Hate crime...

Thanks to someone else's quote, I see that someone has asked the question, What would Jesus do. I imagine others have thought the same thing. For the benefit of those others, I venture my best guess.

As I have stated before, the Bible does endorse the death penalty. Being the son of God Himself, I imagine Jesus would have supported the word of his Father.

But that can't be right, you redneck. Jesus was all about love and forgiveness and all that. Right?

Then answer me this. As He was being crucified, there were two others with him. One repented, one didn't. Did Jesus remove either man from their death penalty?

No. What He did was save the one who repented when He said This day shall thou be with me in paradise. There is no record of Him saying anything to the unrepentant thief who died mere feet away from Him...you know, the one who mocked Him?

Something to think about maybe. Happy Sunday, see y'all after church.
 
And that still doesn't tell us that Jesus endorsed the death penalty.

What further makes me sure he would not, is the fact of the new covenant. God "the Father" as they say in the bible sent Jesus because he realized that his people (or at least a good lot of them) couldn't handle all the complexities of the old covenant. The golden rule is essentially the new covenant. God may have once endoresd thos things, but even he changed his tune when he realized that the people he created and so loved, we not capable of the old rules.

And again, just so we're clear, none of us are actually god, in my opinion, we are all each but a small peice of god, and so all these things are our opinions, and nothing more.

But I will say I feel it in my very being that I am right on this one, and I guess we'll all find out when we die....
 
WWJD?

I ask, what DID Jesus do? It's right there in front of anyone who chooses to read it. Takes less than a minute to read. He also said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. In case that needs to be translated: follow the laws of society, and pay their prices if you transgress. Yet those actions do not condemn or preserve your soul. That is to be rendered unto God.

But hey, there's 7,914 different flavors of what some purport to be God's word out there. If anyone chooses to ignore it, that is their choice. If another chooses to shop until they find a flavor that suits their mood, that too is their choice. I have my beliefs; they are unshakable. I offer them when asked or when I feel compelled to do so in obedience with what I believe I was commanded to do. Some people pick up rattlesnakes to "prove" their faith. Some eat a piece of bread and say Hail Mary so many times. Some write a check and think that covers it. Some hold such radical ideas that I honestly wonder if they've ever cracked a Bible open. Some live primitively such as the Amish; some live extravagantly such as the Bakkers. None of it is on my head, just as mine are on no one else's. But the question was asked. I felt compelled to offer, as I said, my best guess. Ask me again in 40 years and it'll be the same.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
He also said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's. In case that needs to be translated: follow the laws of society, and pay their prices if you transgress.
Click to expand...


I agree wholeheartedly with that much of what you said. The rest is your opinion, nothing more. Just as it is my opinion that Jesus would not condone the death penalty as a punishment, if he ruled the world, such as it is now.

What bothers me most about this whole debate, is that I am at least willing to admit I am not god and I might be wrong. While I do not know for sure since I am not you, I don't see you even open to the mere possibilty that you could be wrong?

If indeed that's the case I pity you for that....
 
Oh and this is exactly why I think that soldier who raped the woman in the Philppines deserves to go to prison for 40 years, and why I think that woman in Texas who did repent deserved to die. The law is the law, whether it's right in God's eyes or not, but if you can't pay the fine, or do the time, don't commit the crime, simple as that.
 
catocom said:
NO.
That's just fucked up man.
Click to expand...

well, without winky around, somebody's gotta pick up the slack.

anyway, jebus woulda said off with thar heads. this whole "prince of peace" thing is bunk. i'm quite confident that "give to caesar" was just as much "shove it up caesar's ass" as it was anything else.
 
markjs said:
I agree wholeheartedly with that much of what you said. The rest is your opinion, nothing more. Just as it is my opinion that Jesus would not condone the death penalty as a punishment, if he ruled the world, such as it is now.

What bothers me most about this whole debate, is that I am at least willing to admit I am not god and I might be wrong. While I do not know for sure since I am not you, I don't see you even open to the mere possibilty that you could be wrong?

If indeed that's the case I pity you for that....
Click to expand...

There is one word, and one law. Personally, I interpret that to mean exactly what it says. You may be as open minded as you like. It ain't on my head.

I have my beliefs; they are unshakable. If that means to someone else that I believe I am God, then reading comprehension may not be a strong suit in everyone's arsenal. That too ain't on my head. I have my beliefs...Webster's can provide you the definition of that last word if you can't quite catch hold of it.

I do not subscribe to these new age feel good ministries. I recall something about false prophets arising in the end times and deceiving many. I personally refuse to even listen to one syllable that falls from the mouths of Joyce Meyers and the like. I don't get my spiritual needs met via television. I have been in an unusual circumstance to evaluate my beliefs against the teachings of literally hundreds of other faiths, using the same 12 verses of scripture. I listened carefully, I questioned, and I researched. THAT is why I say my beliefs are unshakable.

If this proves to cause further dissonance for you, all apologies.

That ain't on my head either.

Paul Harvey said:
Good day?
Click to expand...
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
There is one word, and one law. Personally, I interpret that to mean exactly what it says. You may be as open minded as you like. It ain't on my head.

I have my beliefs; they are unshakable. If that means to someone else that I believe I am God, then reading comprehension may not be a strong suit in everyone's arsenal. That too ain't on my head. I have my beliefs...Webster's can provide you the definition of that last word if you can't quite catch hold of it.

I do not subscribe to these new age feel good ministries. I recall something about false prophets arising in the end times and deceiving many. I personally refuse to even listen to one syllable that falls from the mouths of Joyce Meyers and the like. I don't get my spiritual needs met via television. I have been in an unusual circumstance to evaluate my beliefs against the teachings of literally hundreds of other faiths, using the same 12 verses of scripture. I listened carefully, I questioned, and I researched. THAT is why I say my beliefs are unshakable.

If this proves to cause further dissonance for you, all apologies.

That ain't on my head either.
Click to expand...


That right there could be the best example of a God complex I have ever seen from you. Oh well it doesn't really bother me any either. I just know there is one part of the bible that people like you are always conveniently forgetting. And this is a very complex issue, and I don't care enough to explain the need to understand that you are not god, and can't be absolute in your knowlege (and neither can I), but for to quote it.

Jesus said:
1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. Mk. 4.24

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

6 ¶ Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
Click to expand...
 
markjs said:
No last I checked it said kill...Did the religious right rewrite that already like the want to with the constitution?
Click to expand...

The original translation was "Thou shalt not do murder". It became "Thou shalt not kill" over time.
 
markjs said:
And this is a very complex issue, and I don't care enough to explain the need to understand that you are not god, and can't be absolute in your knowlege (and neither can I), but for to quote it.
Click to expand...

ummm....

SouthernN'Proud said:
I have my beliefs; they are unshakable. If that means to someone else that I believe I am God, then reading comprehension may not be a strong suit in everyone's arsenal.
Click to expand...
 
What we need is more people like this man.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_...07_dad_sorry_for_a_train_teens_actions-1.html


"Dad sorry for 'A' train teen's actions
BY ALISON GENDAR
DAILY NEWS POLICE BUREAU CHIEF

Friday, December 7th 2007, 12:33 PM

Clip shows woman her dad says is Kierra Brown, screaming at A train rider.

As he watched the disturbing video of foul-mouthed girls attacking a fellow passenger on the A train, Keith Belvin's heart broke.

"A father knows his child. One of those young ladies was my daughter," Belvin, 39, a New York City public school teacher, told the Daily News last night.

There on the video plastered across the Internet and on television is his troubled 18-year-old, Kierra Brown, he said.

She is the one with the large gold earrings who taunts the male passenger, finger in his face, just before the beating begins.

"I did the best I could, but there is no reason she should be acting like a wild animal toward anyone on a train," said Belvin, a health and physical education teacher at a Brooklyn middle school.

"I offer an apology on behalf of my daughter," he said.

And then, in a breathtaking act of decency, he encouraged the unknown victim to come forward and file a complaint with the police.

Only then, he said, would the young women, including his daughter, be held responsible for their actions that day some six weeks ago.

"I prayed about it all day. I tell my students that they have to do what's right and take responsibility for what they do," said Belvin.

"How could I tell them that and then go home and turn my back on what my own daughter did?"

Belvin said he understood if the victim felt embarrassed about being attacked by teenage girls.

"I will stand with you. Our children are getting too aggressive and we can't sit back," he said. "Consider this an invitation to dinner. The child is not representative of the family."

Belvin said Kierra's mother had called him Wednesday night to tell him about the video. He watched it and then spoke to his daughter.

"She said the gentleman tried to accost her," he said.

He watched the video again, all 4 minutes and 18 seconds, and knew his daughter's explanation was false.

"The gentleman on the train, his voice is reasonable, his hands open in a peaceful gesture," Belvin said.

So Thursday, after spending much of the day talking about responsibility with his students, he made a decision, called the police and offered to bring his daughter in.

"I didn't want someone else to do it. I told the police I would bring her in. They said they had no victim. The man had not come forward, so there was no case yet," he said.

So now the father of a suspect is asking the victim to come forward - to help save Kierra.

"What we have done is not working, or she would not be on the video," he said. "Please, sir, come forward."
Click to expand...
 
2minkey said:
anyway, jebus woulda said off with thar heads. this whole "prince of peace" thing is bunk. i'm quite confident that "give to caesar" was just as much "shove it up caesar's ass" as it was anything else.
Click to expand...

could be but I doubt it.
In my understanding he was referring to the commandment of sort to obey the laws of the land.

BTW God has commanded even genocide in some cases.:shrug:
 
catocom said:
could be but I doubt it.
In my understanding he was referring to the commandment of sort to obey the laws of the land.

BTW God has commanded even genocide in some cases.:shrug:
Click to expand...

yeah i simply choose not to believe the version of reinterpreted jesus as ultra cheek-turner; historically alot of the messianic stuff that was going on around that time was more about political opposition to rome than some otherworldly ambition. but none of this really matters. it's all myth anyway, meaning that it's about whatever meaning is sybolically/socially meaningful for folks like, well, you. if it all ends up in some message about being a nice guy and not dicking over thine neighbor, that's super.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top