You were probably OK with the tow and the
water, but witness, this guy is looney. What you fail to understand is
I did not say prosyletize. Witnessing can be something as benigh as
saying that I was glad to help you, can I use my cell phone to call a
tow service for you. In other words going the extra mile, be nice,
smile and encourage them.

I remember one particular situation where when I stopped to help two
older women stalled in traffic. It was a very hot day, and the traffic
was backed up for miles so they had to have geen setting there for a
long time. Numerous 4x4s with macho men driving had gone by them
without offering assistance. When I finally got to them, I saw them
setting in their vehicle, Crying, with masscara running! They were not
some cute little chic that the macho men probably would have been
willing to help, but probably in their late 60s, maybe 70s.

After I towed them, they were very thirsty, and worse yet needed to
pee. So I fixed a tarp over their doors to afford them some privacy
right there in traffic on the road side. I turned my back, and made a
call for a tow truck on my cell phone. When I was done, and they were
done, you have never met two more thankful people. I never said a word
to them about Jesus or God, but I had witnessed to them. I think I did
what Jesus would have done! TnT