Huh?
Why would what I say make you feel un-Godly and un-Christian? Only the work of the devil and his elves condemn in such a way. If you feel convicted, then that's a different issue.
No. I did not feel convicted. What happens on here is that people don't approve of justice. It's not just you. Y'all may think you are accepting of justice, but you're not. You don't like people to point out when someone is wrong (the most annoyingly misrepresented scripture in the bible is brought up: judge not that ye be not judged). Y'all make it seem like it is somehow wrong to want someone to be corrected for being unGodly. I say someone is sinning, and people reply that I'm being judgmental and harsh. Frankly, it's foolish for Christians to not want to correct their brothers. If we never correct someone, and instead sit around "setting an example" we are going to have a bunch of sinners running around.
All good points except now we're moving into the secular arena. Shouldn't we still be within a Christian community framework such as this forum, the church, a Christian organization, or even ourselves as Christians? Though your brother is right, that's still the world's laws. We're here... how should we behave when a fellow Christian acts badly toward us. If a Christian robbed a bank, he/she would be subject to man's laws and God's laws. Man's law will send him to prison. God's law will be mete out by God Himself. How should we behave? Ignore or abandon the robber? Or let him know that God still cares and forgives him by setting an example by visiting him, writing him, etc. (e.g., prison ministries)?
It's an illustration, by which you are supposed to draw analogies between the illustration and the situation at hand. I'm not moving into the secular arena. It's just like Jesus giving parables. You would not call his parables secular just because they deal with secular issues, would you?
In relation to the robbery, you are supposed to draw comparisons between how the robber was treated with how the people on here are treated. The robber is stealing from banks (Cup is acting unGodly). A bystander sees the robber steal from a bank (we see Cup acting unGodly). A bystander decides instead of stopping the robber, the bystander will set an example by not robbing banks (we decide that instead of stopping Cup, we will set an example by being the antithesis of offensive/racist/etc). The robber is not affected by this example-setting and robs another bank (Cup continues on in his offensive behavior). The robber is finally approached by a judge who says "You stole from two banks. I have the right to punish you, but I am not going to. Instead I will grant you mercy this time. However you cannot rob from banks again. It is wrong and against the law." (someone, preferably a moderator, approaches Cup and tells him he is wrong in acting the way he is acting, but instead of being banned he will be shown mercy this time.) The robber ignores the mercy, and robs a bank again. (Cup ignores the warning, and continues on being offensive).
Now the robber can be given mercy or justice by the judge. Either is an acceptable choice. Likewise, Cup can now be given mercy or justice.
Proverbs 29:26
Many seek an audience with a ruler, but it is from the Lord that man gets justice.
Once again, Micah 6:8
He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee,
but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
In any case, obviously justice comes from God. We would have no concept of justice without Him. We get justice, and the concept of how to hand out justice from God. We know how to act in justice, and when to act in justice by studying the word of God. God would not teach justice if He did not expect us to be just.
Interesting how verse 27 follows up with "An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous, and he who is upright in the way is an abomination to the wicked." Following this verse, logic would lead us to understand that the opposite of unjust is just, and the opposite of abomination is delight. So "a just man is a delight to the righteous." So, where exactly am I going wrong here in saying justice is a good thing?
It may have been more appropriate for you to quote Matthew 18:15-17 because though some forum members are misguided, they are still brothers and sisters in Christ. You already have witnesses, the church (i.e., the forum members) have been informed, I have not seen cup call anyone else a spawn of the devil since the outcry but if he has, then treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. And if you treat cup as a tax collector in the biblical sense, then it would mean you hate him and his family to the extent that you consider him as a thief (I'm taking this from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) and would feel fully justified to defraud cup. However, Jesus had compassion even for the tax collectors. So really, you aren't even permitted to treat cup as a tax collector in that sense. (And if you hate, you've murdered him. So you would have sinned.)
It took him quite a few months to get worked up enough to outright call someone that, but he has been quoting racist propaganda for quite some time now. He gets information from white-supremest sites that talk about how Jews are evil people who descend from Eve's devil babies (because apparently, Eve had sex with Satan, and the people who currently call themselves 'jews' are the result). He repeatedly posts information slamming Jews, saying they are warmongers, etc. He has said the star of David is the mark of the beast. This guy has posted so much anti-semitic information over the past few months, it could fill a book.
If Cup had been around for the eugenics movement, he probably would have found every Jew to be feeble-minded, idiotic, or imbecilic.
What you're doing is essentially illustrating John 8:1-11. The Pharisees brought in an adulterous woman. Under the law they were to stone the woman. Placed into historical context, death was the justice/punishment of the day and was perfectly acceptable. Today, we don't stone adulterers. If we did, the world population would be much smaller. Anyway, Jesus said to those people, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Note that stoning the woman was God's law - it wasn't just man's law - it was God's law.
See here again. My calling for justice -or at the very least mercy- is being compared to that of the pharisees.
The Pharisees were trying to test Jesus by bringing the adulteress before Him. Jesus responded to the test in a way that the Pharisees could find not fault in Him. I am not a Pharisee trying to test Jesus.
I tried reading Micah 6:8 the way you've interpreted it but I can't seem to figure it out. Micah 6:1-8 is talking about God lodging a case against Israel for their disobedience. He builds up his case with the "evidence" of the good God has done for Israel and in return, what did Israel do to God? They disobeyed, worshiped idols, and showed ungratefulness. The whole of verse 8 actually says, "He has showed you, O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God."
In this case, I don't feel that God is telling Israel to be meting out punishment and justice to the unrighteous. I see God telling Israel that all He asks of them is to behave appropriately and to obey (e.g., not to worship idols, sin sexually, etc.) and to love mercy.
If the full verse and the passage is interpreted this way, then what you gave was quoted out of context... :S
It still applies. God requires us not to be sinful, but to be people who are humble, just, and merciful. Humility is something we can do without the help of others, but how do you propose we act mercifully or with justice if there is no one to give mercy to or act justly against?
God is saying His children sin and are disobedient, and instead of being sinful and disobedient, He wants to them to be humble, just, merciful children. If you're just and merciful, you have to be just and merciful toward someone. Otherwise you are not just and merciful.
Someone else already provided an answer for that. The story of Ananias and Sapphira is another example of God meting out justice - it's still not man nor the Christians of the church who killed them or brought justice. God struck them dead. The Christians did not get to carry out justice. God brought justice. All they did (or rather, what Peter did) was to bring to light the crime. We have already brought to light the "crime" with reference to some of the forum posters. Don't forget, what they did was lie to the Holy Spirit. It wasn't even robbing a bank or killing another.
My point was that y'all would not approve of God killing Ananias and Sapphira today. It would go something like this: "Oh God, don't kill them. How can we set a good example and be a witness to them if they are dead? No, please, allow them to stay alive and continue sinning so we can show them how true Christians act." "And shall they be corrected by you, My children?" "Oh heavens no! We don't correct people. That's judgmental. No, what we do is set an example by acting good ourselves. That way they can see what is right, and follow the lead." "And if they do not follow the lead, My children?" "Oh they will. They just need enough time for their hearts to soften first." "What if I do not intend to send a convicting Spirit to soften their hearts?" "Just leave them alone and let us show them how to be good!" "..."
No one is suggesting that offensive behaviour should be accepted. It's just the method of dealing with this offensive behaviour that's in dispute. In fact, this is an age old debate among many congregations. Some churches have even split because members were unable to separate the two issues at hand - understandably so because a lot of emotion can be involved as you are experiencing.
Sitting back, and "setting an example" is not dealing with it.
If a church member commits adultery, should they be kicked out of the church? Or should we embrace them with love and allow them to stay? The question that is usually not stated at the beginning of such a debate is whether both sides agree that the sinful behaviour should be rebuked or not. If this question has been asked at the outset, then the ensuing debate is usually easier. I would know, I watched it unfold at our church and the youth at the time (who are now young adults) have left and are divided even among themselves. It also divided the adults (their parents) and other members. Why? Because one group feels that the other is accepting wrong-doing when in fact, neither group accepts the wrong-doing but it was the method of dealing with it that was in dispute. They didn't realize that and as a result, people were hurt, insulted, and left. The event particularly affected the youth/young adults - now, many of them don't even attend church, no longer pray (except when they need help), and have hardly ever opened the Bible in years. Who suffered the most from all this? The person who was kicked out of the church? Or the youth/young adults themselves? Note: the person was kicked out of the church for adultery. It has already been done. There is no dispute over that - it is pointless to dispute. But what we can do is learn from the past event.
1) love does not mean we ignore punishment. God IS love, and God repeatedly showed justice to people. I am so tired of Christians saying we are supposed to be like God, but are not willing to accept every facet of His character. Yes, God can be kind and gentle. God is also just and able to punish someone when needed. Likewise, we can be gentle and kind, but that does not mean we are never allowed to be frank and just with a person.
2) You are dealing with a choice between justice and mercy in your church. You are dealing with the question of if the man should be punished for his wrongdoing or if he should be forgiven yet reprimanded.
With Cup, you are not giving me a choice between mercy or justice, because it seems like you do not understand what mercy is. Mercy requires first a reprimand. You have to let the person know what they did was wrong. Once the person has been reprimanded, and made aware of the fact that he is deserving of punishment, you tell the person he will not be getting punished, but given mercy instead.
You are not suggesting that. You are telling me we should do this "set an example" thing where we sit back and let Cup be offensive. There is no reprimanding going on. There is no telling him what he is doing is wrong, and then calling for mercy.
So, no. Your example does not work, because your example does not correlate with the way you are telling me to deal with the problem.
Now, if you were meting out justice to the unruly forum members away from hurt, upset, or insulted emotions, then I would feel that you are fully justified in doing so. But right now, I have a feeling that you're still in the emotional place - not such a great idea to exact "justice" from that place. It could make you sin.
No. I'm kind of not emotional at the moment(at least, no more than normal for a sane human, all else being equal). As I said earlier, though, my wanting Cup punished is only partially influenced by my emotions. At the time when I refrained from responding to you, that was because my emotions were over-whelming. It was a momentary lapse in my composure. This does not mean I am stuck in a state of being over-whelmed by emotion.
It would be the same as if a man murdered my mom right before my eyes. In court I would want him put behind bars because 1) he murdered and I saw him do it, and murder is against the law and 2) because he killed my mom. Are you telling me that because of reason 2, reason 1 is now moot? Are you saying that because I am emotionally invested, the man's behavior is excusable?
It is the same with Cup. Yes, I am influenced by the injustice of how Cup has been dealt with in relation to the way others have been dealt with, but this does not negate the fact that Cup is wrong.
