Death Penalty...right or wrong?

[enelya_taralom]

Does that mean that a nation with a low crime rate has repented more and is closer to God than a nation with a high crime rate?

Sorry I don't know what he was getting at, but I guess that makes Japan closer to God than Israel

 

[Simonline]

you know, i really am not a humanist!

If you place love of man over love and above obedience to God then you are a humanist. Obedience to God must always take precedence over 'love of man' because it's only through love of and obedience to God that we know how to love man correctly [i.e. the difference between true Judeo-Christian morality and Situational Ethics] (Jn.14:15,23-24).

might i then, genuinely ask you, how we love god? apart from saying it what do we actually do? as i write im thinking perhaps worship?

And how do we worship God (in Spirit and in Truth (Jn.4:24))? Answer: 1Sam.15:22-23; Matt.28:18-20; Jn.14:15,23-24.

what does "turning a blind eye to sin" involve because, clearly, he ate with sinners.

Turning a blind eye to sin involves compromising on doing what is right in order to 'love' people...i.e. going soft on sin. Sin is the moral cancer that destroys people causing them to perish and God will always destroy sin rather than allow it to destroy his people. This is why God insists that Israel and the Church (as the two great theocracies) purge themselves of sin at every available opportunity because it is a destructive cancer which shows no mercy. Only in Holiness and Righteousness will God enter into personal relationships with Man. Sin always cuts us off from God.

perhaps i should elaborate.

a. "the truth" isnt in the bible, some things that are a part of the truth are.

You're absolutely right, the Truth isn't in the Bible. The Bible does not contain the Truth, it IS the Truth. The Bible is the permanant 'written version' of the Word of God, of which there are three 'versions' - spoken (Gen.1:1-31), written (2Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12-13) and living (Jn.1:1-5, 14-18). All three versions are equally valid and of equal authority (since all three will be present at our judgment).

b. even if it were, it is "unavailable" to us because we have to translate it, we filter it, we have to understand it in the context of our own lives because that is the nature of us human beings. everything that we are, how we understand things, what words mean to us, is subject to a vast array of influences such as our bodies, the environment, our upbringing, our parents.

No. I disagree. Yes, we must first translate and interpret the written Word but God has given us His Holy Spirit to enable us to do that correctly (Matt.28:18-20; Jn.16:5-16). We must first understand it in it's own original context (not our own context) and then apply the same commands/principles etc. of that situation and context to our own. Only then will we have interpreted and applied the Scriptures correctly (2Tim.2:15). If we have the written record and archaeological evidence externally and the Holy Spirit and a heart of integrity (that is aware of its own subjective theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas' yet still subjects them to objective scrutiny and is willing to modify or even reject those presuppositions and agendas, as necessary, in its quest for Truth at all costs) internally then it is reasonable to assume that we will arrive at the right conclusions.

here, i will directly address what you have said.
this:

to be made subservient to our own theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas'

is what you are doing.

This you have yet to establish. I have said this of you because you have already declared that you have rejected the authority of God's written revelation (insofar as it doesn't serve your own theological presuppositions) in favour of your own subjective interpretations and applications, whereas I accept God's written revelation entire as the authoritative Word of God and seek to interpret it in its own context and then apply it to my life and situations.

you believe that you arent, but, like a lot of fundamentalists seem to, you are in denial and are subject to the fundamentalist dogma that says it has no agenda but the "Word of God".

Again, you have yet to establish this [Q.E.D.] in my case?

you will pick and choose what you want to interpret as literal truth, just as anybody else would.

No. I interpret as literal only what the original context allows me to interpret as literal. I don't interpret all of Scripture as literal but only according to context.

you yourself said that:

Deut.21:18-21 only applies within the context of the Old Testament theocracy of Israel [i.e. direct rule by God] and not in any other non-theocratic context.

you are making the bible "subservient to our own theological presuppositions" as you said. but you think that you are doing it correctly, whereas i am not.

Nonsense. what I have said about Deut.21:18-21 is absolutely correct and the onus is on you to prove me wrong [Q.E.D.]. Again, slinging mud is easy. Demonstrating that an argument is flawed requires effort but your counter argument is invalid without it.

as for a "hidden agenda" as you put it. i freely admit that i have an agenda, i am full of agendas. you though, claim to not have one, which is the fallacy of the fundamentalists position.

I have never claimed that I do not have theological presuppositions or 'hidden agendas'. The difference between my theological presuppositions/hidden agendas and yours is that I regularly subject mine to objective scrutiny and modify/jettison them, as necessary, in my quest for objective Truth, whereas you appear to revere yours as infallibly sacrosanct?!

lets see where our current conversation leads us.

As a fundamentalist, I do not share your relativistic view of reality by which means absolutely anything can (and often is) 'justified'. Whilst I believe that Truth cannot be fully known (since God, as Truth (Jn.14:6), is infinitely bigger than the human mind (even the best human mind) to fully comprehend), I absolutely do not believe that Truth cannot be known at all, otherwise what was the purpose of God revealing anything about himself?! The Truth is that humans can know truely, they just cannot know fully. It is on the basis of God's revealed Truth that Man is in a position to make objectively true statements about Truth/Reality.

Only when humans start from the absolute darkness of finite relativism (as you are doing) rather than the absolute light of Divine Revelation as the Judeo-Christian faith teaches, are humans not in any kind of position to make objectively true statements about Truth/Reality, hence the utter moral and objective bankruptcy of their pronouncements (see the writings and works of both Francis A. Schaeffer and Ravi Zacharias for a far more comprehensive and lucid treatment of this point).

i think that "as a fundamentalist" you are in denial of your condition as a fallible human being and are subject to relativism like eveyone else.

No. I freely acknowledge that I am a falible human being and that I exist relative to God. However, I also acknowledge that God's position is absolute and not just another 'relative' position relative to everyone else's. We all exist relative and contingent to him. He exists absolutely without relation or contingence to anyone or anything else. Therefore, not all interpretations of the Scriptures are relatively subjective (and therefore mere 'opinions' to be accepted or ignored as they fit in with our own sacrosanct theological presuppositions). There is such a thing as a correct interpretation of Scripture. The Bible, when correctly interpreted (2Tim.2:15), cannot be made to say whatever anyone wants it to say in order to justify any position whatsoever.

you call "finite relativism" darkness, i call it reality, i call it humanity.

Like I said, we live on different planets (see the writings and works of both Francis A. Schaeffer and Ravi Zacharias for a far more comprehensive and lucid treatment of this point).

and you are not "starting from" the absolute light of Divine Revelation, you are starting from the bottom like everybody else. the "absolute light" is what you are trying to acheive. there is a big difference.

No. That's the difference between you and I. You believe that we have to start from where we are (i.e. in complete moral relativism) wheras I believe we can start from a moral fixed point (i.e. God) by which we get our moral bearings and formulate a moral and ethical compass. Without God as a fixed point we have absolutely no hope of salvation or redemption.

Like I said, you are a humanist (your starting point is Man as relative creature rather than God as absolute Creator and the only non-contingent Being in existence). Is it any wonder that you have absolutely no effective moral compass or ethical guide? Humanistic 'social contract' is fundamentally defective as a moral compass or ethical guide.

we appear to be far apart, that is true. but i find this helpful and interesting.

Me too!

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Does that mean that a nation with a low crime rate has repented more and is closer to God than a nation with a high crime rate?

No, of course not, since there is more than one way to reduce crime rates. However, the best way to reduce crime rates (without manipulating or oppressing people in order to do it) is for a nation to repent before God and so receive God's forgiveness and subsequent healing and restoration (Pr.14:34).

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Sorry I don't know what he was getting at, but I guess that makes Japan closer to God than Israel

He's assuming that I am saying that the only way to reduce crime rates is through Judeo-Christian repentence, but that's not what I'm saying at all since there are more ways to reduce crime rates than through Judeo-Christian repentence (totalitarian states imposing martial law for example).

Simonline.

 

[Rusticus]

No, of course not, since there is more than one way to reduce crime rates. However, the best way to reduce crime rates (without manipulating or oppressing people in order to do it) is for a nation to repent before God and so receive God's forgiveness and subsequent healing and restoration.

Simonline.

Firsly, would it not better to, instead of talking about "reducing" crime rates, not to let them get so high in the first place?

Secondly, Is there any statistical evidence that repentence etc actually have an effect on the crime rate?

 

[Simonline]

Firsly, would it not [be] better to, instead of talking about "reducing" crime rates, not to let them get so high in the first place?

Of course, but how do you propose to achieve that [we have to start from where we are and not from where we would like to be]?!

Secondly, Is there any statistical evidence that repentence etc actually have an effect on the crime rate?

Yes. I suggest that you read up on the great revivals of the Western Christian World. http://www.christianword.org/revival.shtml

During the Welsh revival of 1904 the Welsh economy nearly collapsed...and the reason? The Welsh pit ponies ground to a halt. Why? Because as a result of the Welsh revival of 1904 the miners cleaned up their acts and subsequently their language changed (for the better). Gone were the foul expletives [swear words] of the sinful unregenerate man replaced by the worship of hearts set free from sin 'Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks [and sings]' (Matt.12:34). The problem was the pit ponies knew nothing else but the foul expletives of the unregenerate miners. Since cleaning up their acts it took a while before the pit ponies could understand the language of the redeemed and so restart the production line of the Welsh coal mines.

Simonline.

 

[Rusticus]

....
Yes. I suggest that you read up on the great revivals of the Western Christian World.....

What do we do with those people in our Nations who simply refuse to be part of any such repentence and revival?

Declare non-participation a crime? (which would increase the crime-rate...)

Just shoot them?

Expell them and "transport" them to other, less worthy Nations?

 

[Simonline]

What do we do with those people in our Nations who simply refuse to be part of any such repentence and revival?

Declare non-participation a crime? (which would increase the crime-rate...)

Just shoot them?

Expell them and "transport" them to other, less worthy Nations?

No, absolutely not! God has set up 'secular' authority to administer those who do not wish to be a part of the kingdom of God. The Judeo-Christian faith teaches that God is Love (1Jn.4:8). It is the nature of love to be utterly and absolutely devoid of compulsion in its relationships, therefore, absolutely no-one must EVER be coerced into membership of the kingdom. Therefore God must make provision for those who do not wish to be a part of his kingdom. This is why God set up 'secular' authority (Rom.13:1-7).

The very concept of an 'unbeliever-free' 'Christian country' has more to do with Islam (based as it is upon compulsion bourne of the 'fact' that Allah is de facto God and therefore everyone must be brought into submission to him (preferably voluntarily but by force if necessary) irrespective of whether he is 'love' or not [Islam teaches that Allah is 'loving' but not that Allah is Love]) and as such is absolutely anathema to Judeo-Christianity.

Simonline.

 

[Cleany]

If you place love of man over love and above obedience to God then you are a humanist. Obedience to God must always take precedence over 'love of man' because it's only through love of and obedience to God that we know how to love man correctly [i.e. the difference between true Judeo-Christian morality and Situational Ethics] (Jn.14:15,23-24).

your argument depends on assuming that you always know what god wants. do you claim this?

And how do we worship God (in Spirit and in Truth (Jn.4:24))? Answer: 1Sam.15:22-23; Matt.28:18-20; Jn.14:15,23-24.

these verses seem to be about obedience, they have absolutely nothing to do with worship? are you saying that we worship god by being obedient? it would follow from your arguments - therefore obedient to the bible? are you saying that is what worship is?

Turning a blind eye to sin involves compromising on doing what is right in order to 'love' people...i.e. going soft on sin. Sin is the moral cancer that destroys people causing them to perish and God will always destroy sin rather than allow it to destroy his people. This is why God insists that Israel and the Church (as the two great theocracies) purge themselves of sin at every available opportunity because it is a destructive cancer which shows no mercy. Only in Holiness and Righteousness will God enter into personal relationships with Man. Sin always cuts us off from God.

you havent really answered my question here, what does "not compromising" on sin mean?

lets say, for example, that you and your family are living in britain and there is a war on and the city where you live is being bombed. your children have no water, and will die without some, but, just across the road from you, is a shop. the owner is away and inside the shop is the only source of water, the clean water system has broken down because of the bombing and you have run out of backup supply.

do you go and steal the water (compromising on sin?) or do you save the life of your children (love).

You're absolutely right, the Truth isn't in the Bible. The Bible does not contain the Truth, it IS the Truth. The Bible is the permanant 'written version' of the Word of God, of which there are three 'versions' - spoken (Gen.1:1-31), written (2Tim.3:16-17; Heb.4:12-13) and living (Jn.1:1-5, 14-18). All three versions are equally valid and of equal authority (since all three will be present at our judgment).

ok, which translation?

No. I disagree. Yes, we must first translate and interpret the written Word but God has given us His Holy Spirit to enable us to do that correctly (Matt.28:18-20; Jn.16:5-16). We must first understand it in it's own original context (not our own context) and then apply the same commands/principles etc. of that situation and context to our own. Only then will we have interpreted and applied the Scriptures correctly (2Tim.2:15). If we have the written record and archaeological evidence externally and the Holy Spirit and a heart of integrity (that is aware of its own subjective theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas' yet still subjects them to objective scrutiny and is willing to modify or even reject those presuppositions and agendas, as necessary, in its quest for Truth at all costs) internally then it is reasonable to assume that we will arrive at the right conclusions.

ok questions:

1. by what means is it possible to "understand it in its own original context" without being influenced by our sinful nature?

2. what infallible source is there that tells us how to "understand it in its own original context"?

3. how is it possible for a fallible and sinful human to "subject them to objective scrutiny" without error?

4. what of those who dont have "the written record and archaeological evidence", what meaningful faith can they have?

5. apparently given all the possibilities for error, is it still "reasonable to assume that we will arrive at the right conclusions"?

6. does "reasonable to assume that we will arrive at the right conclusions" mean that those conclusions will be infallible and without error, and wholly reflect the true meaning of scripture?

This you have yet to establish. I have said this of you because you have already declared that you have rejected the authority of God's written revelation (insofar as it doesn't serve your own theological presuppositions) in favour of your own subjective interpretations and applications, whereas I accept God's written revelation entire as the authoritative Word of God and seek to interpret it in its own context and then apply it to my life and situations.

and establish it i shall. why? because ..

1. it is unproven that scripture is actually infallible. in fact, it is impossible to prove!

2. you cannot actually believe, even in your wildest dreams, that you can interpret the bible without any error whatsoever and you must admit that at least in some way you are actually subject to applying your own agenda, and the agendas of your tradition to your interpretation of scripture, just like the rest of the human race. to claim otherwise is simply ludicrous.

Again, you have yet to establish this [Q.E.D.] in my case?

it is already established. it is just a matter of you actually realising it.

No. I interpret as literal only what the original context allows me to interpret as literal. I don't interpret all of Scripture as literal but only according to context.

what is your source for understanding the context of the bible text? is it possible that this source is capable of making any errors?

Nonsense. what I have said about Deut.21:18-21 is absolutely correct and the onus is on you to prove me wrong [Q.E.D.]. Again, slinging mud is easy. Demonstrating that an argument is flawed requires effort but your counter argument is invalid without it.

whether your interpretation is correct or not isnt the point. the point is that you are interpreting it by "rules" that have their source outside of the bible. is this source infallible too?

actually, this is not about arguments and propositions, this is about examining ourselves as people and identifying the processes that are involved in working out our faith.

I have never claimed that I do not have theological presuppositions or 'hidden agendas'. The difference between my theological presuppositions/hidden agendas and yours is that I regularly subject mine to objective scrutiny and modify/jettison them, as necessary, in my quest for objective Truth, whereas you appear to revere yours as infallibly sacrosanct?!

incredible - i would say the same to you! how is it that we are misunderstanding each other so?

could i perhaps get you to admit that if you have jettisoned or modified some of your theological presuppositions/hidden agendas because presumably you considered them to be in error, could it be that your previous interpretations and understanding of the bible was influenced by them, and therefore also in error?

No. I freely acknowledge that I am a falible human being and that I exist relative to God. However, I also acknowledge that God's position is absolute and not just another 'relative' position relative to everyone else's. We all exist relative and contingent to him. He exists absolutely without relation or contingence to anyone or anything else. Therefore, not all interpretations of the Scriptures are relatively subjective (and therefore mere 'opinions' to be accepted or ignored as they fit in with our own sacrosanct theological presuppositions). There is such a thing as a correct interpretation of Scripture. The Bible, when correctly interpreted (2Tim.2:15), cannot be made to say whatever anyone wants it to say in order to justify any position whatsoever.

even if you assume that there "is such a thing as a correct interpretation of Scripture", the tools for obtaining that interpretation are a part of this sinful world and subject to error.

Like I said, we live on different planets (see the writings and works of both Francis A. Schaeffer and Ravi Zacharias for a far more comprehensive and lucid treatment of this point).

No. That's the difference between you and I. You believe that we have to start from where we are (i.e. in complete moral relativism) wheras I believe we can start from a moral fixed point (i.e. God) by which we get our moral bearings and formulate a moral and ethical compass. Without God as a fixed point we have absolutely no hope of salvation or redemption.

Like I said, you are a humanist (your starting point is Man as relative creature rather than God as absolute Creator and the only non-contingent Being in existence). Is it any wonder that you have absolutely no effective moral compass or ethical guide? Humanistic 'social contract' is fundamentally defective as a moral compass or ethical guide.

Me too!

Simonline.

what do you mean "starting point"? it is our aim to be like god, to know god, we start as sinners.


you seem to have trouble admitting that, though you believe the bible to be infallable, it is not possible to make an infallible interpretation of it.

you denied that you were guilty of making the bible "subservient to our own theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas'", you said to me "This you have yet to establish". Yet in the same post you say "I have never claimed that I do not have theological presuppositions or 'hidden agendas'."

and you also said "The difference between my theological presuppositions/hidden agendas and yours is that I regularly subject mine to objective scrutiny and modify/jettison them, as necessary, in my quest for objective Truth, whereas you appear to revere yours as infallibly sacrosanct?!". you admit that you are on a "quest for objective truth" as you put it, how then can you say that "I believe we can start from a moral fixed point (i.e. God) by which we get our moral bearings and formulate a moral and ethical compass."


this is what i find worrying:

you admit that you are on a "quest". hopefully it is obvious to you that your quest is not finished and you have not yet discovered the whole truth of god.

you also said that you "have never claimed that I do not have theological presuppositions or 'hidden agendas'."

given these things, may i ask you what right do you have to say that

"The Messiah would never compromise his Divine Nature by turning a blind eye to sin in order to 'love' people."

or

"Absolutely no-one is above the Law. If God doesn't get them now in this life then he will simply wait and get them in the next life...but he will get them. "

or

"The principle of capital punishment is sound. "

or

"The Lord did not tell you that at all. "

or

"The Scriptures teach that everyone has an allotted number of days and each person is required to repent and come to faith within their allotted number of days. If they don't then they must accept the consequences including everlasting consequences"

you really need to understand how it looks when someone who admits that they do not have all the answers, claims that people should be killed in the name of "truth". a truth they openly admit they have not yet grasped.

 

[Simonline]

your argument depends on assuming that you always know what god wants. do you claim this?

Insofar as we have the Bible as the written Word of God and that is the permanent objective source of our knowledge of God, yes. We also have the Holy Spirit within us revealing Truth to us and confirming and bearing witness that our interpretations/applications are correct. Such interpretations will always be in harmony with what he has already authored in the Bible.

these verses seem to be about obedience, they have absolutely nothing to do with worship? are you saying that we worship god by being obedient? it would follow from your arguments - therefore obedient to the bible? are you saying that is what worship is?

Obedience is worship. Anything apart from obedience is mere flattery and self-deceit (Isa.29:13; Matt.7:21-23). Yes, obedience to the revelations of God spoken, written or living is obedience to God.

you havent really answered my question here, what does "not compromising" on sin mean? lets say, for example, that you and your family are living in britain and there is a war on and the city where you live is being bombed. your children have no water, and will die without some, but, just across the road from you, is a shop. the owner is away and inside the shop is the only source of water, the clean water system has broken down because of the bombing and you have run out of backup supply.

do you go and steal the water (compromising on sin?) or do you save the life of your children (love).

In that situation, neither. I would do the minimum amount of damage necessary to gain access to the water and leave a note advising the shop keeper that I took it and that I would pay for what I had taken next time we met and I was in a position to pay him.

The kind of situations about which you are talking relates to Biblical situational ethics (as distinct from humanist situational ethics) or 'Graded absolutism'. http://www.freedominchrist.net/Sermons/Divorce%20and%20Remarriage/Graded%20Absolutism.htm

ok, which translation?

None of them (including the Authorized Version of 1611). Infalibility pertains exclusively to the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek only and not to any subsequent translations. http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

See: Inerrancy Edited by Norman L. Geisler, published by the Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530 ISBN 0310392810 (c)1980. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310392810/002-6299724-9628855?v=glance

Also

The Old Testament Documents Are They Reliable And Relevant? by Walter C. Kaiser Jnr. http://ivpress.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1975

The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable? by F.F.Bruce http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

ok questions:

1. by what means is it possible to "understand it in its own original context" without being influenced by our sinful nature?

Please refer to the writings I have cited above as these will articulate my arguments far more lucidly that I can at present.

2. what infallible source is there that tells us how to "understand it in its own original context"?

Again, please refer to the writings I have cited above as these will articulate my arguments far more lucidly that I can at present.

3. how is it possible for a fallible and sinful human to "subject them to objective scrutiny" without error?

Again, please refer to the writings I have cited above as these will articulate my arguments far more lucidly that I can at present.

4. what of those who dont have "the written record and archaeological evidence", what meaningful faith can they have?

Rom.1:18-23 tells us that God has revealed his Truth (in varying degrees) to all men and thus all men have some knowledge of the Truth. God requires that all men live consistantly in obedience to the amount of Truth that they know. As men come to realise that this is impossible for imperfect beings, that realisation should (if they are people of integrity) motivate them to seek God out and to put their faith in God as they seek to both increase and live by their knowledge and understanding of God (Abraham being a classic case in point, since he trusted God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Gen.15:6; Rom.4:3))

5. apparently given all the possibilities for error, is it still "reasonable to assume that we will arrive at the right conclusions"?

Millions of reasonable and intelligent orthodox Evangelical Christians seem to think so?

6. does "reasonable to assume that we will arrive at the right conclusions" mean that those conclusions will be infallible and without error, and wholly reflect the true meaning of scripture?

No. Only the revelation itself is inerrant. However, as long as the interpretations are based on sound hermenutics the conclusions and subsequent applications should also be sound. The 'true meaning of Scripture' is by no means 'uniform or monolithic' because it deals with the full spectrum of human existence. However, the Scriptural principles (when interpreted and applied correctly) will be constant (since they are based upon the Immutable Nature and Character of God) even when the contexts in which those principles might be applied will be fluid (due to the wide spectrum of human existence).

and establish it i shall. why? because ..

1. it is unproven that scripture is actually infallible. in fact, it is impossible to prove!

This is an absolute statement which requires omniscience on the part of the person making it in order to be valid. Are you omniscient?

2. you cannot actually believe, even in your wildest dreams, that you can interpret the bible without any error whatsoever and you must admit that at least in some way you are actually subject to applying your own agenda, and the agendas of your tradition to your interpretation of scripture, just like the rest of the human race. to claim otherwise is simply ludicrous.

I have never believed or claimed to be able to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Of course I have an agenda which I apply to the way I interpret the Scriptures but for me, that agenda is always to strive for objective Truth and not believe that I am the only source of 'truth' but only for myself. Such relativism reduces all ethics and morality to a mere 'matter of opinion' and whoever's 'opinion' is argued (or imposed) most forcefully is the one which prevails [i.e. 'might is right' - the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade who, on the basis of such a philosophy, advocated that men had every right to forcibly subject women to any and every perverted sexual act ('Sadism') simply because men are the 'stronger' sex?!] Is this what you would advocate?!

it is already established. it is just a matter of you actually realising it.

No. It isn't 'established' at all.

what is your source for understanding the context of the bible text? is it possible that this source is capable of making any errors?

My primary source for understanding the Biblical context is the Bible itself since, as I was taught as a young Christian, so I have always found to be true, that the Bible is its own best commentary. If the Bible really is the revealed Word of God then no, it is not capable of being wrong (I make this claim only for the original writings in their original languages and not for any subsequent translations or paraphrases).

whether your interpretation is correct or not isnt the point. the point is that you are interpreting it by "rules" that have their source outside of the bible. is this source infallible too?

The principles of Hermenutics:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/hermeneutics-bib.html

http://www.probe.org/content/view/688/149/

http://www.carm.org/demo/Bible/interpret.htm

http://www.watchman.org/cults/interprt.htm

http://web.crown.edu/b&t/castonv/caston/principles/crn%2001.htm

actually, this is not about arguments and propositions, this is about examining ourselves as people and identifying the processes that are involved in working out our faith.

Agreed.

To be continued...


incredible - i would say the same to you! how is it that we are misunderstanding each other so?

could i perhaps get you to admit that if you have jettisoned or modified some of your theological presuppositions/hidden agendas because presumably you considered them to be in error, could it be that your previous interpretations and understanding of the bible was influenced by them, and therefore also in error?

even if you assume that there "is such a thing as a correct interpretation of Scripture", the tools for obtaining that interpretation are a part of this sinful world and subject to error.

what do you mean "starting point"? it is our aim to be like god, to know god, we start as sinners.


you seem to have trouble admitting that, though you believe the bible to be infallable, it is not possible to make an infallible interpretation of it.

you denied that you were guilty of making the bible "subservient to our own theological presuppositions and 'hidden agendas'", you said to me "This you have yet to establish". Yet in the same post you say "I have never claimed that I do not have theological presuppositions or 'hidden agendas'."

and you also said "The difference between my theological presuppositions/hidden agendas and yours is that I regularly subject mine to objective scrutiny and modify/jettison them, as necessary, in my quest for objective Truth, whereas you appear to revere yours as infallibly sacrosanct?!". you admit that you are on a "quest for objective truth" as you put it, how then can you say that "I believe we can start from a moral fixed point (i.e. God) by which we get our moral bearings and formulate a moral and ethical compass."


this is what i find worrying:

you admit that you are on a "quest". hopefully it is obvious to you that your quest is not finished and you have not yet discovered the whole truth of god.

you also said that you "have never claimed that I do not have theological presuppositions or 'hidden agendas'."

given these things, may i ask you what right do you have to say that

"The Messiah would never compromise his Divine Nature by turning a blind eye to sin in order to 'love' people."

or

"Absolutely no-one is above the Law. If God doesn't get them now in this life then he will simply wait and get them in the next life...but he will get them. "

or

"The principle of capital punishment is sound. "

or

"The Lord did not tell you that at all. "

or

"The Scriptures teach that everyone has an allotted number of days and each person is required to repent and come to faith within their allotted number of days. If they don't then they must accept the consequences including everlasting consequences"

you really need to understand how it looks when someone who admits that they do not have all the answers, claims that people should be killed in the name of "truth". a truth they openly admit they have not yet grasped.

 

[Cleany]

Insofar as we have the Bible as the written Word of God and that is the permanent objective source of our knowledge of God, yes. We also have the Holy Spirit within us revealing Truth to us and confirming and bearing witness that our interpretations/applications are correct. Such interpretations will always be in harmony with what he has already authored in the Bible.

it is the truth of these claims that we are debating.

Obedience is worship. Anything apart from obedience is mere flattery and self-deceit (Isa.29:13; Matt.7:21-23). Yes, obedience to the revelations of God spoken, written or living is obedience to God.

what about singing, what about praising god? is this flattery and self-deceit?

In that situation, neither. I would do the minimum amount of damage necessary to gain access to the water and leave a note advising the shop keeper that I took it and that I would pay for what I had taken next time we met and I was in a position to pay him.

The kind of situations about which you are talking relates to Biblical situational ethics (as distinct from humanist situational ethics) or 'Graded absolutism'. http://www.freedominchrist.net/Sermons/Divorce%20and%20Remarriage/Graded%20Absolutism.htm

so you admit that you would break into the shop and steal the water?

None of them (including the Authorized Version of 1611). Infalibility pertains exclusively to the original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek only and not to any subsequent translations. http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

See: Inerrancy Edited by Norman L. Geisler, published by the Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan 49530 ISBN 0310392810 (c)1980. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0310392810/002-6299724-9628855?v=glance

Also

The Old Testament Documents Are They Reliable And Relevant? by Walter C. Kaiser Jnr. http://ivpress.gospelcom.net/cgi-ivpress/book.pl/code=1975

The New Testament Documents Are They Reliable? by F.F.Bruce http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

so you have these original manuscripts i take it?

Please refer to the writings I have cited above as these will articulate my arguments far more lucidly that I can at present.

so i need to read 4 books to have these 3 questions answered?

Rom.1:18-23 tells us that God has revealed his Truth (in varying degrees) to all men and thus all men have some knowledge of the Truth. God requires that all men live consistantly in obedience to the amount of Truth that they know. As men come to realise that this is impossible for imperfect beings, that realisation should (if they are people of integrity) motivate them to seek God out and to put their faith in God as they seek to both increase and live by their knowledge and understanding of God (Abraham being a classic case in point, since he trusted God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Gen.15:6; Rom.4:3))

did these people have enough of a revelation to declare that "the truth" means that it is right to kill as a punishment or does it take some special knowledge to say that?

and abraham, he obviously had the knowledge of "some truth", would you say that those who have access to the scripture in the "original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek" had more of a knowledge of the truth than abraham. would you say that of paul?

Millions of reasonable and intelligent orthodox Evangelical Christians seem to think so?

presumably then these millions of orthodox Evangelical Christians would then have no disagreements?

No. Only the revelation itself is inerrant. However, as long as the interpretations are based on sound hermenutics the conclusions and subsequent applications should also be sound. The 'true meaning of Scripture' is by no means 'uniform or monolithic' because it deals with the full spectrum of human existence. However, the Scriptural principles (when interpreted and applied correctly) will be constant (since they are based upon the Immutable Nature and Character of God) even when the contexts in which those principles might be applied will be fluid (due to the wide spectrum of human existence).

is "sound" near enough to the truth talk about the punishment of literally billions of people in terms like this:

The Scriptures teach that everyone has an allotted number of days and each person is required to repent and come to faith within their allotted number of days. If they don't then they must accept the consequences including everlasting consequences

you admit that your word "sound" does not reflect the infallible truth 100%, but is an approximation of it.

unless you claim that "sound" actually means it is 100% correct, even though it is itself based on "sound" (not infallible) hermeneutics, then dont you think it a little arrogant to talk of the "everlasting consequences" of literally billions of people as if you know all the answers?

This is an absolute statement which requires omniscience on the part of the person making it in order to be valid. Are you omniscient?

what qualifications then, are needed to claim that the bible is infallible?

also - lets look at some other absolute statements, the author will, i believe, not claim to be omniscient ...

Absolutely no-one is above the Law. If God doesn't get them now in this life then he will simply wait and get them in the next life...but he will get them.

The Messiah would never compromise his Divine Nature by turning a blind eye to sin in order to 'love' people.

interesting.

I have never believed or claimed to be able to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Of course I have an agenda which I apply to the way I interpret the Scriptures but for me, that agenda is always to strive for objective Truth and not believe that I am the only source of 'truth' but only for myself. Such relativism reduces all ethics and morality to a mere 'matter of opinion' and whoever's 'opinion' is argued (or imposed) most forcefully is the one which prevails [i.e. 'might is right' - the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade who, on the basis of such a philosophy, advocated that men had every right to forcibly subject women to any and every perverted sexual act ('Sadism') simply because men are the 'stronger' sex?!] Is this what you would advocate?!

it may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of other people are striving for objective truth, including me. and i dont think that anyone believes that the only source of truth is themselves.

this discussion is about what is right in making life or death decisions in the world today, and upon what those decision are based upon.

you say that we can base these decisions on an "infallible" document. yet you can make no basis for the "infallibility" of this document other that the document itself.

you also admit that your interpretation of this document is not perfect and that you have an agenda.

i put it to you again, that this is not a sound basis upon which to publicly talk, in the name of christianity, about the lives and deaths of billions of people.

i will also say that no person, and no christian, can claim to know for absolute certain the destiny of the human population of this world. and that untold damage has been done to christianity by such claims.

No. It isn't 'established' at all.

perhaps in time you will realise that not everything you know has come about by your own making, and that as a professed fundementalist, that the fundementalist tradition has influenced your thinking, and your interpretation of the bible.

My primary source for understanding the Biblical context is the Bible itself since, as I was taught as a young Christian, so I have always found to be true, that the Bible is its own best commentary. If the Bible really is the revealed Word of God then no, it is not capable of being wrong (I make this claim only for the original writings in their original languages and not for any subsequent translations or paraphrases).

and yet you say

I have never believed or claimed to be able to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Of course I have an agenda which I apply to the way I interpret the Scriptures

look at what you have said!

The principles of Hermenutics:

does it claim to be infallible?

Agreed.

yay!

To be continued...

i hope so.

 

[ladyerica]

I have formulated an opinion and I have decided that based on Scripture i do not believe that the death penalty is wrong.

I will explain from the Scriptures and from my own reasoning why I believe this way. First of all, the 10 commandments declare that we are not to murder. Murder is the shedding of innocent blood. (The American Heritage Dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful killing of one human being by another". I am not saying that this dictionary overrides God's Word, but I thought it was interesting that the definition includes the word "unlawful".)The death penalty, however, is not shedding innocent blood...it is the punishment of guilty and dangerous lawbreakers.

Secondly, there are examples of the killing of sinners in Scripture. First, I'd like to bring up Exodus 32. In this chapter, Moses is up on Mt. Sinai to get the 10 commandments and the Israelites lost faith in God and made idols and worshipped them. When Moses came down from the mount, he was so angry he threw the 10 commandments down, breaking them. He told all the people who still believed in God to kill all those who didn't. This is an example of "government" (I refer to Moses as government because he was leading the people) using the death penalty to punish sinners.

Another example of "government" enforcing laws by death is in Joshua 7. In this chapter, Achan of Israel stole from the Lord. The city of Jericho was devoted to God by the people of Israel and they were to kill every living thing and burn the entire city along with any possessions. Achan secretly took a robe, 200 shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold, deceiving the entire nation. God, of course, cannot be deceived and when Israel goes into battle against the Amorites, He allows the Amorites to defeat the Israelites for Achan's sin. After a long process, Joshua narrows the nation of Israel down and figures out that Achan was the sinner and confronts him about it. After Achan was proven guilty, the people of Israel stoned him and all his possessions (including his children) to death.

In Bible-times, the punishment of death was being stoned... The following are several verses referring to different sins that must result in being stoned to death:

Exodus 21:28-29
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 35:17***
Deuteronomy 13:10
Deuteronomy 17:5
Deuteronomy 21:21

God has placed government in position to keep our nations orderly and under control. I believe that governments are corrupted because they are run by humans who are corrupted; however, God commands us to obey authorities and the government is an authority. When people murder, they are not only disobeying the government, the are disobeying God and God commands that they be put to death as stated in Numbers 35:17. God is perfect and He does not contradict Himself. It is difficult to understand how God could command us not to murder, yet command us to punish murderers by putting them to death; but if you keep in mind what Leviticus 24:17 and 24:20 say, it makes sense that God was telling us not to shed innocent blood and by killing murderers, the government is not shedding innocent blood, but carrying out God's law.

~Erica~

 

[yuzuyuzuken]

Jesus died on the cross.

Does it mean Jesus died with an unrighteous way?
Paul died by execution...

God flooded the earth
God killed a lot of people out of justice
God also killed people out of mercy

does it mean God must die?

You know what, Without Jesus, we all deserve life sentence
....
Murder and execution are two different things.
Murder is evil
execution is even in God's eyes, righteous.

What am i saying

 

[Simonline]

I have formulated an opinion and I have decided that based on Scripture i do not believe that the death penalty is wrong.

I will explain from the Scriptures and from my own reasoning why I believe this way. First of all, the 10 commandments declare that we are not to murder. Murder is the shedding of innocent blood. (The American Heritage Dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful killing of one human being by another". I am not saying that this dictionary overrides God's Word, but I thought it was interesting that the definition includes the word "unlawful".)The death penalty, however, is not shedding innocent blood...it is the punishment of guilty and dangerous lawbreakers.

Secondly, there are examples of the killing of sinners in Scripture. First, I'd like to bring up Exodus 32. In this chapter, Moses is up on Mt. Sinai to get the 10 commandments and the Israelites lost faith in God and made idols and worshipped them. When Moses came down from the mount, he was so angry he threw the 10 commandments down, breaking them. He told all the people who still believed in God to kill all those who didn't. This is an example of "government" (I refer to Moses as government because he was leading the people) using the death penalty to punish sinners.

Another example of "government" enforcing laws by death is in Joshua 7. In this chapter, Achan of Israel stole from the Lord. The city of Jericho was devoted to God by the people of Israel and they were to kill every living thing and burn the entire city along with any possessions. Achan secretly took a robe, 200 shekels of silver, and a wedge of gold, deceiving the entire nation. God, of course, cannot be deceived and when Israel goes into battle against the Amorites, He allows the Amorites to defeat the Israelites for Achan's sin. After a long process, Joshua narrows the nation of Israel down and figures out that Achan was the sinner and confronts him about it. After Achan was proven guilty, the people of Israel stoned him and all his possessions (including his children) to death.

In Bible-times, the punishment of death was being stoned... The following are several verses referring to different sins that must result in being stoned to death:

Exodus 21:28-29
Leviticus 20:2
Leviticus 20:27
Leviticus 24:16
Numbers 35:17***
Deuteronomy 13:10
Deuteronomy 17:5
Deuteronomy 21:21

God has placed government in position to keep our nations orderly and under control. I believe that governments are corrupted because they are run by humans who are corrupted; however, God commands us to obey authorities and the government is an authority. When people murder, they are not only disobeying the government, the are disobeying God and God commands that they be put to death as stated in Numbers 35:17. God is perfect and He does not contradict Himself. It is difficult to understand how God could command us not to murder, yet command us to punish murderers by putting them to death; but if you keep in mind what Leviticus 24:17 and 24:20 say, it makes sense that God was telling us not to shed innocent blood and by killing murderers, the government is not shedding innocent blood, but carrying out God's law.

~Erica~

As a fellow believer in capital punishment I should advise you that your arguments, though sound, are only applicable in the context of the Israelite theocracy to those within the Israelite covenant (i.e predominantly Israelites) and therefore not to Gentiles. You need to go much further back than the Mosaic Law to the Noahic law (Gen.9:6) to find the basis for capital punishment that is applicable to both Israelites and Gentiles (please refer to my earlier posts on this thread relating to this matter).

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

Jesus died on the cross.

Does it mean Jesus died with an unrighteous way?
Paul died by execution...

God flooded the earth
God killed a lot of people out of justice
God also killed people out of mercy

does it mean God must die?

You know what, Without Jesus, we all deserve life sentence
....
Murder and [lawful] execution are two different things.
Murder is evil
[lawful] execution is, even in God's eyes, righteous.

What am i saying

The Messiah's death was indeed unlawful but that did not stop God making use of it to further his righteous ends (Rom.8:28). Furthermore, not all execution is lawful. Some executions are little more than 'legalized' acts of murder.

Simonline.

 

[Simonline]

it is the truth of these claims that we are debating.

OK. If the claims are not true then Judeo-Christianity is the biggest confidence trick in the history of the world, since Judeo-Christianity is still the worlds biggest religion by far. To try and assert that the faith of billions of people is predicated upon unsubstantiable lies and that Judeo-Christianity actually has no more objective basis than Cocoa-Cola's 'Father Christmas' or 'the tooth fairy' is an incredible assertion to make, either directly or by implication. The Truth is that there is overwhelming evidence in support of the objective Truth of the Judeo-Christian faith and the Judeo-Christian Scriptures and that one of the many testimonies to its veracity is the fact that it is the fundamental world view of the entire 'first world' and, until very recently, has been for the past two millennia.

I have cited a few references in support of my claims (I could cite many more). It is entirely up to you if you choose to read them or ignore them

what about singing, what about praising god? is this flattery and self-deceit?

Absolutely! If it is not offered in conjunction with a life of obedience it is just two-faced hypocrisy (no matter how 'heavenly' it sounds) and God loathes it with every fibre of His Being ('To obey is better than sacrifice (including a 'sacrifice of praise')' 1Sam.15:22; Isa.29:13; Amos.5:21-24; Matt.15:8).

so you admit that you would break into the shop and steal the water?

No. I have admitted no such thing. If I wanted to 'steal' the water then I wouldn't leave a note admitting that I had taken it and that I was willing to pay for it, would I?

so you have these original manuscripts i take it?

Oh, yeah, sure! They're here in my back pocket! It is public knowledge that the original autographs (the original writings written in the author's own hand) no longer exist but we do have overwhelming textual evidence confirming the contents and veracity of the original autographs) The oldest extant copy in the world, is a portion of St. Johns gospel, kept at the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England.

so i need to read 4 books to have these 3 questions answered?

If you want a full answer, yes. It will be worth your effort.

did these people have enough of a revelation to declare that "the truth" means that it is right to kill as a punishment or does it take some special knowledge to say that?

It takes a more full revelation such as that contained within the Judeo-Christian Scriptures as the 'written Word of God' and ratified by the Messiah as the 'living Word of God' - Emmanuel - God with us - God incarnate. who, according to the historical record, endorsed the whole of the Old Covenant Scriptures (not including the 'Deutrocanonical' or 'Apocryphal' writings) as evidenced by his frequent citations of most if not all of the Old Covenant writings during his ministry here on Earth. This was further endorsed by the fact that his disciples/apostles did the same throughout their ministry too (as evidenced in the writings of the New Covenant).

and abraham, he obviously had the knowledge of "some truth", would you say that those who have access to the scripture in the "original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek" had more of a knowledge of the truth than abraham. would you say that of paul?

Yes, since God's revelation was progressive, the supreme revelation being that of the Messiah (Heb.1) The Holy Spirit illuminated the understanding of the first generation apostles (especially Paul) so that they could theologically interpret and apply the mysteries of the Old Testament, including the theological significance of the life, death and resurrection of the Messiah (Jn.16:5-16; 1Cor.2:6-16) as the old saying goes "The New is in the Old concealed; the Old is in the New revealed."

presumably then these millions of orthodox Evangelical Christians would then have no disagreements?

Yes, of course! Absolutely! [Meanwhile, back in the real world...] Of course there will be disagreements between people because life is not monolithic. To a certain extent Judeo-Christianity allows for this (Rom.14) but only to a certain extent. There is a kernel of Truth that is non-negotiable to Judeo-Christianity and this includes the sanctity of human life and the corresponding capital punishment for murder.

is "sound" near enough to the truth [to] talk about the punishment of literally billions of people in terms like this:

The Judeo-Christian Scriptures are unequivocally clear that all actions on the part of morally responsible human beings have moral consequences both short term and ultimately. This is based upon the absolute revelation of God who is absolutely Perfect, Righteous and Holy, and, as such, is non-negotiable. It is this that gives all human existence ultimate meaning and without it our existence is absolutely meaningless.

you admit that your word "sound" does not reflect the infallible truth 100%, but is an approximation of it.

By 'sound' I mean as close to the absolutely perfect Truth as sinful human beings can get. We cannot simply repudiate everything on the basis that our knowledge and understanding as finite beings will be limited. It is because the Judeo-Christian faith is based upon Divine Revelation rather than mere human assumption and conjecture that we can be certain that it is the Truth.

unless you claim that "sound" actually means it is 100% correct, even though it is itself based on "sound" (not infallible) hermeneutics, then dont you think it a little arrogant to talk of the "everlasting consequences" of literally billions of people as if you know all the answers?

But that's the point, because of Divine Revelation, we DO know the answers (at least about those things that God has revealed to us). We are not simply surmising and conjecting. That is the whole point of God revealing things to us.

what qualifications then, are needed to claim that the bible is infallible?

Read the works that I have cited and then you'll get a proper answer.

also - lets look at some other absolute statements, the author will, i believe, not claim to be omniscient ...

But they are not 'my' absolute statements, they are God's absolute statements as extrapolated from the Scriptures.

it may come as a surprise to you, but a lot of other people are striving for objective truth, including me. and i dont think that anyone believes that the only source of truth is themselves.

The popular and rapidly prevailing belief today is that there is no such thing as 'absolute' 'objective' Truth. 'Truth' is what we subjectively determine at any given point. This is the underlying world view of the entire New Age Movement for example. For further information read the Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer published by Paternoster Press and/or Crossway Publications.

this discussion is about what is right in making life or death decisions in the world today, and upon what those decision are based upon.

As a Christian my decisions and world view are based exclusively upon the Judeo-Christian faith, Scriptures and world view since that is the only world view that is internally consistent. See the writings of Ravi Zacharias/Francis A. Schaeffer.

you say that we can base these decisions on an "infallible" document. yet you can make no basis for the "infallibility" of this document other than the document itself.

Not true. Read the works I have cited.

you also admit that your interpretation of this document is not perfect and that you have an agenda.

Agreed.

i put it to you again, that this is not a sound basis upon which to publicly talk, in the name of christianity, about the lives and deaths of billions of people.

Why not? If the God who is there has revealed his Truth to us then why can we not use it as the basis of our objective reality? It has far more validity as being objectively True than the subjective and relative opinions of finite sinful human beings.

i will also say that no person, and no christian, can claim to know for absolute certain the destiny of the human population of this world. and that untold damage has been done to christianity by such claims.

Then I suggest that you take this matter up with the Messiah on your day of Judgment since, as Christians, we are simply reiterating what He has declared. If He is not 'the Way, the Truth and the Life' (Jn.14:6) then what hope is there for Mankind?

perhaps in time you will realise that not everything you know has come about by your own making, and that as a professed fundementalist, that the fundementalist tradition has influenced your thinking, and your interpretation of the bible.

I know that now, If for one moment I thought that my views and beliefs were exclusively my own, then I really would be worried.

Simonline.

 

[Cleany]

simonline i am challenging you that you (or any christian) does not have the authority to speak in the name of christianity about the death sentence. i am trying to demonstrate that:

1. the bible isnt infallible

2. even if it were, your view of it is not pure, and is tainted by your personality and experiences, as is everyones.


1. the bible isnt fallible.

fist let me say that the onus isnt on me, or anyone else to prove that the bible isnt infallible, as one making claims about universal truths it is upon you, as a man of conscience, to justify the basis upon which you speak.

amazingly you refuse to do this. at least 4 times you refused to answer the question and referred me to books. this will not do. if i were challenging you on behalf of someone who had been falsely accused of something and executed this would, in fact, be highly offensive.

let me reiterate the logical problem that the claim to the infallibility of the bible presents:

1. the bible cannot claim infallibility for itself, its own testimony would be invalid.

2. there is no other infallible source around to make such a claim. there are no facts that support it, and any claim by a person or persons would merely be opinion.


2. even if it were, your view of it is not pure, and is tainted by your personality and experiences, as is everyones.

here you continually admit and deny what influences your interpretation of the bible. i have clearly demonstrated this but you have, at every point, refused to comment on it. i can only assume that you are actually in some kind of psychological denial here.

i will, reluctantly, say what i have said before in the hope that you will attempt to address what you have said.


you admit that you are on a "quest". hopefully it is obvious to you that your quest is not finished and you have not yet discovered the whole truth of god.

you also said that you "have never claimed that I do not have theological presuppositions or 'hidden agendas'."

My primary source for understanding the Biblical context is the Bible itself since, as I was taught as a young Christian, so I have always found to be true, that the Bible is its own best commentary. If the Bible really is the revealed Word of God then no, it is not capable of being wrong (I make this claim only for the original writings in their original languages and not for any subsequent translations or paraphrases).

and yet you say

I have never believed or claimed to be able to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. Of course I have an agenda which I apply to the way I interpret the Scriptures

it is obvious that you have read and worked towards an understanding of your faith, and of the foundations for it. but you have to realise that the foundations for your faith are not the same as all other christians. experience of god in conjunction with other christians and the world in which we live is the foundation of the christian faith for many, many millions of christians, myself included. you should also include the apostles, and paul in this.


simonline, it is possible for you to be mistaken in what you say about capital punishment ...

There is a kernel of Truth that is non-negotiable to Judeo-Christianity and this includes the sanctity of human life and the corresponding capital punishment for murder.

you may have studied hard, you may have read many books, but that is still only an opinion, there is nothing divine about it.

again i appeal to you to look at the things that you say and admit that what you think may not, even possibly, not be 100% correct.


i will comment on a couple of other things that you said

No. I have admitted no such thing. If I wanted to 'steal' the water then I wouldn't leave a note admitting that I had taken it and that I was willing to pay for it, would I?

you are just redefining the meaning of the word steal there. it want yours and you took it, and you did it by damaging the property of the owner. you have broken the law, but you were willing to compromise it slightly to save your children. your intentions were perfectly good, but the situation demonstrated the problem with the law, in that it is not perfect and cannot be a sole guide for life.

the heart must judge, that is why jesus gave us his spirit.

The Holy Spirit illuminated the understanding of the first generation apostles (especially Paul)

that is, simply, dogma. nothing more, nothing less. why especially paul? it is well known that fundementalism considers the writings of paul to be the most that it agrees with.

By 'sound' I mean as close to the absolutely perfect Truth as sinful human beings can get.

even if you say that simonline, can you not see how it appears what you say that your opinion, and the opinions of those that agree with you, are "as close to the absolutely perfect Truth as sinful human beings can get." please tell me you can see how that sounds.

But that's the point, because of Divine Revelation, we DO know the answers (at least about those things that God has revealed to us). We are not simply surmising and conjecting. That is the whole point of God revealing things to us.

yet you said "Of course I have an agenda which I apply to the way I interpret the Scriptures"

[worship (singing and praising god)] If it is not offered in conjunction with a life of obedience it is just two-faced hypocrisy (no matter how 'heavenly' it sounds) and God loathes it with every fibre of His Being

what is "a life of obedience"? who will ever claim to be totally obedient to god? we all try, we all fail, we all try again, we all fail again. this is the christian life, learning to change and to be a better person, from our mistakes, and with the help of god and the other christians in our lives.

we worship god because we know this, because he understands! why do you worship him?

 

[Discipleship]

Who knows

 

[Simonline]

I'm sorry Cleany, but I don't accept your argument that because no-one is infallibly perfect then no-one has the right to uphold the Law, as revealed to Mankind by God through His interaction with Mankind and the record of that interaction that is the written Word of God, the Bible. Your argument is a recipe for subjective moral and social anarchic chaos.

Unless there is an absolute moral standard (the source of which is neither based upon nor a product of Mankind itself) to which all Mankind are able to be objectively held accountable then Humanity has no basis for declaring absolutely anything either right or wrong except on the basis of relative 'majority opinion' (or even worse, the opinion of the minority/individual that have/has been able to take control and impose their will by force).

In such a scenario morality becomes completely relative and countless millions would needlessly suffer and die as a result (as history around the world and throughout time has repeatedly borne witness).

The other thing is that simply because my arguments on this thread are not airtight does not de facto mean that they are false. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of the inerrancy of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures (which I am not in a position to bring to bear here though I have provided links to relevant websites and references to relevant books) and the cultures and civilizations that have been built upon its basis.

Once again, I do not accept that any argument for capital punishment is invalid unless made by God himself. God has declared that capital punishment is to be used, as appropriate, by those in authority to execute those guilty of the unlawful killing of a human being (Gen.9:6; Ex.21:12).

Simonline.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Who knows

Thanks for asking.