briar patch

[JohnH]

I am simply saying it is silly to claim that God teaches us to oppose capital punishment. The Bible never teaches us to do so.

[JoyE]

Are you comparing Pete Hegseth to God?

Nope.

Okay. So what’s the point you’re trying to make?

That public execution is not necessarily wrong.

[Szdfan]

In the case of Charlie Kirk, half of the country did not decide that was worthy of death and should be assassinated.

When you talk about "giving no quarter" it would be good to remember James 2:13.

As a movement, the left should be given no quarter, and has indeed made itself out to be the enemy of God and his plan for mankind.

The individuals within it, however, can be redeemed.

This individual on the Left feels like this is a threat. In warfare, “no quarter” means refusing to accept an enemy's surrender and killing captured or wounded enemies. Outside of war, it means no pity, mercy, or leniency towards an opponent.

In this thread, you are defending the state’s use of public executions. I’m going to resist connecting the dots, but I find the implications of what you’re saying troubling.

[JohnH]

In the case of Charlie Kirk, half of the country did not decide that was worthy of death and should be assassinated.

When you talk about "giving no quarter" it would be good to remember James 2:13.

As a movement, the left should be given no quarter, and has indeed made itself out to be the enemy of God and his plan for mankind.

The individuals within it, however, can be redeemed.

This individual on the Left feels like this is a threat. In warfare, “no quarter” means refusing to accept an enemy's surrender and killing captured or wounded enemies. Outside of war, it means no pity, mercy, or leniency towards an opponent.

In this thread, you are defending the state’s use of public executions. I’m going to resist connecting the dots, but I find the implications of what you’re saying troubling.

Go ahead and “connect the dots” and make your accusation.

By “give no quarter”, I mean I have no room at all for leftist liberal-progressivism in the circles I am part of and have control over, such as church. It is not welcome here and I will do everything I can to keep it out.

This may be a new discovery for you but it is entirely possible to say “no” to immoral, godless ideologies but do so in a nonviolent, and dare I say Christlike manner. One thing I’d start with is: I steadfastly say “no” to the idea of killing people because of their ideology (even if I very much disagree with it). I don’t even support silencing it. It’s better to have sunlight on these things.

My opposition has already proven itself that they are very, very comfortable with the approach of trying to silence those they disagree with. Do you dispute that?

[ohio jones]

By “give no quarter”, I mean I have no room at all for leftist liberal-progressivism in the circles I am part of and have control over, such as church. It is not welcome here and I will do everything I can to keep it out.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what's welcome here and what is kept out (nor do I for that matter). And while you can certainly spend your time combating "leftist liberal-progressivism" you might catch more flies by presenting and embodying a compelling vision of a Kingdom alternative.

[Valerie]

By “give no quarter”, I mean I have no room at all for leftist liberal-progressivism in the circles I am part of and have control over, such as church. It is not welcome here and I will do everything I can to keep it out.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what's welcome here and what is kept out (nor do I for that matter). And while you can certainly spend your time combating "leftist liberal-progressivism" you might catch more flies by presenting and embodying a compelling vision of a Kingdom alternative.

It seems to be JohnH sees the writing on the wall that others may miss and that is part of contending for the faith.

[Soloist]

The day Mennonet hires firing squads… I better have left long before.

[barnhart]

By “give no quarter”, I mean I have no room at all for leftist liberal-progressivism in the circles I am part of and have control over, such as church. It is not welcome here and I will do everything I can to keep it out.

You don't get to unilaterally decide what's welcome here and what is kept out (nor do I for that matter). And while you can certainly spend your time combating "leftist liberal-progressivism" you might catch more flies by presenting and embodying a compelling vision of a Kingdom alternative.

It seems to be JohnH sees the writing on the wall that others may miss and that is part of contending for the faith.

That is what the Christian Nation builders said about the invading Turkish Muslims in the 16th century. Right before they started burning Anabaptists at the stake. We've been here before.

[Szdfan]

As a movement, the left should be given no quarter, and has indeed made itself out to be the enemy of God and his plan for mankind.
The individuals within it, however, can be redeemed.

This individual on the Left feels like this is a threat. In warfare, “no quarter” means refusing to accept an enemy's surrender and killing captured or wounded enemies. Outside of war, it means no pity, mercy, or leniency towards an opponent.
In this thread, you are defending the state’s use of public executions. I’m going to resist connecting the dots, but I find the implications of what you’re saying troubling.

Go ahead and “connect the dots” and make your accusation.
By “give no quarter”, I mean I have no room at all for leftist liberal-progressivism in the circles I am part of and have control over, such as church. It is not welcome here and I will do everything I can to keep it out.

I find it ironic that you simultaneously complain about being silenced and advocate silencing others. I seem to remember scriptures where Jesus instructs, "Do to others as you would have them do to you."

This may be a new discovery for you but it is entirely possible to say “no” to immoral, godless ideologies but do so in a nonviolent, and dare I say Christlike manner. One thing I’d start with is: I steadfastly say “no” to the idea of killing people because of their ideology (even if I very much disagree with it). I don’t even support silencing it. It’s better to have sunlight on these things.

We agree about that and thank you for clarifying that you weren't calling for violence against liberals. I also don't believe that people should be murdered for their political beliefs and I also believe that Christians can say "no" to ideologies in a non-violent, Christlike manner.

However, I believe that calling your ideological opponents the "enemy of God" who should be "given no quarter" is neither non-violent nor Christlike. While Christ spoke prophetically, he also exhibited humility, mercy, truthfulness, care for the marginalized and love of enemies.

By saying that liberals should be "given no quarter," you are literally arguing against mercy for your political opponents, even if you're not arguing for physical violence. Using God to fight culture wars of grievance is not Christlike.

I also reject your framing that conservatives are uniquely persecuted in the United States.

Charlie Kirk wasn't the only political assassination last year. Former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband were also murdered in their home by Vance Boelter, a far-right Christian extremist who was assassinating Democrats.

If all "the Left" is responsible for Kirk's death, is all "the Right" responsible for Hortman's? If the nasty comments celebrating Kirk's assassination convict all liberals, do the nasty comments by Trump and others after Rob Reiner's murder convict all conservatives?

My opposition has already proven itself that they are very, very comfortable with the approach of trying to silence those they disagree with. Do you dispute that?

I don't think you're being silenced. According to forum statistics, you are one of the most prolific posters. At almost 9500 posts, you have authored 3% of total posts, or about 12 posts a day. That's a loud silence.

Disagreement with you is not silencing. Arguing and challenging you is not silencing. Calling you out is not silencing. Debate and conversation is the opposite of silence.

You're entitled to your beliefs and views. I'm also entitled to disagree and argue with you.

[JohnH]

You don't get to unilaterally decide what's welcome here and what is kept out (nor do I for that matter).

I wasn't talking about MennoNet.

And while you can certainly spend your time combating "leftist liberal-progressivism" you might catch more flies by presenting and embodying a compelling vision of a Kingdom alternative.

I am talking about what is important inside the confines of (purportedly) Christian fellowship and the walls of the church, where indeed keeping out toxic ideologies is quite important.

Particularly when the latest rebranding of those anti-Christ ideologies is to repackage them as a "compelling vision of a Kingdom alternative". I don't think the gospel or the truth needs to be branded or marketed, but falsehood does.