Stanley Tookie Williams

[nbcrusader]

I have numbered the above.

1. Sure there is a differencve,the question I pose is: how can you BELIEVE one thing and SUPPORT another? I either have to question your belief or your political opinion.

2. Is this meant to be cynical? If yes, it is an offense to me. If not, I ask myself what on earth you wanted to express with that statement. You think Jesus was ok with being crucified? It sounds as if you said: "Jesus, he took it all, and he was all for it". Blasphemy at its best... I don´t know how to interprete your words any different. When Jesus was crucified, he called from the cross. "God, my God, why did you leave me?" ...to imply that he was ok with capital punishment (and especially in his own case) is really... I don´t know what to say

..other than to cite the warning of the Bible not to twist its words.

A clear reading of Scripture shows that it is not a blueprint for government, and that the commands cited regarding murder apply to us individually. Thus, I BELIEVE that according to Scripture, government is capable of instituting capital punishment.


And please don't question my standing as a Christian again.

 

[nbcrusader]

There is far too much room for fallability in that passage.

Open that door and you create a standard that applies to all of Scripture.

 

[nbcrusader]

This would mean that governments that do allow capital punishment for adultery, homosexuality, etc. are established by God and those killings would be right for they follow the law.

We could obviously cite dozens of governments over history that we would find not following even a minimum of God's law.

Do you think God says, "Oops, how did he get elected?"

 

[hiphop]

"Die that way" at the hands of a judicial system that employed capital punishment. The use of capital punishment is consistent with the breadth of Scripture.

Wrong. The use of capital punishment is consistent in the Old Testamtent - not in the new. Also, the new Testament criticised part of the Old Testament harshly.

I hope you are not failing to recognize the meaning of the New Testament. It is true that some parts of the Old haven´t lost their meaning. However, the bible is an incredibly big book!

Passages of the Old Test contradict other passages of the new Test.

In your world view, it seems to be different.

Maybe I am wrong, but can you explain what your (fig. for the Christian Right that defends capital punishment) opinions are based on? I have the impresssion that

a) every sentence and every word in the Bible is right - it is infallible because directly from God

b) when you find a sentence or word that is opposite to your opinion - or when others point it out - you aren´t able to say "well, this part say that and the other part says that" and to make up your own mind because of a)

c) as soon as someone points out that your way of dealing with "real-life-issues" interferes with the Christian moral, you use one or more of the following ways to cop out:
1. either you emphasize the segregation of chuch and state all of a sudden (when in other cases, a mix-up is acceptable - for example, when Bush gets all religious in his statements)
2. or you concentrate on the passages of the Bible that suit your argument and give them some additional interpretation so they fit your argument
3. or you just don´t reply to the argument

d) as soon as someone points out that Bush or the administration are not good Christians because of their actions which are directly opposed to the teachings of the Bible, you use one or more of the following ways to cop out (see c. 1-3)


I think that way of dealing with the Bible is wrong.

Do me a favor. Check it for yourself. Ask ten priests from all over the world (not ten guys like Robertson though - I mean serious, independent priests, they can be Catholic, Protestant, whatever, but they should all be from different social groups or countries, to be fair) if they think capital punishment is supported by the Bible and if they think it is morally ok for Christians to be pro-capital punishment. Will you do that for me? You will be surprised by the results.

I bet with you that everyone except of some extreme American conservative church members will be against it.

This is why I qualify the so-called "Christian Right" (and its positions) as a blasphemous sect with morals and arguments that are twisted to fit the immediate advantage. There is no consistency and no true Christian substance in this movement.

Also, I have the impression that the majority of the "Christian Right" is rich. Jesus lived with and spoke for the poor. It is logical that the motives and way of living of those two groups are direct opposites.

 

[BVS]

We could obviously cite dozens of governments over history that we would find not following even a minimum of God's law.

Which would make Paul's words fallable.

Do you think God says, "Oops, how did he get elected?"

No, I think God says, "why did they elect that person I thought I taught them better."

 

[hiphop]

And please don't question my standing as a Christian again.

It is the duty of a Christian to speak with his brothers on those issues. You are asking me to shut up when I worry for your stand?

nbcrusader, I just echoed the Bible because I am seriously worried about your stand! This is not a trick and no fake argument.

You have two possibilities: either we can continue to discuss, then you will have to accept that I question where you stand - just like you may question me, when something I say seems to be totally out of line and makles your "Christian heart" mourn.

The other possibility is that I´m not questioning your opinion or your standing; ok, then the whole discussion is fruitless and we should not continue to waste precious time.

Decide which of the two you like better, please.

 

[hiphop]

In a nutsehll, you have taken one part of the Old Testament and ignored another.

If you are trying to lead a Christian life, do not hate others = that is the clear application of "thou shall not kill" as explained by Jesus.

It in no way eliminates the consequences of sin - including a judicial systems imposition of the death penalty.

Here´s the concrete example - really, I just need to quote you.

Thou shalt not kill does NOT only mean do not hate others. It means YOU SHOULD NOT KILL. If this command meant "don´t hate others", what would speak against killing someone, as long as you don´t hate him? Kill everyone you don´t hate.

For real, thou shalt not kill means that YOU SHOULD NOT KILL EVEN IF YOU HATE. You shouldn´t kill Tookie, even if you hate him because he has killed someone you knew. That´s the IDEAL behind the commandment.

It ABSOLUTELY ELIMINATES the imposition of death penalty because this is one man judging another. It does not eliminate the consequence of sin - the Church, nbcrusader, ALWAYS - for centuries! - insisted that it is upon God to judge.

Thou shalt not kill means: Man, you do not have the right to take the life of another. You also don´t have the right if the person you want to kill is guilty of taking the life of someone else. Leave that to me - it is Gods will to to judge or to forgive.

By using capital punishpemt, one is directly acting against the will of God. This must be clear. Just as crystal clear as the command "Thou shalt not kill".

 

[diamond]

I agree...but that's not what my question is about.

Diamond, please explain if/how that article has anything to do with the juxtapostion of a Christian being for the death penalty.

First of all, i need to apologize earlier for posting those gruesome pictures of the human beings that Tookie slaughtered. i m glad sicy removed them.
I did it out of anger after listening to a talk show host on the radio.
BonoVoxSS was right, if they were my kids or loved ones slaughtered out of respect for them , Iwouldn't want their death pictures posted, so sincerely i apologize to those I've offended here.


AliEnvy-

Conservative Christians and Liberal Christians view interpretation of scripture differently.

I think in the orginal translation of the commandment-
"Thou Shall Not Kill"
The original meaning was "thou shall not shed innocent blood"

I mean think about it if you took "Thou Shall Not Kill" literally, no bugs, pests would ever get swatted, but i digress.

You would need to check w somebody versed in Old Testament studies, as I only have a cursory understanding.

Another disconnect between Christians Philosophies is forvive your enemies.

Yes it does say that, but ppl take it a step furthur..Christ never said, "Invite a mass murderer over for tea"..

We are suppose to forgive all men but not usurp the cosequences of their actions.

Let God handle the rest.

Hope this makes sense.
Love you guys, my lefties, righties and fellow metrosexuals.

Peace,

db9

 

[nbcrusader]

A couple of thoughts:

First, your absolute prohibition against killing applies unless you don't want it to apply (as with tyrants - a position not supported by Scripture).

Second, you take one passage from the Old Testament and use it to negate another that clearly calls for capital punishment. God gave both commands, why is one thrown away?

And if man is not to judge another, then we must do away with our judicial system.

 

[nbcrusader]

It is the duty of a Christian to speak with his brothers on those issues. You are asking me to shut up when I worry for your stand?

nbcrusader, I just echoed the Bible because I am seriously worried about your stand! This is not a trick and no fake argument.

You have two possibilities: either we can continue to discuss, then you will have to accept that I question where you stand - just like you may question me, when something I say seems to be totally out of line and makles your "Christian heart" mourn.

The other possibility is that I´m not questioning your opinion or your standing; ok, then the whole discussion is fruitless and we should not continue to waste precious time.

Decide which of the two you like better, please.

If you want to compare Scriptures, I am more than happy to participate. If we are to start the one way converstation that your Catholic beliefs are the only true beliefs, then you argue alone.

 

[hiphop]

A clear reading of Scripture shows that it is not a blueprint for government, and that the commands cited regarding murder apply to us individually.

So you are saying that my reading of the scripture is not clear enough? Please elaborate, and quote the passages where the Bible itself says that its moral conception is limited to individual behavior.

 

[nbcrusader]

So you are saying that my reading of the scripture is not clear enough? Please elaborate, and quote the passages where the Bible itself says that its moral conception is limited to individual behavior.

Dread and I have both posted quotes from Scripture in this thread. You are free to scroll back and take a look.

I realize full well they don't mesh with your beliefs.

 

[melon]

A clear reading of Scripture shows that it is not a blueprint for government, and that the commands cited regarding murder apply to us individually.

Very good points. I will remember this the next time there's a "moral crusade" in this country.

Melon

 

[hiphop]

First, your absolute prohibition against killing applies unless you don't want it to apply (as with tyrants - a position not supported by Scripture).

No, not until I don´t want it to apply. I have quoted numerous examples that have illustrated my point of view, starting from the 13th century. They didn´t want to apply that exact prohibition 800 years ago - not me now. That makes quite a difference, in case you were unaware of that.

I take the right to add texts and interpretations of the Bible to our discussion, like I did before with the example of the tyrants. You´re free to do that too [however, we should limit that to serious interpreations, please; that means: medieval text, Pope, Luther, ... everyone widely and historically accepted, so to say - falls into that category; whereas the latest newspaper article or religious extremists should not have a say in those matters. So please lets stick to sources with an actual meaning].

Sure enough, we can compare Scriptures and our interpretations. I´m not saying that my beliefs are the only true ones, but I will say when I feel your statements are contradicting general Christian belief. However, I would like it to be clear from the start that I´m not intending to attack you personally - but probably your arguments and your views.

 

[Dreadsox]

I didn't quote Paul earlier in the thread because he is one of my least favorite people!

I can't help it...I have a hard time quoting him when I do not agree with him on other issues.

 

[hiphop]

Dread and I have both posted quotes from Scripture in this thread. You are free to scroll back and take a look.

I haven´t found any. Please quote again the part where the Bible says its teachings/ usage of its morals are limited to personal behavior.

I want you to quote me a sentence that says "All what´s written in the Bible is only intended for your personal use - the rules do not apply to politicians or any matters outside your family" now.

If you can´t because there is no such sentence, just admit you were wrong.

 

[Dreadsox]

Where does it say the Bible is written as a guide to good government?

 

[financeguy]

Where does it say the Bible is written as a guide to good government?

Exactly, if people want to see the Bible as a guide to their life so be it but in my view it shouldn't be the key basis of a legal system. It may be an influence, granted, but not the sole source of authority.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that people who believe in secularism are overlooking a basic truth, progressive Christianity is good theocracy ergo it overrides any Godless and incompassionate arguments.

 

[hiphop]

Where does it say the Bible is written as a guide to good government?

It is because the Bible is written for every man. Also the ten commandments were written for every man. political leaders are men, too. I´m not meaning politicians should follow the Bible (i am just as much for the segregation of state and church like everyone else).

Howver, to imply that the Bible was written for everyone BUT politicans, is a little far fetched.

In my eyes, that´s just an easy cop out. See, I´ll give you an example that you can´t take personal. I don´t think our Chancellor is living a good Christian life. He has a family, and maybe he is a great father and husband, I don´t know nothing about this. But at the same time he buys weapons, sanctions the killing of immigrants, makes coalitions with racists and makes the poor poorer. If our Chancellor was a good Christian, he would make the poor Austrians richer - he has the power to act.

Same for a businessman. If a businessman leads a perfect Christian personal life, but his way of acts business-wise destroys or harms other living beings, be it men, animals or nature, then he´s simply not a good Christian.

Everything else is just not enough. The apostels even had to give away everything they owned to be Jesus´ disciples. I´m not saying we can all lead an Apostolian life; but it is our duty to introduce the highest moral standards possible in order to fulfil God´s will.

 

[financeguy]

Howver, to imply that the Bible was written for everyone BUT politicans, is a little far fetched.

And inherently dangerous.

 

[nbcrusader]

I haven´t found any. Please quote again the part where the Bible says its teachings/ usage of its morals are limited to personal behavior.

I want you to quote me a sentence that says "All what´s written in the Bible is only intended for your personal use - the rules do not apply to politicians or any matters outside your family" now.

If you can´t because there is no such sentence, just admit you were wrong.

Why then the admonition to submit to governing authorities if there was not a difference in standards? If government followed the Bible as a guide, then we would automatically be happy with government and follow it joyfully without need for warning.

Alternatively, this suggests that we should live under a strict biblical theocracy - I doubt anyone here would call for that considering some of the writings governing other aspects of life.

Further, was there any direct call to change the Roman way of government? By Jesus? By the Disciples?

A perfect government won't happen until Christ's return.

 

[financeguy]

I think that people who believe in secularism are overlooking a basic truth, progressive Christianity is good theocracy ergo it overrides any Godless and incompassionate arguments.

Sorry but I am confused by this. Are you not a secularist yourself?

 

[melon]

Historically, "morality" was merely the confines of the petit-bourgeois. That is, in the Middle Ages, the poor and the wealthy would often ignore moral codes. The poor were too invisible or destitute to care, and the wealthy...well, what laws even today apply to them? The middle class, however, were the ones expected to live to the moral standards of the Church, and were executed accordingly for violating it.

I doubt that that much has changed. Politicians are not expected to live to moral standards, because they are above it. And the poor? We don't expect them to be moral anyway. And that leaves the middle class once again.

Melon

 

[nathan1977]

^ Which made Jesus going to the very poor so revolutionary.

And His call for holiness, from both the top and the bottom, so dangerous.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Sorry but I am confused by this. Are you not a secularist yourself?

Yess and sarcasm/satire is impossible to pull off without a voice.

 

[financeguy]

Yess and sarcasm/satire is impossible to pull off without a voice.

Ah that old sarcasm has confused me (again). The 'good theocracy' in italics was a pointer.

 

[hiphop]

Why then the admonition to submit to governing authorities if there was not a difference in standards? If government followed the Bible as a guide, then we would automatically be happy with government and follow it joyfully without need for warning.

Alternatively, this suggests that we should live under a strict biblical theocracy - I doubt anyone here would call for that considering some of the writings governing other aspects of life.

A perfect government won't happen until Christ's return.

You are starting your argument with "why then".

That´s all your personal interpretation.

You couldn´t quote any passage on this issue - before, you clearly said you have.

Such an admonition (and I would like you to quote the admonition too, because i couldn´t find it) could be interpreted in a thousand ways. It could just be another warning to avoid useless bloodshed. A warning like "Better give in, before you lose your life".

Like I pointed out earlier, this has nothing to do with theocracy. I am not saying our laws should be written according to the Bible. I am saying that, if our politicans and lawyers are good Christians, they should make use of "what they can morally learn" from the Bible.

According to the example of Tookie, this means that Arnold should have granted clemency to Tookie. He should have acted according to Jesus´ words: "if there´s someone without guilt amongst you, throw the first stone". Putting his career over his belief just shows what lame kind of person he really is.

 

[hiphop]

Politicians are not expected to live to moral standards, because they are above it. And the poor? We don't expect them to be moral anyway. And that leaves the middle class once again.

Melon

Exactly. My opinion is that everyone who calls himself Christian should be expected to live by the moral standards defined by Jesus Christ. Everything else is hypocritical.

 

[melon]

I am a strong believer in the separation of church and state, so I cannot disagree with the notion that morality should be personal and ethics should be defined by reason. The two are not mutually exclusive; I would find neglecting the poor and giving tax cuts to the rich to be unethical and immoral.

However, if we're suddenly going to build a large consensus that secularism is now the ideal, then I want opposition to gay marriage to end immediately, for instance. I'm asking for consistency. Of course, what I realistically expect is for conservatives to hug the fence; that is, to use both the Bible and secularism to further their aims. If there's one thing I cannot stand more than anything, it's hypocrisy and double standards.

Melon