briar patch

[Valerie]

I'm not sure who you are arguing with concerning the Mast situation. It's certainly not me, other than I asked you earlier if you have a merciful attitude toward Jeriah and his dad?

The original topic was whether or not Christians should advocate for more lenient sentences for those convicted of crimes.

As far as a "merciful attitude" - I don't think Christian mercy means "get away with a more lenient sentence". I don't think that's what's good for either person. Both of those people need to repent. That's the true meaning of Christian mercy.

No, the original topic was about calling for the execution of criminals and then I brought up Jesus teaching on being merciful. For some reason that then turned into the Jeriah Mast topic.

If that's what you want to talk about, I'm interested in hearing how Jesus' teaching on His followers being merciful would apply to the Mast case, not how it wouldn't apply. I never mentioned or talked about getting away with a more lenient sentence yet it's being implied that my mention of mercy includes that. It doesn't.

Edited to add these verses on mercy. James 2:12-13 NKJV 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

I can't see how Christians calling for the execution of criminals can be squared with these verses.

How do you interpret this?

Romans 13

King James Version
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

I remember talking with a Baptist pastor passing out tracts in our town. We talked about the Baptist views on this, and he firmly believe that Anabaptist interpret this subject wrong. He was aware and just believe they misspent scriptures. I tend to agree. I don’t think any denomination is invaluable in their interpretations.

[GaryK]

I don’t see how the NT teaches us to dabble in politics at all and dictate why capital punishment is somehow wrong but life imprisonment is somehow morally superior.

If capital punishment were so bad, I’d expect the Bible to say so.

Agreed that the NT doesn't teach us to dabble in politics at all. The NT teaches that followers of Jesus are to be merciful. I don't think followers of Jesus calling for the execution of criminals is merciful. Are you suggesting making such a statement is somehow political?

[GaryK]

The original topic was whether or not Christians should advocate for more lenient sentences for those convicted of crimes.

As far as a "merciful attitude" - I don't think Christian mercy means "get away with a more lenient sentence". I don't think that's what's good for either person. Both of those people need to repent. That's the true meaning of Christian mercy.

No, the original topic was about calling for the execution of criminals and then I brought up Jesus teaching on being merciful. For some reason that then turned into the Jeriah Mast topic.

If that's what you want to talk about, I'm interested in hearing how Jesus' teaching on His followers being merciful would apply to the Mast case, not how it wouldn't apply. I never mentioned or talked about getting away with a more lenient sentence yet it's being implied that my mention of mercy includes that. It doesn't.

Edited to add these verses on mercy. James 2:12-13 NKJV 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

I can't see how Christians calling for the execution of criminals can be squared with these verses.

How do you interpret this?

Romans 13

King James Version
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

I remember talking with a Baptist pastor passing out tracts in our town. We talked about the Baptist views on this, and he firmly believe that Anabaptist interpret this subject wrong. He was aware and just believe they misspent scriptures. I tend to agree. I don’t think any denomination is invaluable in their interpretations.

If the state decides to execute a criminal, that's in its domain. Christians, because they are called to be merciful, should desire that all men be saved before they die. They should not be advocating for the death of anyone.

[Valerie]

No, the original topic was about calling for the execution of criminals and then I brought up Jesus teaching on being merciful. For some reason that then turned into the Jeriah Mast topic.

If that's what you want to talk about, I'm interested in hearing how Jesus' teaching on His followers being merciful would apply to the Mast case, not how it wouldn't apply. I never mentioned or talked about getting away with a more lenient sentence yet it's being implied that my mention of mercy includes that. It doesn't.

Edited to add these verses on mercy. James 2:12-13 NKJV 12 So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. 13 For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment.

I can't see how Christians calling for the execution of criminals can be squared with these verses.

How do you interpret this?

Romans 13

King James Version
13 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

I remember talking with a Baptist pastor passing out tracts in our town. We talked about the Baptist views on this, and he firmly believe that Anabaptist interpret this subject wrong. He was aware and just believe they misspent scriptures. I tend to agree. I don’t think any denomination is invaluable in their interpretations.

If the state decides to execute a criminal, that's in its domain. Christians, because they are called to be merciful, should desire that all men be saved before they die. They should not be advocating for the death of anyone.

Christians advocate that Scripture is speaking into this because God sees it as necessary. Pastors & priests always try to reach those on death row & some do come to Christ. If let out of jail, those repeat offenders who kill people may not have had that opportunity to receive Christ. I do recognize God‘s wisdom and Romans 13 that doesn’t mean that Christians aren’t merciful who agree with Romans 13 they just understand the wisdom and necessity of it.

[JohnH]

If the state decides to execute a criminal, that's in its domain. Christians, because they are called to be merciful, should desire that all men be saved before they die. They should not be advocating for the death of anyone.

Let me clarify my position: I don't think Christians should be engaging in political advocacy to try to abolish the death penalty. Anabaptists, in particular, have a poor track record of expecting leniency for their own crimes of moral turpitude, which is not a good witness, either.

Christians should be endeavouring to witness to people on death row and praying that they be converted. Considering death row is usually a multi-decade thing, I don't think there's a problem we need to worry about about people being executed too quickly. It might be a problem in other countries but it sure isn't here.

[JohnH]

My experience is they can be quite tribal, relationship is everything. This can feel to an outsider like they are not reliable because it is important for them to agree with you and say yes to things they can't or don't intend to do. Saying no is a far greater social offence then not following through.

In other words, the culture comes with lying and dishonesty baked in?

Or am I missing something?

[ken_sylvania]

My experience is they can be quite tribal, relationship is everything. This can feel to an outsider like they are not reliable because it is important for them to agree with you and say yes to things they can't or don't intend to do. Saying no is a far greater social offence then not following through.

In other words, the culture comes with lying and dishonesty baked in?

Or am I missing something?

That's rich. You of all people complaining about lying and dishonesty.

[JohnH]

That's rich. You of all people complaining about lying and dishonesty.

If you think I actually have a problem with lying and dishonesty, that would seem like something appropriate to bring up with me one on one. If, on the other hand, it's just a barb used to argue in a public forum, then I guess it's something I should ignore. (Disagreeing on something is not the same as lying and dishonesty; neither is a cultural expectation to indicate some kind of meaningless agreement like saying "yes" when someone doesn't actually intend to do something, which is probably what barnhart was actually getting at.)

[justme]

(Disagreeing on something is not the same as lying and dishonesty; neither is a cultural expectation to indicate some kind of meaningless agreement like saying "yes" when someone doesn't actually intend to do something, which is probably what barnhart was actually getting at.)

I am so confused. That is not ar all what i understood you to be saying when you said this

My experience is they can be quite tribal, relationship is everything. This can feel to an outsider like they are not reliable because it is important for them to agree with you and say yes to things they can't or don't intend to do. Saying no is a far greater social offence then not following through.

In other words, the culture comes with lying and dishonesty baked in?

Or am I missing something?

What am i missing in my reading comprehension?

[ken_sylvania]

That's rich. You of all people complaining about lying and dishonesty.

If you think I actually have a problem with lying and dishonesty, that would seem like something appropriate to bring up with me one on one. If, on the other hand, it's just a barb used to argue in a public forum, then I guess it's something I should ignore. (Disagreeing on something is not the same as lying and dishonesty; neither is a cultural expectation to indicate some kind of meaningless agreement like saying "yes" when someone doesn't actually intend to do something, which is probably what barnhart was actually getting at.)

Right.
It's fine for you to publicly accuse an entire culture of people of lying, but if someone thinks you have a problem you want to be addressed one-on-one.
It's fine for you to make public accusations against people on this forum, but accusations against you should be done by PM.
It's OK for you to twist people's words, distort what they say, and imply that they have said things they've never said, but God forbid that public speech be met with a public rebuke.