Why don't more Christians speak up against this????

[Andyman_1970]

This doesn't seem very Christlike to me.................

Televangelist Calls for Chavez' Death
Yahoo News | Tue Aug 23, 6:20 AM ET

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Robertson, 75, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.

Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

[novcncy]

I'm not sure what your specific issue is. Is it the way Yahoo News reported the story? Is it Pat Robertson? Is it assassinations by the US Government? Is it the association of Christianity with assassination? (Try typing "association with assassinations" three times fast...) I just need a little clarity on what exactly the issue is before I can give you a legitimate opinion.

[PaladinGirl]

Personally, I can't believe that Pat Robertson would call for the assassination of a foreign leader. Whether or not the leader is bad makes no difference. I honestly think praying that God would intervene in some way would be the better solution.

[Andyman_1970]

I'm not sure what your specific issue is. Is it the way Yahoo News reported the story? Is it Pat Robertson? Is it assassinations by the US Government? Is it the association of Christianity with assassination? (Try typing "association with assassinations" three times fast...) I just need a little clarity on what exactly the issue is before I can give you a legitimate opinion.

A Christian religious leader advocating the deliberate killing of another human, in a context that does not relate to self defense.

[Andyman_1970]

Check www.foxnews.com also if you need to confirm the story.

[statrei]

This doesn't seem very Christlike to me.................Even the most virulent opponent of Christianity understands that these are the words of a sick mind. The best treatment is to ignore it. Why give it any press? Suggesting an psychiatrist might be a good move.

[statrei]

Personally, I can't believe that Pat Robertson would call for the assassination of a foreign leader. Whether or not the leader is bad makes no difference. I honestly think praying that God would intervene in some way would be the better solution.As the saying goes, "I heard his voice with my own eyes."

[Imblessed]

Pat Robertson is not quite right in the head, if you ask me.

I can't believe he would actually suggest the assasination of someone on air!

Of course my own opinion is that he's done lots more than this to give christianity a bad name. He's embarrasing.

[Joykins]

It's appalling. :(

The reason I didn't say (or know) anything about it is because I haven't paid attention to Robertson in years. The question is, should I start?

[12volt_man]

Because no one takes Pat Robertson seriously, anyway.

[Andyman_1970]

Even the most virulent opponent of Christianity understands that these are the words of a sick mind. The best treatment is to ignore it. Why give it any press? Suggesting an psychiatrist might be a good move.

I guess my "issue" is not so much with what Pat said, as disgusting as it is, but that more of the "normal" Christian community hasn't spoken out against this. I mean we get in a huge uproar that the Muslim religious leaders have not spoken out more against terrorism, but yet are relatively silent on this matter (so far that is).

Anyway, the whole thing really sickens me...............

[statrei]

I guess my "issue" is not so much with what Pat said, as disgusting as it is, but that more of the "normal" Christian community hasn't spoken out against this. I mean we get in a huge uproar that the Muslim religious leaders have not spoken out more against terrorism, but yet are relatively silent on this matter (so far that is).

Anyway, the whole thing really sickens me...............Good point on the Muslim connection. I guess we are blinded by patriotism.

[novcncy]

Well pretty much in the vein of the thread, I have to agree that Christians (and most people, except Venezuala, apparantly) realize that Robertson's a nutjob, and not worth the time or effort. Also, whether one likes it or not, giving him attention is exactly his goal. Like a spoiled child, he wants all the attention he can get, positive or negative, it matters not.

I do see the conflict between his "profession" and his words, but I don't pay any attention to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, either. We could ask similar questions about their utterly ridiculous claims and statements. Why don't Chrisitians condemn THAT insanity? Same reason, it's not worth the time.

[aReformedPatriot]

From Albert Mohler www.albertmohler.com An SBC bigwig speaks out.

Pat Robertson's Words and Our Responsibility

Posted: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 6:37 pm ET



All human beings are capable of making outrageous comments, fraudulent claims, and scandalous conversation. That is part of the human condition -- part of being a sinner. Language is a powerful gift, but the evil use of language can do great and grave damage.

This is painfully clear in the aftermath of Christian Broadcasting Network founder Pat Robertson's comments about the potential assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Here are Robertson's comments (http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23560420.htm) from Monday's edition of CBN's (http://www.cbn.org/) "The 700 Club:"

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said of Chavez in Monday's broadcast of "The 700 Club." "We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

With unmistakable clarity and an apparent lack of self-consciousness, Robertson simply called for an assassination, presumably to be undertaken by U.S. military forces in violation of U.S. law.

In so doing he gave the Venezuelan leader a propaganda gold mine, embarrassed the Bush administration, and left millions of viewers perplexed and troubled. More importantly, he brought shame to the cause of Christ. This is the kind of outrageous statement that makes evangelism all the more difficult. Missing from the entire context is the Christian understanding that violence can never be blessed as a good, but may only be employed under circumstances that would justify the limited use of lethal force in order to prevent even greater violence. Our witness to the Gospel is inevitably and deeply harmed when a recognized Christian leader casually recommends the assassination of a world leader.

Hugo Chavez is a dangerous and reckless factor on the world scene. His extreme nationalism, combined with Marxism, has led his country directly into conflict with the U.S. and much of the civilized world. He has befriended Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and given support to forces of global anarchy. Credible sources link him to support -- direct or indirect -- of groups involved in terrorism.

Nevertheless, Pat Robertson's comments lacked any indication that he even understood the gravity of his proposal. He has brought embarrassment upon us all.

I am thankful for every person who has been reached for the Gospel through Pat Robertson's vast ministry. I am thankful for his brave support of unpopular Christian causes. I respect what he has done through Regent University (http://www.regent.edu/). He has been courageous in defense of many moral causes when others were silent.

Now, with so much at stake, Pat Robertson bears responsibility to retract, rethink, repent, and restate his position on this issue. Otherwise, what could have been a temporary lapse of judgment can become an enduring obstacle to the Gospel. Mr. Robertson, it's back in your court. Your Christian brothers and sisters must love you enough to tell you the truth -- and encourage you to set the record straight.

[No Swansong]

,

[staugustine68]

I, personaly, like the guy.

It is mind numbing why he would say such a thing.:confused:

[Imblessed]

From Albert Mohler www.albertmohler.com (http://www.albertmohler.com) An SBC bigwig speaks out.

:thumbsup:

[Andyman_1970]

Interestingly enough, if Pat were to visit the UK or Spain or several other countries he could be arrested as a terrorist for what he said.

[eldermike]

Why don't more Christians speak against this?

The reason is simple. Christians speaking against Christians is wrong. Lambs don't need to stand toe to toe with wolves on the same side of the line, the wolves will eat you. I don't like what He said, I don't understand it completely but the side that wants me to rise up against Him really wants to keep me from saying the name of Jesus.
Be careful.

[statrei]

Why don't more Christians speak against this?

The reason is simple. Christians speaking against Christians is wrong. Lambs don't need to stand toe to toe with wolves on the same side of the line, the wolves will eat you. I don't like what He said, I don't understand it completely but the side that wants me to rise up against Him really wants to keep me from saying the name of Jesus.
Be careful.Even if the lamb standing next to you may really be a wolf in lamb's clothing?

[eldermike]

Even if the lamb standing next to you may really be a wolf in lamb's clothing?

They will eat you. A crazy Christian is still a Christian. The side that wants you against also wants Jesus out of our society.

[statrei]

They will eat you. A crazy Christian is still a Christian. The side that wants you against also wants Jesus out of our society.Who wants Jesus out of society? Think back 2000 years and tell us who wanted Jesus out of society.

[Andyman_1970]

Why don't more Christians speak against this?

The reason is simple. Christians speaking against Christians is wrong. Lambs don't need to stand toe to toe with wolves on the same side of the line, the wolves will eat you. I don't like what He said, I don't understand it completely but the side that wants me to rise up against Him really wants to keep me from saying the name of Jesus.
Be careful.

So then it's not appropriate to publically speak out against someone who claims to be a Christian and yet puts fourth false ideas in the Name of God?

How does the world know it's false if we don't speak against it? What would have happened if Paul had not spoken against false teachers???

[jcright]

Time for me to show my colors...

I'm not sure I disagree with Robertson. If assassination is wrong, then why aren't Christians making a bigger deal against corporal punishment? Or abortion? One kills an innocent child, the other kills a convicted person. Both are people. If we aren't going to be up in arms about that, then why are we up in arms about the assassination of a leader?

Someone made the point that it wouldn't be in self-defense. Why shouldn't we be proactive for once? Before we are threatened, why shouldn't we take action? I think the possibility of harboring muslim terrorists would be a good reason to take some action. Why are we waiting until it has to be in self-defense? Wouldn't it be self-defense to stop them now before they get out of control?

I think Robertson makes a good point. We know the enemy is building up to make another attack on us. Stop them now before we have another 9-11.

[Andyman_1970]

So I guess Jesus didn't mean it when He said "love your enemies"..............

[Iollain]

I don't think that is the point whether PR is right or wrong, but that he let his political ideas out on a Christian TV show that i think goes out to a lot of places in the world, not a smart move i don't think. May have been one of those times where the tongue got away with someone before they could think properly. That show is so involved with the end times watch and world leader news that it would be hard for PR NOT to voice a strong opinion on what is going on.

[Iollain]

.....or maybe i should have said not to have a strong opinion.

[novcncy]

So then it's not appropriate to publically speak out against someone who claims to be a Christian and yet puts fourth false ideas in the Name of God?

How does the world know it's false if we don't speak against it? What would have happened if Paul had not spoken against false teachers???

Just a sec, andyman. PR wasn't preaching heresy or false doctrine. What he was doing wrong is putting himself in the position of the government, and thereby defacing the image of the church, his country, through association the name of Jesus, and who knows what else. I'm not defending him here, but let's not get the issues confused.

I'm as much for refuting false doctrine as anyone. But that's not the case here. What have here is a case of simple stupidity, and although it's regrettable, it's NOT the same as teaching a false gospel.

How many people watching the 700 club are going to be led to Christ through that program? How many people who would NEVER watch the show, now think PR is a bufoon and a Christian? But that's exactly the point. See, as much as you might think you are making a distinction, every protest you make adds to a chorus which actually reinforces bias against ALL Christians. The world will know we are Christians by our love for EACH OTHER. That means even the stupid each others. :)

So what's false about what PR said? My problem isn't really with what he said, as far as the concept, but rather with the fact that it's not his place, or the church's, to be more precise, to say it or make such a decision. But see, everyone (except him, apparantly) KNOWS it's not his place to say it, so why make a big show of beating the chest about the abundantly obvious? I haven't seen any mass demonstrations in support of gravity....and I'm not wondering why. It's obvious.

[novcncy]

So I guess Jesus didn't mean it when He said "love your enemies"..............

The church shouldn't utilize violence.

The government is not the church.

[novcncy]

Time for me to show my colors...

I'm not sure I disagree with Robertson. If assassination is wrong, then why aren't Christians making a bigger deal against corporal punishment? Or abortion? One kills an innocent child, the other kills a convicted person. Both are people. If we aren't going to be up in arms about that, then why are we up in arms about the assassination of a leader?

Someone made the point that it wouldn't be in self-defense. Why shouldn't we be proactive for once? Before we are threatened, why shouldn't we take action? I think the possibility of harboring muslim terrorists would be a good reason to take some action. Why are we waiting until it has to be in self-defense? Wouldn't it be self-defense to stop them now before they get out of control?

I think Robertson makes a good point. We know the enemy is building up to make another attack on us. Stop them now before we have another 9-11.

I agree with you. But it's ultimately up to the government to make such decisions. Technically, they would be wrong to violate their own laws. Of course, they could change the law, and then all bets are off. The government is within its legitimate right to determine such an action is needed. As citizens we can have our opinions on the subject, but fortunately, weren't not responsible for making decisions on the subject.

One other thought, our opinions matter very little in matters such as this.

[Andyman_1970]

The church shouldn't utilize violence.

I agree…………. :thumbsup:

The government is not the church.

Pat is speaking as a Christian religious leader, he does not work for the Gov’t.

So then is it ok for a Christian religious leader to advocate violence??? And if so how does that make PR any different than those extremist Muslim clerics that do the same thing???

[novcncy]

Pat is speaking as a Christian religious leader, he does not work for the Gov’t.

So then is it ok for a Christian religious leader to advocate violence??? And if so how does that make PR any different than those extremist Muslim clerics that do the same thing???

Okay, I'm in agreement with you that THIS is the issue. The difference between PR and Muslim clerics is that PR is supposed to know better ;) But I think it is okay for a Christian leader to be patriotic, in the sense of many of the personal sentiments expressed in this thread. In other words, I think it's okay for PR to have the opinion he does, but the problem is in how, or maybe better in WHY, he expressed that opinion. A pretty convincing argument could be made that his actions have eroded the position of the United States even further.

The issue IS NOT whether or not the government has a legitimate right to execute tactical actions.

[If Not For Grace]

Why don't more Christians speak up against this????



And what would you have said to King David, or Saul or Moses or Joshua as they went to slay their enemies?

[Andyman_1970]

And what would you have said to King David, or Saul or Moses or Joshua as they went to slay their enemies?

I'm not a Jew, I'm a follower of Jesus and His teachings, which last time I checked don't include the verse "And Jesus spoketh, thou shalt use thine Special Forces to smite thine enemies........" (just for all you KJV fans.....LOL).

So then, it appears you don't have a problem with what Pat said, if that's the case, how does one reconcile claiming to be a follower of Jesus but yet publically stating something that is contrary to Jesus' teachings??? Didn't Jesus say "if you love me you'll obey my commandments"??? It would seem your advocating disobeying Jesus..............

[Iollain]

I don't think PR is stupid i think he is a pretty smart old feller, but i think he made maybe the stupidest mistake of his life.

[Iollain]

There is something on the CBN site about it:

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/news/050824a.asp

[jcright]

Love our enemies yes...but it says nothing about having to die because that's what our enemies want us to do.

Someone else made a good point about the isrealites clearing out the promised land. God said to that...and they hadn't even been under threat from them at that point. So, we have a clear-cut example of wiping out the threat before it can do any damage.

Try and keep in mind that they don't feel bad in the least when they murder us. They consider it their duty. Which makes them no better than the convicts that we execute.

We do not have to take their abuse.

[novcncy]

Love our enemies yes...but it says nothing about having to die because that's what our enemies want us to do.

Someone else made a good point about the isrealites clearing out the promised land. God said to that...and they hadn't even been under threat from them at that point. So, we have a clear-cut example of wiping out the threat before it can do any damage.

Try and keep in mind that they don't feel bad in the least when they murder us. They consider it their duty. Which makes them no better than the convicts that we execute.

We do not have to take their abuse.

Hi JC, do you mind if I chime in?

Loving your enemies is what we as CHRISTIANS are supposed to do. In other words, if someone is our enemy because of Christ, we are to love them, to turn the other cheek, and show them the love of Jesus.

As CITIZENS, God has ordained the institution of government to protect us. If the government determines that military action is necessary, then that is why God established such a thing. If someone is our enemy because we're Americans, and is willing to threaten our country, then it's two in the heart, two in the head, and drive on. That's the role of government, but not, as is becoming painfully abundant, the role of the 700 Club. I would like to note that it is not the role of the individual either, but rather the formal established body of government that makes these decisions. I am not justifying violence based on personal decisions.

There is a vast difference between the two roles, and what makes PR so infuriating, is that he can't see that. It is, however, a gross misrepresentation to say that Christians are to be pacifists based on the command to love our enemies.

[jcright]

Hi JC, do you mind if I chime in?

Loving your enemies is what we as CHRISTIANS are supposed to do. In other words, if someone is our enemy because of Christ, we are to love them, to turn the other cheek, and show them the love of Jesus.

As CITIZENS, God has ordained the institution of government to protect us. If the government determines that military action is necessary, then that is why God established such a thing. If someone is our enemy because we're Americans, and is willing to threaten our country, then it's two in the heart, two in the head, and drive on. That's the role of government, but not, as is becoming painfully abundant, the role of the 700 Club. I would like to note that it is not the role of the individual either, but rather the formal established body of government that makes these decisions. I am not justifying violence based on personal decisions.

There is a vast difference between the two roles, and what makes PR so infuriating, is that he can't see that. It is, however, a gross misrepresentation to say that Christians are to be pacifists based on the command to love our enemies.

Feel free to chime in.

It's the people that make up the government...in theory. We're the ones that appoint those that are supposed to make the decision to protect us.

I'm not convinced that turn the other cheek means to get slapped yet again. That's something I'm still researching, I've heard a couple of comments that would suggest it doesn't mean to get slapped or it doesn't apply to the here and now. Either way, we still have evidence of removing a threat before it does damage. Since the scriptures can't contradict itself, I'm willing to pursue the line of thought that turn the other cheek doesn't mean to get slapped yet again.

[novcncy]

Feel free to chime in.

It's the people that make up the government...in theory. We're the ones that appoint those that are supposed to make the decision to protect us.

I'm not convinced that turn the other cheek means to get slapped yet again. That's something I'm still researching, I've heard a couple of comments that would suggest it doesn't mean to get slapped or it doesn't apply to the here and now. Either way, we still have evidence of removing a threat before it does damage. Since the scriptures can't contradict itself, I'm willing to pursue the line of thought that turn the other cheek doesn't mean to get slapped yet again.

Well, I don't know that I agree totally with you. It sounds to me that maybe you have the two entities confused.

"Turn the other cheek" is pretty self explanatory. Do you know about the context behind Jesus' directions there? Did you know that a Roman soldier could compel a non-citizen to carry his baggage for one Roman mile? Of course, most Jews hated the Romans, and the soldiers thought it was pretty funny to make the Jews serve them. So think about how shocking Jesus instructions were, that if a man compelled you to walk with him one mile, go with him two. That's the nature of what Jesus was telling the Jews. But the Romans were the government, and the Jews were bound by the law of the land, whether they liked it or not.

Anyway, the government and the church, although made of individuals, (Gasp! sometimes, the same individuals are in both bodies) have their distinct roles. When either tries to inhabit the other's arena, we're bound to have problems. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the government has the responsiblity to proactively defend our country. The best defense, is a good offense. :)

[9-iron]

A Christian religious leader advocating the deliberate killing of another human, in a context that does not relate to self defense.

Would it be better to kill one out of control dictator or spend millions and sacrific more service men's lifes to get the situation back under control?

[JPPT1974]

Feel free to chime in.

It's the people that make up the government...in theory. We're the ones that appoint those that are supposed to make the decision to protect us.

I'm not convinced that turn the other cheek means to get slapped yet again. That's something I'm still researching, I've heard a couple of comments that would suggest it doesn't mean to get slapped or it doesn't apply to the here and now. Either way, we still have evidence of removing a threat before it does damage. Since the scriptures can't contradict itself, I'm willing to pursue the line of thought that turn the other cheek doesn't mean to get slapped yet again.

Yeah I am not convinced meanig that if you turn the other cheek you do keep gettig slapped again and again. And not just in a physical sense. We do need to remove a threat before the damage is done. Or not do it at all. By not doing stuff, a conflict can be avoid.

[Andyman_1970]

So then if we "need to remove the threat" it's ok for a Christian leader to advocate assasination???

[jcright]

So then if we "need to remove the threat" it's ok for a Christian leader to advocate assasination???

Well, let's see. Harboring muslim terrorists who want to annihilate us. I would have to say yes.

The other option is to throw him in jail. I have two problems with that:
1) Tax payers should not have to use their money for criminals to live
2) There is always the chance for escape.

[Andyman_1970]

Well, let's see. Harboring muslim terrorists who want to annihilate us. I would have to say yes.

The other option is to throw him in jail. I have two problems with that:
1) Tax payers should not have to use their money for criminals to live
2) There is always the chance for escape.

While I realize this is a resonable understanding for a government to hold, we are however not talking about the government, we're talking about a Christian leader.

With that said, what's the difference (with your understanding above) with a Christian leader advocating assasination and a Muslim cleric, that we often condemn, saying the same thing???

With all due respect your idea here that it's "ok" for a Christian leader to advocate violence flies in the face of multiple teachings of Jesus and how we are to treat and view those who hate us. So my question would be what's your justification for this apparent blatant disobedience to what Jesus taught?

[Imblessed]

Hi JC, do you mind if I chime in?

Loving your enemies is what we as CHRISTIANS are supposed to do. In other words, if someone is our enemy because of Christ, we are to love them, to turn the other cheek, and show them the love of Jesus.

As CITIZENS, God has ordained the institution of government to protect us. If the government determines that military action is necessary, then that is why God established such a thing. If someone is our enemy because we're Americans, and is willing to threaten our country, then it's two in the heart, two in the head, and drive on. That's the role of government, but not, as is becoming painfully abundant, the role of the 700 Club. I would like to note that it is not the role of the individual either, but rather the formal established body of government that makes these decisions. I am not justifying violence based on personal decisions.

There is a vast difference between the two roles, and what makes PR so infuriating, is that he can't see that. It is, however, a gross misrepresentation to say that Christians are to be pacifists based on the command to love our enemies.

I think you are right on the money here! :thumbsup:

[Imblessed]

Well, I don't know that I agree totally with you. It sounds to me that maybe you have the two entities confused.

"Turn the other cheek" is pretty self explanatory. Do you know about the context behind Jesus' directions there? Did you know that a Roman soldier could compel a non-citizen to carry his baggage for one Roman mile? Of course, most Jews hated the Romans, and the soldiers thought it was pretty funny to make the Jews serve them. So think about how shocking Jesus instructions were, that if a man compelled you to walk with him one mile, go with him two. That's the nature of what Jesus was telling the Jews. But the Romans were the government, and the Jews were bound by the law of the land, whether they liked it or not.

Anyway, the government and the church, although made of individuals, (Gasp! sometimes, the same individuals are in both bodies) have their distinct roles. When either tries to inhabit the other's arena, we're bound to have problems. I wholeheartedly agree with you that the government has the responsiblity to proactively defend our country. The best defense, is a good offense. :) and again! :thumbsup:

[jcright]

While I realize this is a resonable understanding for a government to hold, we are however not talking about the government, we're talking about a Christian leader.

With that said, what's the difference (with your understanding above) with a Christian leader advocating assasination and a Muslim cleric, that we often condemn, saying the same thing???

With all due respect your idea here that it's "ok" for a Christian leader to advocate violence flies in the face of multiple teachings of Jesus and how we are to treat and view those who hate us. So my question would be what's your justification for this apparent blatant disobedience to what Jesus taught?

Where does it say that we cannot institute the death penalty for justice?

[novcncy]

Where does it say that we cannot institute the death penalty for justice?

The government is God's minister of Justice.

The church is His minister of mercy.

[jcright]

The government is God's minister of Justice.

The church is His minister of mercy.

And the people make up the government and we are the people. Which leads us back to whether or not there is something that says we cannot use the death penalty for justice.

[Andyman_1970]

Where does it say that we cannot institute the death penalty for justice?

Luke 6 comes to mind with regards to our enemies, no reference to justice though, that's God's job - "vengence is mine saith the Lord" (for you KJV types).

Where does it say we can? We are to be obedient to the gov't according to Jesus, but as for a follower of Jesus where does it say we should kill those who kill???

[White Horse]

I think we need to just let Dude and Pat duke it out in a no holds barred loser leave town cage match.

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

Where does it say we can? We are to be obedient to the gov't according to Jesus, but as for a follower of Jesus where does it say we should kill those who kill???


(Genesis 9:6) Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

It's the goverments job to carry out the command to kill those that kill. In our goverment we can vote for people that have a biblical viewpoint. We can also urge leaders to follow a biblical viewpoint.

[novcncy]

And the people make up the government and we are the people. Which leads us back to whether or not there is something that says we cannot use the death penalty for justice.

Nope, the people don't make up the government. The US is a republic, not a democracy. The people we elect to fill the roles are the government. PR is definitely not in any role of government. Now if the President or the VP or some other government official made that decision, then that's their role, and I can guarantee they're not going to announce it before they do it. But a televangelist has no legitimate right to call for an assassination.

[novcncy]

I think we need to just let Dude and Pat duke it out in a no holds barred loser leave town cage match.

And then Jesse Jackson has to take on the winner......:idea:

[Andyman_1970]

(Genesis 9:6) Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.


As a follower of Jesus are you saying we should be Torah observant??? Acts 15 does not indicate that as Gentile Christians we are to be bound by this commandment in Torah.

I find it humorus to see people who "poo poo" the Torah and yet cut and paste from it to make their twisted doctrine work - Jesus plainly says we are to love those who hate us and wish us harm unconditionally, not only that He says we should pray that God blesses them..........that's a pretty hard pill to swallow.

[Andyman_1970]

[QUOTE=novcncyBut a televangelist has no legitimate right to call for an assassination.[/QUOTE]

Not to mention it flies in the face of what Jesus taught.............

[Athanasian Creed]

As a follower of Jesus are you saying we should be Torah observant??? Acts 15 does not indicate that as Gentile Christians we are to be bound by this commandment in Torah.

(snip)



Ok, how 'bout this then -

Romans 13:1-6 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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 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: 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. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

Paul said the government bears the SWORD. It was used, among other things, as an instrument of corporal punishment. Many believe here Paul is advocating the death penalty. ;)


Ray :wave:

[Athanasian Creed]

(snip)

I'm not sure I disagree with Robertson. If assassination is wrong, then why aren't Christians making a bigger deal against corporal punishment? Or abortion? One kills an innocent child, the other kills a convicted person. Both are people. If we aren't going to be up in arms about that, then why are we up in arms about the assassination of a leader?

(snip)





It would be interesting to find out what percentage of Christians are against the death penalty ?? As far as abortion goes, have you not read or seen the reports of Christians (and other pro-lifers) who picket, others who chain themselves together in front of abortion clinics or to the front doors to prevent mothers murdering their children. Of the police brutality used on such people and of the atrocities they suffer while in prison awaiting sentencing ?? Or of other 'Christians' who blow up abortion clinics and kill baby murdering abortionists ?? While we may dismiss the latter as part of a lunatic-fringe group have you heard their reasoning as to why they use force. I've heard from some of them and while i do not agree with killing abortionists it made me think twice about what i believe when they gave a defense as to their actions.

Unfortunately, the above mentioned former group are a small minority. I think many Christians see things such as the murder of children as a "sign of the end times" and do nothing as a result of such a view, thinking that what's to be is to be, nothing can be done. ;)


Ray :wave:

[MatthewDiscipleofGod]

As a follower of Jesus are you saying we should be Torah observant??? Acts 15 does not indicate that as Gentile Christians we are to be bound by this commandment in Torah.

We should follow all of God's word, that includes the O.T. That being said we need to understand that sacrifices were for a certain time and certain laws were for certain circumstances. Acts 15 does though in no way say that Genesis 9:6 isn't valid for today.

[jcright]

Nope, the people don't make up the government. The US is a republic, not a democracy. The people we elect to fill the roles are the government. PR is definitely not in any role of government. Now if the President or the VP or some other government official made that decision, then that's their role, and I can guarantee they're not going to announce it before they do it. But a televangelist has no legitimate right to call for an assassination.

I'd have to disagree with you. Those that we elect into office are supposed to represent our best interest. That's why it has to come down to a personal level first before it can be made a law. Having said that, it comes back to the question of whether or not we can seek justice...not vengeance, but justice. We can love our neighbor (or enemy) but we also need to keep order and safety. If we keep with the only command for love, then we'll only have chaos because of our nature. However, if we stick to what God has used in the past, then I think we'll find that death, as a consequence for actions, is justifiable. I realize that was a different dispensation, but we can still learn from the previous dispensations to help us today.

I think it's kinda sad on our part that we'll make the government do the dirty work and say "It's not our fault, it's what the government decided...therefore my hands are clean". That's such ****. I'm still not convinced that Pat was wrong. He had the courage to ask for justice to be served. I haven't seen anyone give an alternate solution. Perhaps kidnapping would be okay? Send these fanatics to a deserted island where they can't harm anyone but each other. I might be in favor of that...so long as there isn't room for escape.

[novcncy]

I'd have to disagree with you. Those that we elect into office are supposed to represent our best interest. That's why it has to come down to a personal level first before it can be made a law. Having said that, it comes back to the question of whether or not we can seek justice...not vengeance, but justice. We can love our neighbor (or enemy) but we also need to keep order and safety. If we keep with the only command for love, then we'll only have chaos because of our nature. However, if we stick to what God has used in the past, then I think we'll find that death, as a consequence for actions, is justifiable. I realize that was a different dispensation, but we can still learn from the previous dispensations to help us today.

I think it's kinda sad on our part that we'll make the government do the dirty work and say "It's not our fault, it's what the government decided...therefore my hands are clean". That's such ****. I'm still not convinced that Pat was wrong. He had the courage to ask for justice to be served. I haven't seen anyone give an alternate solution. Perhaps kidnapping would be okay? Send these fanatics to a deserted island where they can't harm anyone but each other. I might be in favor of that...so long as there isn't room for escape.

You can disagree all you want. The fact is, the United States is a representative republic.

What's dirty about it? Nothing, that I know of. It's just that there are SEPERATE roles for the entities God created. I'm a Christian, and I was a soldier for over eight years, and if I got a mission from my commander to go take out some dictator, I would execute it (the mission, that is ;), and assuming it was legal) and wouldn't have any moral dilemma at all. But if my PASTOR told me to go execute the same mission, I would think he was crazy, start going to church somewhere else, and report him to the state department, so he didn't incite some other nutjob to jeopardize the position of the US. See, the pastor doesn't have the authority that my Colonel or General or whatever has, because that military officer is the representative of the government.

If this little example doesn't illuminate the differance for you, I don't think anything will. Good luck.

[jcright]

You can disagree all you want. The fact is, the United States is a representative republic.

What's dirty about it? Nothing, that I know of. It's just that there are SEPERATE roles for the entities God created. I'm a Christian, and I was a soldier for over eight years, and if I got a mission from my commander to go take out some dictator, I would execute it (the mission, that is ;), and assuming it was legal) and wouldn't have any moral dilemma at all. But if my PASTOR told me to go execute the same mission, I would think he was crazy, start going to church somewhere else, and report him to the state department, so he didn't incite some other nutjob to jeopardize the position of the US. See, the pastor doesn't have the authority that my Colonel or General or whatever has, because that military officer is the representative of the government.

If this little example doesn't illuminate the differance for you, I don't think anything will. Good luck.

So if the government tells you to do something that goes against what God says, you are going to do it?

[novcncy]

So if the government tells you to do something that goes against what God says, you are going to do it?

Where in the world does that come from? Are you really having this hard of a time understanding this concept, or are you being intentionally abstract?

Of course we must obey God, rather than man.

[jcright]

Where in the world does that come from? Are you really having this hard of a time understanding this concept, or are you being intentionally abstract?

Of course we must obey God, rather than man.

Think about it. As a solider, you were willing to do what the government tells you to do so long as it is legal. Legal is not necessarily the same thing as biblically correct. If we Christians decide that it's not okay to take a life, then you as a solider would be going against God's Word.

On the other hand, if it is okay, for the sake of justice, to take a life, then I don't see why we are freaking out about Pat asking for justice.

We need to make up our minds. Is the death penalty wrong or not? Leaving it up to the government is not the answer.

[statrei]

On the other hand, if it is okay, for the sake of justice, to take a life, then I don't see why we are freaking out about Pat asking for justice.
Justice for what purpose? Is Pat a member of some international tribunal? What is the crime that was committed?

[jcright]

Justice for what purpose?
To keep the criminals in line. Keeps things from going to a chaotic state. It's a God thing.

Is Pat a member of some international tribunal?
Don't know, don't care. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to an opinion or to express that opinion.

What is the crime that was committed?
I think the conversation has gone to murder or the planning thereof. Not sure if this leader has actually committed it or is helping to plan for it or has been a part of previous attempts at it. However, he has been charged with harboring murders.

[JPPT1974]

Ok, how 'bout this then -

Romans 13:1-6 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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 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: 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. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.


Ray :wave:

If we resist the Lord, then the Lord will resist us the verse is saying. And that God wants us to know what is good. Meaning not just obeying Him but doing what is right. Don't make it an easier said than done situation. Just Do It!!

[statrei]

I think the conversation has gone to murder or the planning thereof. Not sure if this leader has actually committed it or is helping to plan for it or has been a part of previous attempts at it. However, he has been charged with harboring murders.I am glad you are not a part of any judicial system and I hope you never are.

[MrJim]

As Christians we are only here as Ambassadors of our true home: The Kingdom of Heaven. We should have no political allegiences to worldly governments. As citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven we are put here as a colony to do the work of God. It is not an "amish" approach at all but rather there is all sorts of Kingdom work to be done without having to immerse ourselves in the locals political business.

There is a doctrine of the two kingdoms that has been lost by most over time. And so we often view ourselves first as American/Canadian/Russian (whatever) and as Christians second. That is simply idolatry--anything that has preeminence before God is an idol. You cannot serve two masters.

[seebs]

As Christians we are only here as Ambassadors of our true home: The Kingdom of Heaven. We should have no political allegiences to worldly governments. As citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven we are put here as a colony to do the work of God. It is not an "amish" approach at all but rather there is all sorts of Kingdom work to be done without having to immerse ourselves in the locals political business.

There is a doctrine of the two kingdoms that has been lost by most over time. And so we often view ourselves first as American/Canadian/Russian (whatever) and as Christians second. That is simply idolatry--anything that has preeminence before God is an idol. You cannot serve two masters.

This post inspired me to respond, but I can't really add anything to it. Amen, brother.

[Imblessed]

As Christians we are only here as Ambassadors of our true home: The Kingdom of Heaven. We should have no political allegiences to worldly governments. As citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven we are put here as a colony to do the work of God. It is not an "amish" approach at all but rather there is all sorts of Kingdom work to be done without having to immerse ourselves in the locals political business.

There is a doctrine of the two kingdoms that has been lost by most over time. And so we often view ourselves first as American/Canadian/Russian (whatever) and as Christians second. That is simply idolatry--anything that has preeminence before God is an idol. You cannot serve two masters.:amen:

while I am proud to be american and I try to do my duty and vote(as sad as it makes me), I totally agree with the above quote!

[jcright]

I am glad you are not a part of any judicial system and I hope you never are.

Probably is a good thing. I would advocate for a false peace to ensure safety. Everyone would think it would be legalistic...but at least we wouldn't have to worry about being blown up.

[jcright]

It would be interesting to find out what percentage of Christians are against the death penalty ?? As far as abortion goes, have you not read or seen the reports of Christians (and other pro-lifers) who picket, others who chain themselves together in front of abortion clinics or to the front doors to prevent mothers murdering their children. Of the police brutality used on such people and of the atrocities they suffer while in prison awaiting sentencing ?? Or of other 'Christians' who blow up abortion clinics and kill baby murdering abortionists ?? While we may dismiss the latter as part of a lunatic-fringe group have you heard their reasoning as to why they use force. I've heard from some of them and while i do not agree with killing abortionists it made me think twice about what i believe when they gave a defense as to their actions.

Unfortunately, the above mentioned former group are a small minority. I think many Christians see things such as the murder of children as a "sign of the end times" and do nothing as a result of such a view, thinking that what's to be is to be, nothing can be done. ;)


Ray :wave:

Somehow I missed this post. I agree, I think it would be very interesting to know how many support the death penalty and how many don't. I'm finding, as I'm scrolling through these posts, it very interesting to see why they are for or against. I'm also finding it interesting as to how many people get defensive and exasperated because someone (at the moment mostly me) is not won over to their view.

I've heard reports about Christians who take the law into their own hands. They are hurting the cause more than helping it. This is why I think we should be advocating for stricter laws with stricter consequences. It also needs to start in the family, trickle through the schools and church. If we are taught God's Word then maybe we won't be so inclined to want to break God's Word. I used to think legalism was a bad idea...I'm beginning to think that it might be a good idea. We're just so self-centered that I think it would help us.