U.S. Nears 1,000th Execution Since 1977

For the record, I eat my steak medium-rare and have no problem with this re Gen 9. For the record I oppose the death penalty and have no problem with this re Gen 9. For the record, therefore, I am more consistent in my application of Gen 9 than most here.

PL, Gen 9:4 in the Bible I have on my desk says this: "But you shall not eat flesh with the life of it, which is the blood". Word order here 'plainly' indicates that the blood is the life, not that the life is the blood. On that basis you lose.

 

Yes, the life is in the blood. Lev 17:11 makes it clear what the blood is. It is the "blood by reason of the life that makes atonement." But can animals be dead (i.e. lifeless) with blood still in them? Yes. Therefore, you still lose. The point is life You are to eat meat that is dead. (BTW, by the time your steak gets to the restaurant, the blood is gone. If you have even been to a slaughterhouse, you know where it went to).

To be honest Matt, it is frustrating to discuss something with you Matt. It seems that you are not willing to listen to Scripture. The text is the determiner, not our modern "sensibilities" about "civilized nations" or the like. The death penalty may seem uncivilized to some, but isn't that an indication of how little we value life?

Simply put, Gen 9 honors life: It honors it in animals by prohibiting the eating of meat that isn't dead. Gen 9 also honors life by demanding that those who stamp out the image of God should be killed.

I agree with both.

AT some point, it makes me wonder what other parts of Scripture have you decided don't apply any more? Should we do away with the atonement of Christ because it was "barbaric"? Should we decide that the resurrection is too far-fetched for thinking people? At what point do you stop deciding when God meant what he said?

 

I eat my steak medium-rare as well and have no problem with this in regards to Genesis chapter 9.

I support the death penalty and have no problem with this in regards to Genesis chapter 9.

Therefore I am consistent in my application of Genesis 9 as apparently most here are.

 

KenH, How so????

PL, you can't have it both ways. Either the death penalty is to do with the Mosaic Law and you can proof-text from Leviticus to justify your interpretation of Genesis 9 but you also contradict what you posted earlier and we have to reexamine the death penalty along with the rest of the Law in the light of Jesus' teaching and action, or it isn't and therefore Leviticus is irrelevant to our discussion.

I'm not about 'doing away' with anything in the Bible; I'm after an interpretation of the Bible which is consistent both internally and when viewed through the supreme revelation of God in Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate.

 

How am I not?

 

Let me put this simply then:-

1. Either Gen 9 is still relevant today in its literal interpretation in which case you should support BOTH the death penalty AND State-sanctioned laws forbidding the eating of rare meat.

OR

2. Gen 9 is not relevant today in its literal interpretation in which case you prbably shouldn't support either.

You however are saying you support one but not the other. That makes your position inconsistent.

 

Sigh......

How many times must somebody be told packaged meat has no blood ?

Doesn't matter. I support the death penalty, and have zero problems with Genesis 9.

 

OK, so what's the red stuff in it, then? Claret? Ketchup?

 

Water ? Fat ?

 

And don't forget the red dye, it makes the meat look sort of real but only if we are talking about the packaged meat we buy from the store.

 

The venison I eat has a brownish tint, but water still comes out when it's cooked, with little puddles of fat.

 

AS I have repeatedly said, Leviticus and the Mosaic Law is irrelevant to this discussion. I have not appealed to it for support, and if someone does, I will tell them they are wrong. I have made no reference to LEviticus except for the point of 17:11 about blood and life.

But in such a pursuit, you have said that God didn't mean what he said in Gen 9. And you can't do that, Matt. The interpretation I have presented is perfectly consistent.

Major problem again. Point 1 is not a right representation. Gen 9 has nothing to do with eating rare meat. It has to do with not eating dead meat. Let's get past this continued problem, Matt. You are misrepresenting the text. Gen 9 is relevant in both parts: You should not eat meat that isn't dead, and you should punish murder with death.

Ken has said he supports both provisions of Gen 9, as have I.

 

Ok...here we go. I got the answer...I like my steaks and murderers well done...cooked all the way through. :D

Joseph Botwinick

 

Go away from the board for awhile and a thread sneaks over to 11 pages!

Anyway, this is the 10-page warning: this thread will be closed no sooner than 4:00 a.m. ET by one of the moderators.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

Paul never violated the laws of man. In fact, he upheld them. That has no bearing on whether or not God was merciful.

 

PL, it makes no difference to me. As far as I'm concerned, as a Christian my standard is Jesus. Can I imagine Him calling for the execution of people? No - in fact, as I have demonstrated, He did exactly the opposite.

That's good enough for me.

To my mind, what does the doctrine of Capital Punishment say to the one convicted?

"There is no hope for you--you are not redeemable, you are not worth saving. You are beyond God's power to forgive and save you in this life. Therefore, all that is left is death for you.


This is almost exactly the conclusion I have come to as well, although I think of it in social terms: "You will never contribute anything positive to society no matter how long you live. You will never change. Therefore we are going to kill you."

I refuse to even attempt to make that kind of determination about another person, and I wonder at how others seem to think they can. I believe capital punishment is about revenge, no matter how many additional justifications get trotted out.

People here talk about man being in the image of God. That being so, how can we contemplate the taking of a life made in His image?

 

Sorry, for double-post (trying to get in before the thread closes, heheh!) but I should expand on what I mean by 'my standard is Jesus'.

I read the scriptures with what I call the "Jesus lens"... I start with Jesus himself-- what He said, did, taught-- then I compare everything else in the Bible to Jesus' direct teaching. If there is contridiction, I default to Jesus. I don't know if this way of thinking is heretical, but it's how I make sense of things.

Jesus speaks when Jesus walks.

Ever heard of signal loss? Basic information theory. Theologically it's sin. The living, walking, talking Jesus is different. Logos - no signal loss.

 

But as we have repeatedly pointed out, the situation was different. You will not recognize that for some reason.

No, what it says is that we honor life and you didn't. IT says nothing about redeemability. Even a murderer can be saved. But that doesn't remove the consequences. As I poitned out, you are very inconsistent in this. This is not about salvation.

It has nothing to do with that.

It has nothing to do with that either.

That is exactly the point. Because the image of God was stamped out, it requires capital punishment. Matt, God is the one who said it. This was not the creation of some man. It was God who said this. He said to honor life.

IF someone steals your car, should they be able to get off by paying you fifty cents? Of course not. That is not justice. It does not honor the crime. The same is true with capital punishment. It is about honoring life as God commanded.

Heretical is too strong a word, but it certainly isn't sound. It creates a "canon within the canon." It creates a "really important part" of Scripture, and then the rest. Scripture allows no such distinction, and neither should we. There is no contradiction between what Jesus said and did and what Scripture teaches us to do. The fact that you (or we) see a contradiction is a testimony to our fallibility, not to his.

 

Pastor Larry,

PREACH!

 

But as we have repeatedly pointed out, the situation was different. You will not recognize that for some reason.

</font>[/QUOTE]No, you ignore the fact that it wasn't different for some reason.

It has nothing to do with that.</font>[/QUOTE]Your opinion is noted and issue taken with it.

It has nothing to do with that either.</font>[/QUOTE]Ditto

That is exactly the point. Because the image of God was stamped out, it requires capital punishment. Matt, God is the one who said it. This was not the creation of some man. It was God who said this. He said to honor life.</font>[/QUOTE]So why do you support the taking of life, then? It is you who are inconsistent.

Yes, we have a remedy for this - it is called life imprisonment. That is adequate.

No, it creates a way of properly interpreting the Canon.

Correct - provided Scripture is thus interpreted. Tell me, which is more important and 'weighty', the Word written or the Word Incarnate?

[Preview psot is my fiend :rolleyes: ]