voting democrat?

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

Yes, this is why Jesus is the most perfect judge!

Unfortunately, however, if a man confesses his heinous crime, it doesn't guarantee he won't be executed by the government. There have been many sinners executed that have confessed and express remorse for their transgressions.

if a man confesses his heinous crime, it doesn't guarantee he won't be executed by the government I am not of the opinion that he shouldn't be executed. Using John 8, as you suggested, it seems to me the punishment for heinous crimes should be a reprimand "Stop sinning" and then criminal should be let go.

here have been many sinners executed that have confessed and express remorse for their transgressions. This will probably seem callous to you, but the confession and remorse will be helpful as we know from 1 John 1:9.

Paul didn't appear to object to the death penalty, even though his own life was on the line.

After he had spent not more than eight or ten days among them, he went down to Caesarea, and on the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. After Paul arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove, while Paul said in his own defense, “I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.” But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me on these charges?” But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know. “If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.” Then when Festus had conferred with his council, he answered, “You have appealed to Caesar, to Caesar you shall go.” -Acts 25:6-12

 

[Voldemort]

if a man confesses his heinous crime, it doesn't guarantee he won't be executed by the government I am not of the opinion that he shouldn't be executed. Using John 8, as you suggested, it seems to me the punishment for heinous crimes should be a reprimand "Stop sinning" and then criminal should be let go.

here have been many sinners executed that have confessed and express remorse for their transgressions. This will probably seem callous to you, but the confession and remorse will be helpful as we know from 1 John 1:9.

Paul didn't appear to object to the death penalty, even though his own life was on the line.

It depends on how you define "heinous". If any capital offense is heinous, then you would say adultery is heinous. Being a disobedient child is a heinous crime... etc...

So no, I'm not saying John suggests all heinous criminals have the same punishment, just that Christ was certainly against it when he stopped the people from executing her. Christ's opinion would trump Paul or any other biblical figure.

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

A liberal friend of mine uses a similar argument.

I remind him that, after the offense is acknowledged, Jesus lets the accused woman go.

Straightening up, Jesus said to her, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “I do not condemn you, either. Go. From now on sin no more.” -John 8:10-11

if a man confesses his heinous crime, it doesn't guarantee he won't be executed by the government I am not of the opinion that he shouldn't be executed. Using John 8, as you suggested, it seems to me the punishment for heinous crimes should be a reprimand "Stop sinning" and then criminal should be let go.

here have been many sinners executed that have confessed and express remorse for their transgressions. This will probably seem callous to you, but the confession and remorse will be helpful as we know from 1 John 1:9.

Paul didn't appear to object to the death penalty, even though his own life was on the line.

After he had spent not more than eight or ten days among them, he went down to Caesarea, and on the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. After Paul arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove, while Paul said in his own defense, “I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.” But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favor, answered Paul and said, “Are you willing to go up to Jerusalem and stand trial before me on these charges?” But Paul said, “I am standing before Caesar’s tribunal, where I ought to be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you also very well know. “If, then, I am a wrongdoer and have committed anything worthy of death, I do not refuse to die; but if none of those things is true of which these men accuse me, no one can hand me over to them. I appeal to Caesar.” Then when Festus had conferred with his council, he answered, “You have appealed to Caesar, to Caesar you shall go.” -Acts 25:6-12

It depends on how you define "heinous". If any capital offense is heinous, then you would say adultery is heinous. Being a disobedient child is a heinous crime... etc...

So no, I'm not saying John suggests all heinous criminals have the same punishment, just that Christ was certainly against it when he stopped the people from executing her. Christ's opinion would trump Paul or any other biblical figure.

If any capital offense is heinous, then you would say adultery is heinous. Adultery was an offense worthy of the death penalty in O.T. times. Unfortunately, it's seemingly not even a big deal in today's society.

Being a disobedient child is a heinous crime... etc... The situation was more serious than just being rebellious.

If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a glutton and a drunkard.” Then all the men of his town are to stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. -Deut 21: 19-21

So no, I'm not saying John suggests all heinous criminals have the same punishment, just that Christ was certainly against it when he stopped the people from executing her.

1) Lev 20:10 states that both adulterers are to be put to death. Where's the man that was involved with the woman? Notice in John 8 that only the adulterous woman is brought to Jesus. The text of John 8 itself also states that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. In short, the situation presented didn't fit the requirements of the death penalty.

2) I stated, in a previous post(show above as well), "Using John 8, as you suggested, it seems to me the punishment for heinous crimes should be a reprimand "Stop sinning" and then criminal should be let go."

I'll put my statement another way.

If one is going to use John 8 in opposition to the death penalty, it should be noted that there was essentially no punishment given to the accused woman. The woman accused of adultery was told, by Jesus, to "go and sin no more". That was the extent of her punishment.

Therefore, using John 8 with a modern day situation where the death penalty might be applied, what the judge ought to do is say "go, and sin no more" and let the accused(whether guilty or innocent) go free.

That would be a consistent application of John 8 for those who wish to use it in opposition of the death penalty.

Christ's opinion would trump Paul or any other biblical figure. When we start to say the words of one in Scripture are inferior to the words of another in Scripture, we have a problem. Rather than looking at something as being a contradiction, or as less authoritative, we should look to see how they work together and are harmeneutically complimentary.

 

[Voldemort]

1) Lev 20:10 states that both adulterers are to be put to death. Where's the man that was involved with the woman? Notice in John 8 that only the adulterous woman is brought to Jesus. The text of John 8 itself also states that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. In short, the situation presented didn't fit the requirements of the death penalty.

Why doesn't this fit the requirement for death... because the man wasn't present? If an adulterer fled then they let the other adulterer live because both have to die? Both parties are to die according to the Law of Moses, but Christ forgives all sin. That is why she wasn't put to death. Only those without sin can cast a stone, yet Christ (sinless), didn't execute her but dismissed her.

Therefore, using John 8 with a modern day situation where the death penalty might be applied, what the judge ought to do is say "go, and sin no more" and let the accused(whether guilty or innocent) go free.

I don't read John 8 as a precedent set by Jesus to "let all capital offenders go." I instead read John 8 as Christ, being sinless, forgives His children for their sins. Christ can forgive and/or punish His children and the government can do their own punishment in conjunction. The real question is, should man model their punishment system after the Old Covenant precedents, or the New Covenant Christ brought?

 

[Voldemort]

Or option 3 which is create their own system with hierarchical crimes (sins) and punishments/sentences. This seems to be the most popular method.

 

[p_rehbein]

We as a Church, I believe, have responsibilities though and not just sit back and think 'God will take care of it'...

Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all who are destitute. Open your mouth, judge righteously, defend the rights of the poor and needy.
(Pro 31:8-9)

He judged the cause of the poor and needy; then it was well. Is not this to know me? declares the LORD.
(Jer 22:16)

.......and the rights of the little children in their mothers womb......

Both major Candidates are Pro Choice. Don't just sit back.......act now! VOTE NO TO BOTH!

 

[p_rehbein]

I keep reading calls for secession for Texas. It seems to me that this ruling might add fuel to the fire!

I pray that it will. Independence for Texas can not come soon enough!

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

Test_F_i_2_Luv: 1) Lev 20:10 states that both adulterers are to be put to death. Where's the man that was involved with the woman? Notice in John 8 that only the adulterous woman is brought to Jesus. The text of John 8 itself also states that the Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus. In short, the situation presented didn't fit the requirements of the death penalty.

Voldemort: Why doesn't this fit the requirement for death... because the man wasn't present? If an adulterer fled then they let the other adulterer live because both have to die? Both parties are to die according to the Law of Moses, but Christ forgives all sin. That is why she wasn't put to death. Only those without sin can cast a stone, yet Christ (sinless), didn't execute her but dismissed her.


If an adulterer fled then they let the other adulterer live because both have to die? It takes 2 people to commit adultery. There will not be just one guilty party. You should be glad that this situation went as it did. Inadequate evidence, per O.T. law, protected the woman from capital punishment.

Both parties are to die according to the Law of Moses Correct. So where is this other party? Why didn't they find the man and then bring both before Jesus? Some suggest the man caught in the act was allowed to go. Regardless, as the text itself indicates, this whole situation was a trap(v. 6) - not your "typical" case of two people being caught in an act of adultery - and that is enough to tell me that additional care needs to be used in applying this passage in a justice system.

but Christ forgives all sin. That is why she wasn't put to death. Only those without sin can cast a stone, yet Christ (sinless), didn't execute her but dismissed her. Yes, he dismissed her. Yet, proponents of the death penalty don't advocate that criminals be released and their crimes dismissed.

Only those without sin can cast a stone Do you know someone who can cast the first stone? I dare say nobody can cast any stones if one is to use this passage in opposition to the death penalty. Who is able to punish a criminal when all - private citizen or government official - is not without sin?

The situation presented by the Pharisees was a trap(v. 6). Sufficient evidence wasn't presented to Jesus. It doesn't work in opposition to the death penalty. For one, it doesn't fit. Secondly, complete application of the passage would mean letting criminals go without any punishment because nobody can cast stones and because criminals should simply be told to "go, and sin no more".

-------

Voldemort: I don't read John 8 as a precedent set by Jesus to "let all capital offenders go." I instead read John 8 as Christ, being sinless, forgives His children for their sins. Christ can forgive and/or punish His children and the government can do their own punishment in conjunction. The real question is, should man model their punishment system after the Old Covenant precedents, or the New Covenant Christ brought?


I don't read John 8 as a precedent set by Jesus to "let all capital offenders go." ....Christ can forgive and/or punish His children and the government can do their own punishment in conjunction. Opponents of the death penalty who choose to use John 8 should be petitioning governments to let criminals go without punishments. Rather than cherry-picking the text, as some do, the whole text should be emphasized. The text concludes by stating the woman accused of adultery was not only not stoned, she was set free.

The real question is, should man model their punishment system after the Old Covenant precedents, or the New Covenant Christ brought? Since I don't agree that the death penalty was abolished, the question in not applicable to me.

-------

I'm going back to the topic of the thread: Could I vote for a democrat?

I don't often vote deathocrat.

Few are pro-life...except when it comes to capital punishment for those determined to be guilty of heinous crimes. Then they are pro-life.

Be unborn...unable to speak for yourself...unable to defend yourself...not guilty of a crime...97%-98% of the time a result of intended sexual decisions...you must - by deathocrat standards - die!

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

.......and the rights of the little children in their mothers womb......

Both major Candidates are Pro Choice. Don't just sit back.......act now! VOTE NO TO BOTH!

Everyone is "pro-choice" on some issue.

I'm pro-choice on school vouchers and gun rights. Why is it that I have to specifically indicate the issue, though, in declaring that I am pro-choice?

If I should have to declare the name of the issue, so should abortion-rights advocates. No more of this "pro-choice" garbage, then, when referring to the "right" to destroy unborn humans. They aren't pro-choice, they are abortion rights advocates.

Shrillary is in favor of abortion on demand, so she's an abortion rights advocate.

Trump, maybe so. He says he's had a change of heart on the issue. This does happen. Hopefully so.

 

[p_rehbein]

Everyone is "pro-choice" on some issue.

I'm pro-choice on school vouchers and gun rights. Why is it that I have to specifically indicate the issue, though, in declaring that I am pro-choice?

If I should have to declare the name of the issue, so should abortion-rights advocates. No more of this "pro-choice" garbage, then, when referring to the "right" to destroy unborn humans. They aren't pro-choice, they are abortion rights advocates.

Shrillary is in favor of abortion on demand, so she's an abortion rights advocate.

Trump, maybe so. He says he's had a change of heart on the issue. This does happen. Hopefully so.

Agreed, just that folks now identify the term with abortion rights.......they really aren't pro choice, as the only choice they push on their victims is abortion.

 

[FlSnookman7]

Abortion has never been about choice, rather it is escaping the consequences of a choice by denying the most helpless among us any choice at all.

 

[p_rehbein]

You are preaching to the Choir. But, that's ok.

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

Abortion has never been about choice, rather it is escaping the consequences of a choice by denying the most helpless among us any choice at all.

Instead of settling for "pro-choice" we ought to call it poor-choice.

See also my post #29.

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

Agreed, just that folks now identify the term with abortion rights.......they really aren't pro choice, as the only choice they push on their victims is abortion.

I think there are a lot of people who are sorta between a rock and a hard place.

Overall, they don't really approve of abortion. They might oppose, for example, abortions that are done for sex selection or because another child poses a financial burden or abortions because of careless sex or abortions after the first trimester.

Meanwhile, they might be "ok" with abortions because of rape/incest, developmental abnormalities, or first trimester abortions.

People who think as described above seem to label themselves as pro-choice even though they favor a number of restrictions. They are "pro-choice" only to a degree.

I would label as "pro-abortion" and for "abortion on demand" such organizations Planned Barenhood, Emily's List, and the National Organization of Wackos(NOW). Any restrictions on abortion and these organizations go nuts, referring to the opponent as "radical right wing" or "anti-choice" or "anti-woman". Those involved with these organizations are radical, pro-abortion, and for death-on-demand. They would fit under your label of pushing abortion on their victims.

 

[p_rehbein]

I think there are a lot of people who are sorta between a rock and a hard place.

Overall, they don't really approve of abortion. They might oppose, for example, abortions that are done for sex selection or because another child poses a financial burden or abortions because of careless sex or abortions after the first trimester.

Meanwhile, they might be "ok" with abortions because of rape/incest, developmental abnormalities, or first trimester abortions.

People who think as described above seem to label themselves as pro-choice even though they favor a number of restrictions. They are "pro-choice" only to a degree.

I would label as "pro-abortion" and for "abortion on demand" such organizations Planned Barenhood, Emily's List, and the National Organization of Wackos(NOW). Any restrictions on abortion and these organizations go nuts, referring to the opponent as "radical right wing" or "anti-choice" or "anti-woman". Those involved with these organizations are radical, pro-abortion, and for death-on-demand. They would fit under your label of pushing abortion on their victims.

Yes, those types of organizations and such types has the Hollywood crowd and some others were who I was speaking of, and not a particular individual.

I have people get angry with me because when I discuss this issue, while I firmly state I am against abortions, I also believe in free will, and that we can not impose our will on others. Some people go nuts over this, but such is life.

For a couple of years now, I have been telling folks here that we have allowed the liberal abortion folks to define/name their beliefs. When it was a choice between supporting abortions or not, the majority of the Nation was firmly against abortions. When the liberals redefined their movement PRO CHOICE is when they began to gain National support. I mean, who wouldn't be "pro" choice right? We should have never allowed them to get away with this, but that is water under the bridge now.

It's the same as the way they defined/named their Political Movement from Liberal to Progressive, and their Party from Democrat to Democratic. They keep redefining/naming themselves to gain the advantage, and we keep allowing them to do so.