The Justices spar over the constitutionality of the death penalty

[Belsnickel]

This is where by Anabaptist upbringing comes in. Killing of all sorts if immoral to me. War is immoral, death penalty is immoral. Even abortion is, to me, immoral. It's just all about the government's place in those decisions that drives me to be pro-choice.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-01-2015, 01:05 PM)Nately120 Wrote: That does seem like a gray area.  I'd have a hard time peddling a case to Jesus that it was ok that I went to a country killed people because the guys we sort of elected told us to go there because of something something.  Seeing as I'm cynical enough to attribute almost every war to the pursuit of sweet lucre, I just don't have faith that membership in a man-appointed army and carrying out the orders of men makes it as god-sanctioned as we may wish.

I guess US soldiers who killed Native Americans during the 1800s and earlier so the U.S. govt could steal their land get a pass also because they were killing their "enemy."

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2015, 01:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is where by Anabaptist upbringing comes in. Killing of all sorts if immoral to me. War is immoral, death penalty is immoral. Even abortion is, to me, immoral. It's just all about the government's place in those decisions that drives me to be pro-choice.

If someone were trying to kill you or your family and killing them was the only way to stop them; would you do it?

Not an attempt at a "gotcha"; an honest question.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(07-01-2015, 01:14 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Were you instructed to go over there and arbitrarily start killing people or were you given Rules of Engagement that including only firing if threatened?
 
 
I know it was my experience to follow very strict Rules of Engagement and to take every measure to reduce collateral damage.
 
But to answer your question only you and God know the malice that was in your heart when you “killed a lot of people.” And he is the only one that can give you the answer you seek. No one on this Message Board can; we can share with you our believes as they have been taught and we understand.

You know damn well we followed the ******' ROE!  You know better so don't act like an idiot or I will treat you like one.  You don't have to feel threatened in order to fire, otherwise we could never initiate contact, only react to contact.  You seem like an misinformed PV2 with that BS.

We took every measure to reduce collateral damage and yet collateral damage still happened because it is a reality of combat.

What soldier doesn't pull a trigger without the intent to kill?  I would call the intent to kill malice. Did you squeeze the trigger hoping you two could be friends? GTFOWTBS.

I'm asking you to explain your beliefs as you understand them and you're avoiding answering the question. Why was it morally acceptable for us to kill Iraqis IAW the ROE over bullshit WMDs?

And save the bullshit this time.

[fredtoast]

(06-30-2015, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How many of you Christians who "live by the word" are in favor of the death penalty for gay people?


You can't have it half way, right Bfine?  if you follow the word of your god you should be in favor of killing people for being gay.

I think this post must have gotten lost in the shuffle, because no one has responded to it yet.

Seems like a legit question if you claim to follow the laws of the bible.

[*Nately120*]

(07-01-2015, 02:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think this post must have gotten lost in the shuffle, because no one has responded to it yet.

Seems like a legit question if you claim to follow the laws of the bible.

Probably the same reason the Bible is used to oppose gay marriage/homosexuality but you don't see many people using the Bible to shut down Red Lobster; it's just a bit too far-fetched to be accepted?

[Benton]

(07-01-2015, 02:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think this post must have gotten lost in the shuffle, because no one has responded to it yet.

Seems like a legit question if you claim to follow the laws of the bible.

I didn't answer because I took it as directed at bfine.

But, I'll toss out an answer. It's the same reason I don't condone capital punishment, wars, or violence in general — I don't follow the OT. I'm a Christian, meaning I follow the part where we are supposed to build one another up and seek peace.

Like I said earlier, I love shellfish and bacon. I also love people regardless of a differences in beliefs. And if they bring me bacon, I love them even more.

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2015, 01:50 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You know damn well we followed the ******' ROE!  You know better so don't act like an idiot or I will treat you like one.  You don't have to feel threatened in order to fire, otherwise we could never initiate contact, only react to contact.  You seem like an misinformed PV2 with that BS.

We took every measure to reduce collateral damage and yet collateral damage still happened because it is a reality of combat.

What soldier doesn't pull a trigger without the intent to kill?  I would call the intent to kill malice. Did you squeeze the trigger hoping you two could be friends? GTFOWTBS.

I'm asking you to explain your beliefs as you understand them and you're avoiding answering the question. Why was it morally acceptable for us to kill Iraqis IAW the ROE over bullshit WMDs?

And save the bullshit this time.

My apologies. I struggled with how to answer this and decided it was best that I did not do so in a public forum. Hopefully you have a strong support system and if you need anything feel free to PM me "Brother".

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2015, 02:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think this post must have gotten lost in the shuffle, because no one has responded to it yet.

Seems like a legit question if you claim to follow the laws of the bible.

Matthew 5: 17-20. I have also answered this question in previous threads.

[Benton]

(07-01-2015, 02:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Matthew 5: 17-20. I have also answered this question in previous threads.

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

He was referring to the prophecies that he would come and teach a new way and the old ways were to be forgotten. Not that he was coming to keep the old status quo.

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2015, 02:49 PM)Benton Wrote: Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

He was referring to the prophecies that he would come and teach a new way and the old ways were to be forgotten. Not that he was coming to keep the old status quo.

Seems we read the same book, but come up with diffrent answers. I guess that's why it is a personal relationship.

Doesn't he go on to say we should continue to follow the old law, but if you break them he's got you covered? I didn't get where he said forget about the old laws.

[Belsnickel]

(07-01-2015, 01:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If someone were trying to kill you or your family and killing them was the only way to stop them; would you do it?

Not an attempt at a "gotcha"; an honest question.

I wish I could answer it. I was raised Brethren which is the most lax on the issue of non-resistance among the Anabaptists, meaning they won't excommunicate you if you join the armed forces and self-defense is permissible. I've never been against self-defense and my pacifism has been more aimed at war and what not. I just don't know whether I could bring myself to end a life, even in that situation. You probably never know until/unless it happens.

[Benton]

(07-01-2015, 02:56 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Seems we read the same book, but come up with diffrent answers. I guess that's why it is a personal relationship.

Doesn't he go on to say we should continue to follow the old law, but if you break them he's got you covered? I didn't get where he said forget about the old laws.

Agreed with the bolded. With the rest, he does and he doesn't. You have to look at all of five.

He says he came to fulfill the prophecy. The prophecy was of a new way coming (part of why the Pharisees weren't his biggest fan). Jesus was telling people not to be fearful of it. Then he goes on to say you will be judged (by God, not man) if you kill, but also if you have hate. That adultery isn't just being with someone, it's already there when you have the thought. To turn the other cheek, to love those who persecute or try to injure you. If someone steals from you, give them what you can because they need it more.

17-20 are used by those who want to bring the OT into things. But that was an intro into him saying, 'you've already been told I was coming to tell you a new way... and here it is.'

I don't mind people who follow the OT, but him coming was about doing away with those beliefs that violence and pain are ok if it's done in the right name.

[Benton]

And I will caution that this subject, and the conversations that come off of them, can evoke a lot of emotion. I would ask everybody to take a breath and try to tone it down a bit with comments about each other.

I don't think anyone in here has a problem with someone criticizing their beliefs, otherwise they wouldn't be in PnR. But keep it about the beliefs and not opinions of each other.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-01-2015, 12:41 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Seriously? The Bible has no qualms about killing enemy soldiers during a time of war.

The Bible also has no qualms with a lot of things that modern society would be pretty appalled by.  We shouldn't be basing our morals on a book written by farmers from a couple millennia ago.

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2015, 03:20 PM)Benton Wrote: I don't mind people who follow the OT, but him coming was about doing away with those beliefs that violence and pain are ok if it's done in the right name.

Not really sure what you mean by follow the Old testiment; unless, like Fred, you think I'm out there throwing rocks at homoseuxals.

I am a Baptist and as such "our book" is the New Testiment, as we are focused on the Salvation as explained in its chapters. WTS we consider the Old Testiment the Holy word of God and do not simply dismiss it. Does you faith believe in the Trinity?

It seems I remember you mentioning something on the Mothership about your practices that caught me totally by surprise. It either had to do with Communion or I related it to Communion. Whatever it was I seem to remember asking you to ask your (Pastor?) did he consider the wafer taken at communion to be just a cracker.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(07-01-2015, 02:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Matthew 5: 17-20. I have also answered this question in previous threads.

Feel free to let me know if I'm interpreting this in a different way than you, so I don't label you in a way that is wrong.  This pretty much says that you must live the law in the way in which it was written....word for word....to enter the kingdom of heaven.  So....in this case, you WOULD be in favor of executing homosexuals?

Matthew 5:17-20  King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[Benton]

(07-01-2015, 03:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not really sure what you mean by follow the Old testiment; unless, like Fred, you think I'm out there throwing rocks at homoseuxals.

I am a Baptist and as such "our book" is the New Testiment, as we are focused on the Salvation as explained in its chapters. WTS we consider the Old Testiment the Holy word of God and do not simply dismiss it. Does you faith believe in the Trinity?

It seems I remember you mentioning something on the Mothership about your practices that caught me totally by surprise. It either had to do with Communion or I related it to Communion. Whatever it was I seem to remember asking you to ask your (Pastor?) did he consider the wafer taken at communion to be just a cracker.

To the bold, if you're ok with killing — for any reason — you're only basing that on OT. Using four verses to  use the OT is kind of odd when the following 20ish verses of that go on to say the opposite of the OT. Don't seek vengeance, don't seek violence, don't seek anger.

Like I said, I understand the thinking. Most people I know are that way. They aren't comfortable enough with the NT, so they hang on to the OT because it's human nature and conditioning to respond to things with the way it was in the OT.

With the last part, that was a thread about idolatry. I'm not all in on either aspect, and the pastor wasn't either. We're Methodist and communion is still the last Sunday of the month. But what he was saying, and I see the point, is that if you're taking communion without really trying to take part in communion, it's becoming an idol to you. It's just an empty symbol.

[*bfine32*]

(07-01-2015, 03:41 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: Feel free to let me know if I'm interpreting this in a different way than you, so I don't label you in a way that is wrong.  This pretty much says that you must live the law in the way in which it was written....word for word....to enter the kingdom of heaven.  So....in this case, you WOULD be in favor of executing homosexuals?

Matthew 5:17-20  King James Version (KJV)
17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

He is saying do not forget, but be "better”. Replace the word righteousness with forgiveness or mercy. He does say that you can violate the laws and still enter Heaven (his salvation). IMO this is why you hear some joke about they are going to heaven; they just might not get the Mansion on the Hill.
 
WTS, I would not be in favor of executing homosexuals; but I do think they may have to answer for it one day; they just might not get the Mansion on the Hill.

[fredtoast]

(07-01-2015, 03:55 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He is saying do not forget, but be "better”. Replace the word righteousness with forgiveness or mercy. He does say that you can violate the laws and still enter Heaven (his salvation). IMO this is why you hear some joke about they are going to heaven; they just might not get the Mansion on the Hill.
 
WTS, I would not be in favor of executing homosexuals; but I do think they may have to answer for it one day; they just might not get the Mansion on the Hill.

1.  Only a Pharisee would believe that there would be different levels in heaven.

2.  How can you not be in favor of killing people for being homosexual?  I thought you couldn't have it "half way".