Christianity, Religion and Philosophy, Episode VI!

[Queen Susan]

Actually, I asked my brother about those passages, and he gave an interesting and I think good reply. He said, "Love isn't some romantic thing like we think of it now days, Love is really the 'fulfillment of the law'. Therefore, we are showing love to our enemies when we give them what they deserve"
And, in some cases, that could mean capital punishment. I think it makes sense.

[Benjamin]

I agree with it not being a romantic thing but the fulfillment of the law as Paul says.

I also agree that sometimes and maybe most of the time the loving thing to do is give them what they deserve but of in a loving manner. But of course there is mercy, which God gave us, or else where would we be if He just gave us justice?

--Benjamin

[Glenstorm the Great]

for starters: for my Bible version I use the Geneva Bible. It was written before the KJV and is closer to the original Greek, I believe. I also like NIV and NKJV though .

Anyways, I had an interesting discussion with one of my church leaders. It was mostly speculatory, though he had some verses to back up the idea, but here it was: Is hell really a lake of fire, or is it just an existance - maybe a psuedo earth, or something - lacking God or any of his attributes (love, mercy, etc...)? Just wondering what you all would think.

It seems to me that that idea would make a more reasonable, a more just punishment.

that's an interesting idea but I think Hell is actually a Lake of Fire. I take the Bible literally so when it says lake of fire, that's what's there. But I also believe Hell is completely lacking of God and his attributes.

I've wondered the same thing myself. My position is that humans deserve neither eternal happiness nor eternal punishment (just the fact that it's eternal is spine-tingling if you think about it). However, I've been told many times that my view that humans don't deserve hell is incorrect, and unchristian.

why do you think humans don't deserve eternal punishment? Anyone who has not reached God's standard deserves Hell. No humans deserve eternal happines, but God chooses some people to bestow that gift on.

I believe that God has given us free will, so that we still have the free will to be corrupted later in our lives even if we have accepted Jesus at the current moment.

I don't believe that we can change our minds like that. Anyone who is truly a Christian, would not turn from God. Once you have experienced the glorious wonders of heaven, how could you reject it? Not to mention, John writes in 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." Also, since I'm a Calvinist, I believe God chooses who is saved. So it's not a matter of changing our minds, it's what God decides.

Have any of you read a very new translation called "Word on the Streets"? It is a humorous read, I believe made to appeal to modern inner-city people. Far, far from more direct translations, I'm not even sure I would consider it a Bible.

just looked up a passage and that is one of the most hideous things I've read. The only thing that redeemed it at all was that it's not claimed to be an actual translation but a paraphrase. But it's still horrendous. I've never even read a children's book that has that horrible writing .

(Forget who said this) "]Should we hate anyone?

I agree with Ben

We are still to hate evil for sure! But I don't think the actual person.

but I don't agree that

But in the New Testament Jesus changes that and says what we need to do now, for the New has come:

I don't believe Jesus changed that. The Bible is the same, new and old. If the old is disregarded and changed by Jesus, why would anyone have cause to believe in the new? And also "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," (1 Timothy 3:16). If all scripture is inspired by God and useful for all those things, how can parts of the old be wrong and no longer our standards and laws? I know that we are no longer bound to Jewish law but just because disobedient children are no longer stoned doesn't mean we are to be disobedient. So if the Psalms say we shoud hate God's enemies, we should. But I don't think David is saying we should hate actual people, but the evil in them, like you said. Sorry if this a bit harsh, but I believe the entire Bible is true and unchanged .

Actually, I asked my brother about those passages, and he gave an interesting and I think good reply. He said, "Love isn't some romantic thing like we think of it now days, Love is really the 'fulfillment of the law'. Therefore, we are showing love to our enemies when we give them what they deserve"
And, in some cases, that could mean capital punishment. I think it makes sense.

very good reply. And very true.

It's actually rather sad, how our culture has distorted the meaning of love. I was discussing it with one of my friends today. It's horrible how you can't say you love people anymore without them thinking you mean it romantically. I love all my guys friends, but like brothers, I don't have a crush on a single one of them. But if I said I loved them, even though scripture tells us to love each other and even to greet each other with a holy kiss, everyone would assume that it wasn't a sibling-like love.

And also about loving your enemies- love is a way of life, not a feeling. When we love someone, we are kind and patient with them. We do what's best for them. Just because you love someone doesn't mean you like them, or their actions.

But of course there is mercy, which God gave us, or else where would we be if He just gave us justice?

another good point, but we must know when is the right time for mercy. One of my annoyances with our government is that I don't believe the death sentence is given out nearly enough, but I don't know if that discussion is appropriate for this forum. I know we're not supposed to get in to politics, so I don't know if that counts...

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

God is present everywhere, so he would also be in Hell but those there wouldn't be able to feel his love; only his unabashed wrath at sin and unredeemed sinners.

Also, while I believe in loving justice and mercy, what right do we have to take another's life? Only God has that right. Otherwise you're going to run the risks of having any complete nutter justify their actions by saying 'God told them to do it'. Don't we already have enough examples of people interpreting the Bible incorrectly and using it to gain power, or at the very least, push their preference in something? I think that if you're a Christian and you view life as sacred, all life should be considered sacred. If you're pro-life that should be in all respects, not just when it concerns unborn babies.

[waggawerewolf27]

Exactly, W4J. Spoken like a Christian gentleman and a true blue Aussie. I agree absolutely and couldn't have put it any better.

I'm not sure about the lake of fire, and its Biblical veracity, though any amount of volcanic craters might do just as well. But I strongly suspect that the worst thing of all is to die alone, with a bad conscience, with no hope of love or forgiveness. It only takes a few minutes to die, to stop breathing, for one's heart to stop beating, and to be brain dead. Such a minute of mental agony might well drag on in infinity. Such is Hell, in my opinion.

Having said that, there are some humans who have existed on this world stage who I really hope went to Hell. Think of Hitler, Stalin and the rest. Is this really so wrong?

[MinotaurforAslan]

why do you think humans don't deserve eternal punishment? Anyone who has not reached God's standard deserves Hell. No humans deserve eternal happines, but God chooses people to bestow that gift on.

Because eternal is a very strong word. We tend to throw it around a lot, but if you think about it for a long time, eternal is an incredibly deep concept that infinitely magnifies anything affected by it.

In hell, you would have to spend the entire length of your lifetime being punished. Then, for every one of the grains of sand on a beach, you would have to spend a lifetime being punished. It would take you thousands of years just to be punished for a thimbleful of sand. But you must be punished for a lifetime for every grain of sand on the beach, so you spend billions and trillions and quadrillions and quintillions of years being punished. But it doesn't stop there. After you have been punished for every grain of sand on that beach, you will be punished for a googol amount of years. (Googol is 1, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000 years.) Then, you would have to be punished for a GOOGOLPLEX amount of years. (Googolplex is a number so large there is not enough room in the universe to write it down. It is 1 followed by a googol zeroes.) But your punishment is so great, so vast, so eternal, that it has barely started. You will now be punished a googolplex amount of years for every grain of sand on a beach. Then you will be punished for a googolplex multiplied by a googolplex amount of years. Then you would be punished for a googolplex multiplied by a googolplex a googolplex times amount of years. That number would be so large it would be positively unfathomable. And yet, after all those years of punishment, you would have just as many years of punishment ahead of you as when you started, because your punishment is ETERNAL. IT NEVER ENDS. EVER. EVER. EVER. Any sort of punishment becomes infinitely horrible when carried out for eternity.

Now, this sort of punishment might be acceptable to people like Hitler, Stalin, etc. But what about the lukewarm Christians? The ones who went to church occasionally, and didn't really do anything terribly bad in their life, but didn't read the bible that much and didn't really believe in Jesus or ultimately care. Do they deserve the same punishment as Hitler?

Skandar Keynes is an atheist, and one of his relatives made a feature film about Charles Darwin. Will they get sent to the same place as Saddam Hussein?

Thomas Edison and Marie Curie were remarkable scientists who did many wonderful things. They also rejected God and chose to be atheists. Do they deserve the same fate as Stalin, who was directly responsible for more human deaths then anyone in human history?

I'm going to anticipate that you will say yes, because everybody is born with sin and deserves to go to hell. Now, if that were the only option, this universe would be insanely cruel, but fortunately, as you mentioned, there is a way to escape hell.

You accept Jesus Christ!

Except...what about the people who have never heard about Jesus Christ?

All those poor Native Americans, living in the Americas for thousands of years...were they all doomed to go to hell? Did they really have no choice?

Now, maybe if they lived good lives, they would go to heaven, but Jesus said he is the only way to truth and life. If all they had to do was live a good life, then what Jesus said would be wrong.

So...did they have no choice? Would it have been better for them all to have never been born? Is the world that God created just insanely cruel to the people who never heard about Jesus, and insanely rewarding of people who were privileged enough to hear about him and accept him?

[The Pendragon]

Minatour, you're not the only one who has those questions. The Bible addresses them. I asked those questions too, & I think just about everyone has. I don't know what you believe, but what I'm gonna say is exactly what the Bible says.

EDIT: If you don't any of this just read the stuff in bold!

The Bible says that whoever breaks the 10 commandments should go to hell. Well, have you ever broken one? Have you ever lied? What does that make you? A liar. Have you ever stolen anything? Even if it was something really small. Like a stick of gum from your moms purse? What does that make you? A thief. Have you ever hated anyone? The Bible says that when you hate someone without cause that makes you a murderer. Have you ever disrespected your parents? Wanted something someone else had or were jealous? If you say yes to those & a few more, you should go to hell!

Seems pretty awful doesn't it. Why would God do that? I mean, were not that bad! Not like Hitler, or those other people. So, why should people who refuse God go into eternal torment?

Now, I know how bad I am. I know myself, my thoughts, my actions, intentions, etc. I know that I am a horrid & wretched sinner! I have got to see how terrible I am to see what God did for me. If I didn't think I was that bad, why would I care if someone died for me?

Lets say one day you get a letter in the mail that's a ticket for $5,000. (I have no idea if that would be the charge, but whatever! ) It's from the police in your town, & you go down to the station to see what's going on. They say that you were speeding through town. And that you should pay $5,000. Then a friend of yours says "Hey, this guy just paid your fine! I don't why but he did!" "What? Why would he do that, I think this fine was a mistake. He shouldn't have done that, I'll probably get this cleared up." "Well, I don't know, but he did." Then you talk to the police & they say that you were speeding through town while there was a convention for blind elderly people going on where you sped through. And you accidently killed 5 people, & injured 80 people. Then you realize what you did, & you know why that fine was so ridiculously huge! And you also are more grateful that some guy paid it for you.

That's why it's so important that we see who we are as we are. God is a just God, & whether you believe he is or isn't doesn't change that fact. The Bible clearly says in Romans "The wages of sin is death". DEATH!? Good grief that's horrible! Really? But like I said, I know how terrible I am. I know I deserve death. To God, amount of sin or kind of sin doesn't matter. God sees all sin as equal. Sin is sin because it's not perfect. "But the gift of God is eternal life!"

How dumb would it be if you refused that guy to pay the $5,000 fine! Can you even afford that? Why not just except the gift? It's a GIFT! Like Christmas! Who refuses presents at Christmas or Birthdays? That's just dumb. So, why do people refuse to accept that Jesus died for them?

There's a lot of reasons. The life of a Christian isn't exactly a picnic. People DIE brutal deaths for what they believe! Not many people feel like signing up for pain! Jesus said that in this life you WILL have trials! It IS hard to trust God, not impossible, but difficult. Which is why straight is the way & narrow is the gate that leads to Heaven! So, why are people still Christians after 6,000 years? God's love. His unfailing love.

Now, about your questions, I can't answer them. Or at least not all of them. You brought up the fact that some people might not get to hear about Jesus. Well, I have no idea. I know that nearly everyone has heard about Jesus. But what I have to do is trust God that he is perfectly just. He won't condemn anyone unjustly. I can't understand many things. But I'll put aside my trivial & useless questions & focus on one thing: His love. It's the one thing that never fails. It's the one thing that saved me (& I was literally saved, not "oh, grew up in a Christian home, & so therefore I guess I'm a Christian too".) I trust God with my future! I trust him with my life! That's crazy! Love is crazy!

If you look outside your window, & you see grass, a tree or two, a sky, a sun, a bird, a world of beauty, you're looking at what God has made. Do you know how to make grass grow? Do you know how to make a tree? What about an eyeball? DNA? Your heart, your soul, your mind? God does. Why ask the guy who holds the beating of your heart why he does what he does?

Romans says:

"Oh, how great are God's riches & wisdom & knowledge! How impossible it is for us to understand his decisions & his ways!"

Now, here's something REALLY weird!!

"For God said to Moses:

'I will show mercy to anyone I choose,
& I will show compassion to anyone I choose.'

So it is God who decides to show mercy. We can neither choose nor work for it. For the scriptures say that God told Pharaoh,

'I have appointed you for the very purpose of displaying my power in you & to spread my fame throughout the earth'. So, you see, God chooses to show mercy to some, & he chooses to harden the hearts of others so they refuse to listen.

Well, then you might say, 'Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven't they simply done what he makes them do?'

No, don't say that! Who are you, a mere human being to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, 'Why have you made me like this?' When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn't he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration, & another to throw garbage into? In the same way even though Go has the right to show his anger & his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who are destined for destruction. He does this to make the riches of his glory shine even brighter on those to whom he shows mercy, who were prepared in advance for glory."

I suggest that if you have a Bible you read Romans. It's 16 chapters long, & it's going to give you insight on God & life. I hope what I said made sense! Sorry I rambled a bit. If you read the whole thing, thanks! I know that God has a plan for your life, & that he loves you! God bless!

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

God's Law is written on the hearts of every person he created. Not all respond to him. They can outright reject his Truth or just be blind to it and need to be made aware of who Christ is and their need for Him. God gives us the Holy Spirit to provide us with the faith to love Him and respond to Him. We can't do it on our own. We can't do anything on our own. Actually, we can - make a huge mess of our lives. But we can't do anything to redeem ourselves. That's Christ's role.

[Puddleglum]

Warrior 4 Jesus.
I believe the verse you are looking for about The Holy Spirit effecting people wh o are not exposed to the Gospel is in Romans 2 or 3.
Not having my Bible on hand, it ropughly says that when someone heeds the Spirit they are righteuos. Not saying that they are needing to give themselves to Christ should a missionary come walking out of the jungle with the truth. But I think that this person would be more open simply because they are already listening to the Spirit anyway.
As for Scandar, Edison, and Curie. Do they deserve the same as Hitler, and Stalin? I believe this has been answered already. So let me ask this.
What would our reaction be if we were to find out that these people gave their lives to Christ just prior to their deaths?
History has many stories of monsters who gave up their sinful lives to live for Christ. Just think of Saul/Paul, who addmittedly sent Christians to their deaths.

[waggawerewolf27]

Unfortunately I can think of others who likewise sent Christians, Jews, Moors and many others to their deaths, unjustly, even if it was in the name of Christ. One such name was Torquemada, the Chief Inquisitor of the Spanish Inquisition. Those were also the days of witch burnings and auto da fetes. Those were the days of superstition and persecution of many who were merely trying to scrape a living or who in some cases were deranged or otherwise ill, because of the struggle. Or because those who died either dared to disagree with the powers that be or were suspected of doing so.

There wasn't an awful lot to choose between some fiery-eyed fanatic like Torquemada, and the Nazi thugs and fanatics who put into operation Hitler's plans, or those who carried out Stalin's orders. Why should the likes of Torquemada, a Hitler predecessor, avoid Hell, because he said he believed in Christ, and not people like Marie Curie or Edison who worked for the world's betterment?

[Dr Elwin Ransom]

“You have heard that it was said..."
Where was it said? In the Old Testament
"...You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy."
That was the way people thought in the Old Testament thous Psalm 139:20-22

But in the New Testament Jesus changes that and says what we need to do now, for the New has come:

Benjamin, though I'm sure you didn't mean to be this way, this is incorrect. If you think harder about it I'm sure you'll see what I mean. Was the Psalmist wrong to think such thoughts? Was Jesus saying the Law had previously said that "you shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy"? If so, where is that passage of the Law? And if God did give that commandment, is Jesus saying God was wrong?

Many people wrongly conclude that Jesus' "new way" just overrules the Law. Not so. Christians who downplay the Law, and its real and current role in the world, are at risk of trying to be more "spiritual" than Jesus.

1. Jesus doesn’t just release people from the Law’s burden. He increases it, by reminding us that true violations are in our hearts, not in our deeds! Only He Himself can remove its burden.

2. Jesus does not oppose the Law. He opposes false views of it. He decries the often-willing ignorance of some people, in particular religious hypocrites. Such people refuse to see that the Law pointed to Him as the One Who relieves its burden for those who repent and believe Him.

3. And Jesus did not come to overthrow the unfair, too-hard Law. He came to fulfill it.

1. Jesus fulfills, not abolishes, the Law.

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.” [Matthew 5:17]

Lest anyone think Jesus came to offer anything different from the Law, He directly denied it. “I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them,” He said. I wonder: if I had been Jesus (scary thought), and I had wanted to tell people for sure that the true Law was not dead and gone or unnecessary for anyone in the present day, how would I have communicated this more clearly?

If Jesus actually did abolish the effects of the Law, here He was lying or obscuring the truth.

3. We should not downplay the Law.
“Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven”

These seem like very strong words: those who try to downplay the Law and its truths aren’t just misguided, naïve or doctrinally wrong, but they “will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.”

That just makes me want to wipe my brow and pray I won’t be too cavalier about the Law!

God’s standards are just as holy today as they were back then. Jesus hasn’t lowered the standard; here, He has just made it higher and more strict than ever. If He hadn’t made it clear here and elsewhere that He Himself was the fulfillment of that standard, and died and rose again to prove it, people might still be calling Him a “legalist” today.

That comes from a series I wrote for YeHaveHeard.com called God's Law and Jesus' love. Would you consider reading that, so you can help Christians not imply that God's Law is the bad stuff, and now we have "a new way" that makes the Law no longer important?

When Jesus said "you have heard that it was said," he is not quoting Scripture. Whenever He does quote Scripture, He is much clearer about it. Instead, He is quoting a popular phrase of the day -- a "law" that people may have made up, based on the real Law. And He says that His way is higher than that of the made-up Law. Read Mark 7, and you'll see that He does the same thing with the Pharisees. He does not offer "a new way" that is less harsh than the Law. He makes it clear that God's standard is still the actual Law and the hearts of people. Otherwise, why in the world would people need His mercy and His death on the cross? People may believe (horribly!) that "God's love" means they don't need to repent of their sins and believe Jesus alone is the way they can be saved.

We are still to hate evil for sure! But I don't think the actual person.

God does hate the actual person. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" may apply to us, but not to God. Please read my post from Aug. 1, especially my quote from author Randy Alcorn.

Does that mean we should hate sinners too? No. In Romans 13 we see Paul reminding Christians not to take vengeance, and he gives that caution not because God doesn't hate sinners or because He loves all people the same, but because it is God's job, not ours, to enforce justice. And He even does this on Earth now through human authorities.

But Christians should feel disgust at sin against God, and not try to skip past it. However, that should lead not to hatred of others, but humility. God saved us from the same thing. And yes, without Him we do deserve Hell. Countless Scriptures affirm this. Our own sins prove it more.


Meanwhile, Minotaur, please read the responses from Warrior, Glenstorm and ThePendragon about the absolute righteousness about how God has decided to run the universe He made. For now, might I suggest you forget about Catholics, Baptists, or your own feelings on the matter (we can come back to those, perhaps!) and instead try to focus on what Scripture says. It gives us God's perspective on the matters of justice and holiness. God is love, but God is also holy. Whether to send someone to Hell is not based on the distance between a "lukewarm Christian" and Saddam Hussein, but on the distance between either of those and Himself.

As ThePendragon pointed out, consider the Ten Commandments -- just those ten! -- and ask yourself whether you have kept all of them, always, all your life. This is just a simple standard: ten little rules. Have you broken any one of them, even once? If so, then you are guilty of breaking them all (James 2:10).

Up the ante: read the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus did not make things any easier. He actually made them more difficult! For most of us, it's easy not to kill someone. But God looks at the heart -- and that doesn't help us! If we even have a smidgen of hatred against someone, the same kind of hatred that when acted out to its extreme results in murder, we "will be liable to the hell of fire." (Matthew 5: 21-22.)

Up the ante even more: Romans 14:23.

For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin. That's a lot of stuff.

Can I honestly say that everything I do is from faith in God, the true God, and that in all I'm doing I hope to glorify Him, please Him, honor Him?

If not, then I am a sinner -- as bad as any dictator or killer. And so are you.

Minotaur, God will not seem nearly so amazing to us, and our love for Him and desire to serve Him will never be truly heartfelt and real, until we see exactly as He wants us to see: our sins, disgusting in His sight, and Himself, all the more glorious and amazing for having died to save His people. We can't get to the Good News without also talking about the bad news. And remember again: the standard is not someone else here on Earth (I'm not as bad as XYZ), but Himself.

(Edited here and there to add other clarifications or expansions on points.)

[Warrior 4 Jesus]

Yes, it's great that you're asking these questions and thinking hard but it's always good to first consult the Bible to see what God has to say. If your views don't line up, guess what? It's not God's views that need to change.
We're not trying to pretend that we're blameless, we're not because God's Truth is offensive to our sinful, fallen natures but God's grace (which he provides) in Christ, clothes us with righteousness. He gives us the Holy Spirit to guide, encourage, support, challenge and help us become more like Him.

[The Old Maid]

While I believe in loving justice and mercy, what right do we have to take another's life? Only God has that right. Otherwise you're going to run the risks of having any complete nutter justify their actions by saying 'God told them to do it'. Don't we already have enough examples of people interpreting the Bible incorrectly and using it to gain power, or at the very least, push their preference in something? I think that if you're a Christian and you view life as sacred, all life should be considered sacred. If you're pro-life that should be in all respects, not just when it concerns unborn babies.

Thank you! You have no idea how fiercely some professing Christians cling to the inconsistencies in their positions on life.

There is a tendency to issue justice not based on justice for its own sake but rather justice that is based on the perceived worthiness of the victim to receive it. One obvious example is that when a blue-eyed blonde goes missing it makes international news, but when a Black teenager is killed people say, "oh, not that again, not another one." When a policeman is killed, people call for the blood of the perpetrator, but when that same man kills his battered wife, people ask, "well, what did she do? He's a model employee and a deacon of the church. Why was she the only one who had a problem with him? And if he really was so awful, why didn't she leave him?" (Note: the correct answer to "why doesn't she just leave him?" is: "why does he beat her?") Justice based on the perceived worthiness of the victim to receive justice is human, but that doesn't make it right. Humans love to rank their crimes and say, "Well, at least I don't do that."

I've been working on something for a while which has made me pick up a few Jewish books to learn more about the culture that Jesus grew up in. One of the ways in which Christians twist Scripture to get something they want is through the modern death penalty. I always felt loathing toward the death penalty but couldn't express it in a way that would stand up to hard-core adherents. Too often Christians who argue about Jewish law do it like this:

"The Old Testament has a death penalty so we should get one too."

"So, you don't have meat and milk at the same meal? You don't wear wool and linen together?"

"Don't be ridiculous. Those don't apply to us."

"How did you pick what is still binding on Christians?"

"Shut up!"

Yeah, that's letting the light shine.

Now, the New Testament tells us about a challenge to the early Church. At first only Jewish believers were Christians. Then Peter and Paul were sent to the houses of Gentiles, after which it became mostly Paul's territory. Some Christians believed that Gentiles had to become Jewish in order to become Christian. Paul's faction won. Gentiles did not have to become Jewish. Acts 15 records James making a gracious concession speech. However the book of Galatians tells us that it didn't end there. Some groups kept insisting that Gentiles had to become Jewish, and that only these groups could help them to do so. It was a power grab and got very ugly. Paul cussed them out real good (using a lot of G-rated curses, no doubt) and repeated that Gentiles did not have to worry about Jewish things. A few years later the people of Judea were attacked, many killed by the Romans. The Church became mostly Gentile, as it is to this day.

This generated yet another problem. Not only are most Christians ignorant of the Jewish roots of the plan of salvation, many Christians seem to take pride in that ignorance. There's a difference between not knowing enough to know what questions to ask, and knowing that one does not want to ask the questions. The New Testament isn't the only Testament that Christians like to grab a verse from and then apply it in whatever way seems good to them regardless of intent or context. The death penalty is one of those stolen verses. Even "an eye for an eye" is a stolen verse. Example:

If one could speak of biblical verses as being vilified, then “an eye for an eye” would be the most vilified verse in the Bible. It is commonly cited to “prove” the existence of an “Old Testament” ethic of vengefulness, and then contrasted with the New Testament’s supposedly higher ethic of forgiveness ….

In actuality, the biblical standard of “an eye for an eye” stood in stark contrast to the legal standards prevailing in the societies that surrounded the ancient Hebrews …. “an eye for an eye” also served to limit vengeance; it did not permit “a life for an eye” or even “two eyes for an eye.” The operative biblical principle was that punishment must be commensurate with the deed, not exceed it ….

In the time of the Talmud, “an eye for an eye” was not carried out literally, and Orthodox Jewish scholars teach that it was never practiced. The Talmud’s rabbis feared that the very process of removing the perpetrator’s eye might kill him as well, and that, of course would be forbidden (Baba Kamma 84a). “An eye for an eye” was therefore understood as requiring monetary compensation equivalent to the value of an eye. The same understanding was applied to almost all the other punishments in the same biblical verse …

--from Joseph Telushkin, Jewish Literacy

As to the death penalty, I've checked Telushkin's Jewish Literacy, George Robinson's Essential Torah, Robinson's Essential Judaism, and even an "ask the online rabbi" column (here). They all say the same thing. Here's the short (!) version:

To get a death penalty verdict in Judaism:

Step 1. The perpetrator (hereinafter referred to as Bad Guy because my fingers hurt) tells a minimum of two eyewitnesses that he intends to do Crime X, where Crime X according to some verse in Torah qualifies for death.

Step 2. The minimum of 2 eyewitnesses have to explain to Bad Guy that Crime X is a death penalty offense and he shouldn't do it.

Step 3. Bad Guy says that he had heard them and understands fully, but he still intends to do Crime X.

Step 4. The minimum of 2 eyewitnesses must see Bad Guy perform Crime X. All of it.

Step 5. Bad Guy is charged with having performed Crime X and goes to trial. Conviction is easy (relatively speaking); sentencing is hard. Bad Guy can get off on the smallest technicality -- and if the eyewitnesses left to get the police (and therefore didn't see it), or stayed (and therefore didn't get the police), or they didn't explain the situation well enough, those are all more than "small" technicalities. If there were less than two eyewitnesses, it is not possible to get a death penalty sentence. The Bad Guy could be standing over the corpse with the weapon in his hand, insisting that he did it, and it doesn't count toward a death penalty. Toward a conviction, yes. The CSI/NCIS/Law & Order evidence-gatherers can testify, yes. That counts toward conviction. But without two eyewitnesses, you can't get a death-penalty sentence.

Step 6-A. Bad Guy is convicted of having done Crime X. (Like we said, that part was the easy part.) Now begins the deliberation for sentencing. But there are steps the court has to take within itself.

Step 6-B. The court must be a sitting Sanhedrin. No lesser judge or court can deliberate on the death-penalty sentence. A Sanhedrin requires a minimum of 23 judges. It must be based in Jerusalem. It draws its authority from a standing and operating Jewish Temple. No Temple, no authority to seat a Sanhedrin. This is why the State of Israel doesn't have a death penalty. They can't seat any judges without a functioning Temple. That's the law (the Law).

Step 6-C. Assuming the trial takes place during First Temple or Second Temple eras, there is a wonderful Catch-22. As Essential Judaism phrases it: "in the legal system of the time, the judges served as both prosecuting and defending attorneys, so if a unanimous decision came down from the court it was considered as if the defendant had not been provided with counsel." So by definition when the court called for death, the sentence had to be thrown out. If Bad Guy's own counsel voted against him, then Bad Guy did not get adequate legal representation.

Step 7. As a result, sentences were commuted to prison.

Now, if a court decided to put someone to death anyway, Judaism had intense debate as to how to do it. The rule was that it could not be a prolonged or cruel death, and it could not disfigure the body. They soon figured out that even stoning disqualifies for both even though "stoning" is the word that's in the Torah. Stoning disfigures and it can take a long time to die. Which is why tossing people from a high place became the recommended way to do it: stoning by way of impact. There was a lot of math to it, though. Too short a drop, the victim was not killed on impact. Too high a drop, the body became strawberry jam and disrespect was done to a person created in the image of the Eternal One. Crucifixion was banned, banned, extremely banned for violating all of these requirements.

(The more I learn about Judaism's approach to the death penalty, the more I understand about Jesus' own trial. The average Gentile already knows about some improper dealings: the trial at night without defenders like Nicodemus & Joseph of Arimathea, for example. But by learning more we get the improprieties of no counsel, of "witnesses! We don't need no stinkin witnesses!" and of the business of farming out the sentencing to the Romans when they had a perfectly good cliff to toss Jesus from.)

(EDIT: Also, when the authorities claimed they "had" to hand Jesus to the Romans because "it is not lawful for us to put a man to death" [John 18:31], that was not quite a sticking point either. As we saw in John 8:59, John 10:31-33, and Luke 4:29, people were willing to kill Jesus regardless of the Romans. The business about "having" to hand him over to Pilate was about Jesus becoming a sacrifice for the people [John 11:50-51].)

The result was that the death penalty was listed in Torah but was put in Torah in a way that made it essentially impossible to implement. About 200 years before Jesus was born, Rabbi Akiva said that a court that put someone to death more often than once every seven years should come under review for being excessively bloodthirsty. So that was the standard of the court in Jesus' day. In the year 1200 or so, the wisdom of Judaism said that a court should be considered excessively bloodthirsty if it put someone to death more often than once every seventy years. At this point Rabbis Rashi and Tarfon stood up and said that if they had been on a Sanhedrin, then no one ever would have been put to death.

Yes, Virginia, there is a death penalty mentioned in Torah. But it was put there to teach the Children of Israel respect for human life. They had come from Egypt where their lives were held cheap, and they had to learn otherwise. So the words "stone so-and-so for doing this-n-that" were in there -- but once the people opened the instructions to figure out how to put it together, they found that they couldn't do it. They did, however, come to appreciate the elegance of the puzzle. In the process, they learned not to take human life, realizing that this was for God alone.

So when Western Christians promote the death penalty on the grounds that “Judaism did it,” they are in error. If they want to do it the way it was done in Torah, they'd have to wait for the Jewish people build a Jewish Temple, wait for a Sanhedrin to be seated, and then surrender the Bad Guy, the eyewitnesses, the evidence, and all sovereignty over the case to the Sanhedrin, and then live with its decision, which would be a prison sentence. Would the "hang-em-high" crowd put away their existing programs of the death penalty and do it the real, actual Biblical way? I'm guessing that won't happen.

When Christians promote the death penalty, they should know that the death penalty as practiced by modern nation-states and cultures has nothing to do with either the Old Testament or with Judaism and cannot be justified by an appeal to either the Old Testament or to Judaism. Rather, the death penalty as practiced by Western cultures is a secular custom of the state as inherited from Greco-Roman mores and customs and modified by English law.

...

Whew! That was a lot of work but it was worth it. (I hope!)

[Puddleglum]

Wagga. We need to remember that we see through the eyes of fallable humanity. It is God who judges, and dispences Grace. If a sinner repents, no matter how foul there sin by "our" standards, God can still forgive.

The Old Maid.
Ok I am not about to question how you came up with all the "qualifiers" for a death penalty under Mosaic Law. Honestly, I can only remember the part about the two, or more witnesses being needed for a guilty verdict.

I admit, I am struggling with this issue myself. I know that God did allow for the death penalty. But I know of too many cases where the law was abused, and an innocent was executed.
Unfortunatly the very sinfulness of man that sends the innocent to the gallows can also twist the law to the point where even known, unrepentent murderers have been released, only to kill again.
Easy answers? I do not think there are any.

[Kate]

This is a modly nudge to remember that politics is a banned subject on NarniaWeb. While religion and philosophy and politics brush shoulders often in debating/discussions, the purpose of this thread is not to ascertain how religion affect our politics, but to discuss religion/philosophy itself. Politics remains a banned subject.

[MinotaurforAslan]

Meanwhile, Minotaur, please read the responses from Warrior, Glenstorm and ThePendragon about the absolute righteousness about how God has decided to run the universe He made. It gives us God's perspective on the matters of justice and holiness. God will not seem nearly so amazing to us, and our love for Him and desire to serve Him will never be truly heartfelt and real, until we see exactly as He wants us to see: our sins, disgusting in His sight, and Himself, all the more glorious and amazing for having died to save His people. We can't get to the Good News without also talking about the bad news. And remember again: the standard is not someone else here on Earth (I'm not as bad as XYZ), but Himself.

Thank you, and thank you to everybody else for replying. I have broken some of the commandments which makes me a sinner. I can understand the reasoning behind that I'm in the same boat as everybody else.

Yes, it's great that you're asking these questions and thinking hard but it's always good to first consult the Bible to see what God has to say. If your views don't line up, guess what? It's not God's views that need to change.

I took your advice, and opened up the Bible to see what God has to say.

"Jesus answered, 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me'." (John 14:6).

"Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God." (2 John 9).

"If we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8).

To me, the verses point in a very clear direction - you need to find Jesus, or you're doomed. The thing I really don't like about it is that it leaves no room for the poor individuals through out history who never even heard of Jesus.

When Jesus came down to Earth, he did God's work in a miniscule part of world. North America, South America, Asia, Europe, and Africa were all pretty much left to learn about the Gospel later - Jesus worked exclusively in the Middle East.

It's easy to rationalize the situation today, because missionaries have been able to expose almost all of the world to Christianity. But in the grand scheme of history, Christians are a pretty tight group. All the other thousands of religions out there - many isolated from outside contact - are, according to the Bible, cursed.

"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes to righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made to salvation." (Romans 10:9-10).

I can understand that the heart is what believes in righteousness. But this verse seems to say that it is only possible to receive salvation by confessing that Jesus is Lord. So all the people who never had this opportunity are just done out of luck, I suppose.

I am well aware that 3 of the Bible verses I quoted are not the words of God himself, but that of humans writing about God later But does that make them more invalid than actual quotes by Jesus? The possibility that some parts of the Bible are more "correct" than others would puzzle me.

Maybe I'm just really bad at interpreting the Bible. If I am, I apologize.