Since you apparently do not approve or recognize the need for secular laws, jmullaney, then I can only assume your alternative is rule by religious laws.
Your religion, or at least your interpretation of your particular demonination of that religion.
The Bible, Koran, Talmud, etc. all recognize that people can do evil things to other people. None endorse those behaviors. But in my view you’re warping the Christian view of how sin is handled. Sins and offenses against others aren’t just “forgiven”, i.e. a person offends, true believers say, “oh, okay, gotta overlook it”.
To my best recollection, a critical component is the offender’s awareness, acknowledgment and atonement as well. Even a solely Christian society such as you seem to envision wouldn’t be obligated to ignore crime.
Seems to me you’re ignoring the concepts of justice and mercy in favor of total abdication of responsibility: God’ll decide. In your view, that’s a given. But holding people answerable for their actions isn’t against the Bible.
:::shrugs::: But I’m not gonna flame you or debate you. Your conscience; your decision. And I don’t mean that comfortingly, btw. Theists juggle razors, honing rules that cut both ways.
At any rate, andros, he has absolutely no choice but to believe this particular epistle. This is 1 Peter, written by the apostle Peter, and Jesus himself gives Peter he authority to make divine policy.
Geez, I hate to have to semi-defend someone who I find as reprehensible as jdmullaney, but Jodi, here’s my interpretation of the Bible, for what it’s worth.
***Sins are not necessarily crimes. You can lie all you want, provided it’s not slander/perjury/etc.
***However, a crime is a sin. If you commit something wrong against the government, are you not committing an offense against your brother (which is also a sin)? (AKA, speeding, which could cause accidents, drunk driving, copyright infringement, etc.) It says in the Bible, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” I take this to mean not just taxation, but also laws.
Again, that’s my spin on things. However, jdmullaney, I believe that those who commit crimes/sins/whatever the hell you call them are only asking for the restitution they will have to incur as the consequences.
Aw, prairie poop. I can’t believe I’m playing advocate for Joel.
Y’all gotta understand, Joel does not believe in the Bible. Except, again, when it serves his points. He believes in God and Christ. Occasionally, depending on when you talk to him, Paul and his cronies were walking demons who distorted and nearly destroyed Christ’s words.
Sorry, Nocturne. Crimes are not always sins. If I drive on the freeway at 65 miles per hour, I’m committing no crime, and no sin. But fifteen years ago if I were to drive at 65 mph I’d be committing a crime. Are you honestly going to tell me I would have been sinning then? Please. Jaywalking is a sin? Having more than four pets in my house is a sin?
Were my forefathers sinning when they kept slaves? Or when they helped slaves to escape, against the law?
As I understand it, whatever he feels like. It’s not a slippery slope if one does not believe in the inerrancy, or even holiness, of the Bible. He believes in Christ.
Hey, I don’t pretend to understand it. These are just my observations from the past couple of months.
The conviction of the Holy Spirit? Not that I accept it as a good defense, but for a person who believes in that sort of thing, that’s generally how they say they know what’s right and how they arrived at their personal interpretation of the Bible. Many, if not most of the Christians here do not necessarily accept every word of the Bible as straight from God; some of Paul’s comments are interpreted very loosely, for example. And you should hear Joel castigating those who do not sell all their belongings and give the money to the poor, as Jesus commanded! Are you going to tell everyone who doesn’t believe in a literal global flood, six-day creation, or giving all their belongings away, that they can’t “pick and choose”; that they must accept the whole Bible as literal and inerrant or dump the whole thing? That’s something I’d expect from the LBMB, not the SDMB.
Chill, Gaudere. I’m an atheist. I think the whole thing is a load of crap. I’m just saying it is a very slippery slope. In specific reference to your point, however, I believe it is a widely held belief that the epistles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and their presence in what we know as the Bible (at least, the Protestant version of it) is a sign that they were inspired by God. Therefore, yes, by my logic, if you believe, you must believe it all.
As I said before, this is the reason I’m an atheist.
You can’t pick and choose from the Bible unless you can demonstrate some objective means for doing so - Holy Spirit as a guide is a load of poop, as people claiming it have different interpretations - as well as my point about the Bible being inspired - also, if it weren’t all meant to be taken as truth, why would god make such a big deal about anyone daring to change it, as stated in Revelation?
I know this is the Pit and all, but I’m not trying to be inflammatory, just trying to apply logic.
jmullaney, I just have a question that I need cleared up, if you don’t mind. Are you saying that your god wants rapists and murderers to be free to rape and murder repeatedly the entire span of their lives and no one should do anything to stop it from happening?
evilbeth, jm probably wants you to turn the other cheek, or something.
Anyway, why do you all bother arguing with a guy who has absolutely no person of listening to you, or thinking about his own claimed beliefs. He’s just another version of the circumcision theorist.
Rather than waste any time trying to get him to consider a world where any criminal is free to do as he likes and be forgiven, I just pray to JM’s god and any others that may be around that he never gets called up for jury duty.
Of course, if he were picked for jury duty and also ended up as a potential juror, he certainly wouldn’t lie, by omission or otherwise, when the prosecutor asked the jurors whether, if the evidence convinced them of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, they could convict the defendant, would he? I mean, lying is a sin, right? If he’s honest, I think the chances of him actually serving, rather than being called, are low.
And jmullaney, what about a civil case? Forget about jail - how about a product liability case or a slip-and-fall case where someone is trying to get economic redress for injuries? Would you just let the chips fall where they may, because the litigants ultimately be judged in God’s Court?
Personally I lost most of my respect for his debating style around about here.
Despite this, I would say that [list=1][li]He’s quite good fun to argue against[/li][li]He does tend to keep on swingin’ rather than wimping out early on.[/list=1]Which to my mind makes him a pretty useful member of this board.[/li]pan
You are to submit to world authorities, yes. For example, you should not resist arrest. But these powers are not divinely ordained. Not every male pronoun in the Bible refers to God. Comapare the KJV (in which pronouns refering to God are always capitalized):
See? The Governors are merely sent by the King, not by God. Nice try though. This is immediately followed by saying it is God’s will that you do right, and I do not think submitting to worldly authorities when they ask you to do wrong is what Peter had in mind.
Good point Veb. You should not forgive someone if they do not repent; however, I don’t think juror’s have much of an opportunity to judge that. As such, erring on the side of caution works for me.
Nice attempt at obfuscation. Unfortunately, it doesn’t hold water. Verse 36 is the thesis statement, so to speak. Everything else merely modifies it. “Submit yourself for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to the king as the one in authority…” is an explicit commandment. No amount of weaseling will change that.
Your second point about not following the commands of government when it asks you to do wrong is obvious on its face, but has nothing to do with the discussion.