I understand your position.
This is the position that is a portion of Anabaptist doctrine, and reflective in the conscientious objectors (the true ones) today.
A consistency in doctrine would place you in that category (of passificism).
I have also wrestled with the idea, and wondered what how exactly the teachings of Christ would fit into these situations and issues.
The fact is, however, that Christ's teachings do not really advocate either position.
It is in our application that diversity of opinion forms, not in the teachings of Christ.
I think that it is a necessary benefit that there are two sides of the debate.
One pulls for the preservation of society and the other for the preservation of its morality.
We just gather round our keyboards and our small group tables and applaud it. It's not a good look for the people who claim to follow the One WHo exhibited nothing but grace and mercy.
If the directive didn't come from GOD, it's murder.
Why would we be okay with a government that does not follow Christ making the decision to murder someone?
This is the same government that just gave us same-sex marriage. This is the same government that sanctions abortion.This is the same government that sanctions all types of wickedness. Yet we're supposed to trust THAT government to get life right?
If they got it wrong with abortion, why do we think they got it right with capital punishment?
Everything about the Cross says our stance should be to ask for grace and mercy as we speak life.
It's applauded on here and by individuals throughout the church. Ask the average person on this board what Dylann Roof should have happen to him, and if they are being honest and not trying to be contrary, they'll say the death penalty.
Supporting the death penalty doesn't mean applauding it.
And yes, I've been honest already in this thread with what I think should happen to this young man.
I was very honest and admitted that I think that he should be shot nine times.
But that's anger speaking.
Then I was very honest again and said that the right thing to do was to give him due process of law, a fair and speedy trial, and if warranted by that trial - the death penalty.
I don't applaud myself for that.
I just believe it.
What does supporting something mean then if not applauding it? Now we can get into all sorts of definitions and uses of words. But you tell people in the world that you support the death penalty and they will think you applaud its use.
And I understand that Scarlett. I think that's a natural response in lieu of what took place.
But God didn't set us apart to be natural in the sense of our response being what the flesh would choose. So we have to look past how our flesh wants to respond. And remember that, even though Dylann Roof murdered nine people, in the eyes of God he broke the same law that we all break. Our default should be grace and mercy even if our flesh wants to kick his behind.
And this is where I disagree. As I said earlier, I don't believe Jesus has vested life and death to be righteously decided by folks who have murdered 55 million unborn babies. As wrong as they are on that, I don't see any way they can be right about capital punishment.
That's why I truly believe the Cross did away with the right from God for men to take the life of another as final judgment.
You know, that sounds nice and all.
It even makes sense - if one makes Jesus into a Mother Theresa - Ghandi type.
Sure - we ALL have too much sin in our lives.
They did in the OT, too and the death penalty was on the table then - ordained by God both before and during the Law.
The purpose of the Cross was not to support or oppose the law.
OT law or the laws of governing authorities.
The purpose of the Cross was to pay the spiritual penalty for mankind's sins.
But that doesn't mean that individual human beings are released from paying consequences for their actions.
Paul said that we are obey governing authorities - he even said that they are avenging ministers of God and they don't bear the sword for naught.
Don't you think that the governing authority of Paul's day - Rome - was evil and corrupt just like America?
He also said at one of his trials that IF he had done anything worthy of the death penalty that he did not refuse to die.
The death penalty is nothing to scoff at, applaud, or boast in.
But it is a necessary part of our laws and the corporate sins of a nation do not - according to Paul - nullify that.
I am not a complete pacifist. I believe self-defense is acceptable. So, to me, that means some wars are justifiable. I wonder how many wars could be said to be in self-defense that the USA has engaged in.
So, you think Mother Theresa and Gandhi held to and lived a higher moral and ethical standard than Jesus? That's incredible! I hope you realize how foolish it is for a professed follower of Jesus to have said that.
Mother Theresa was flawed just as was the racist Ghandi. Jesus was not.
Yes it was on the table then. For the same reason as was a lot of the other cultural laws. But they aren't stoning anyone today either.
I didn't say they were released from paying the consequences. I just believe that what Jesus did on the Cross demands that we, as His followers, always support grace and mercy for those who have wronged us or who have set themselves up as our enemies.
HE ALWAYS seemed to advocate the opposite or something contrary to whatever the state was for.
And if we're not gonna trust the ones who have murdered 55 million to honor Christ with their actions toward the unborn, why would we trust their judgment with the born?
Yes,but God has always used governments to bear the sword. He never says they are justified or righteously doing so.
It makes perfectly good sense for God to ALLOW governments to do this as it would be consistent with(when you take their stance on abortion into consideration) the government's anti-life stance.
It highlights just how much more we should be advocates of life and always grace and mercy when someone's life is at stake. It would be the type of display of love that would cause a lost world to pause just as it did when it heard that one of the family members told Dylann Roof that she forgives him.
He also understood that he couldn't be killed unless GOD allowed them to do the killing. And there would still be nothing righteous about it.
It's a part, not even necessary, of MAN's laws. The Cross completed the need to do so in God's law.
Paul understood that an unrighteous government would do just the opposite of what a holy God would.
I don't know for sure if you have or not (if that's a question). But yeah, forgive him-- turn him loose, and maybe plead with him to not do anything so naughty again.
I'm not a professed follower in the sense that you intended.
I AM a follower.
And your assessment of what I said is inaccurate.
Turning Jesus into a Mother Theresa -Ghandi type is turning him into a milquetoast, passive, tiptoe-through-the-tulips, let's-don't-even-step-on-a-bug type.
You knew exactly what I was talking about.
If California would simply put all those to death now living the life of Riley on death row, we'd have no problem feeding, housing and providing medical care to hundreds of thousands of illegal children
However, if we'd send the illegal back to Mexico, we'd have no budget woes at all.
Just sayin'!
:tear: