Congress Shackles Westboro Baptist Church

[GhostWriter16]

I think if you dont appreciate the context of the legal procedure of the day, then your assumption about what it all means may indeed be lacking.

Just wondering, do you think that it was ONLY because of the legal procedure? Or do you agree with me that he was also conveying a spiritual message?

Also, I do agree with the quote above, although I don't necessarily think that the fact that there was a legal procedural issue necessarily means he didn't also have a spiritual point to make. He could have addressed the question in a "Legalistic" way and say "Since you don't have three judges present and the necessary witnesses and whatever, don't kill her." But instead, his choice of words seems to be intended yes to avoid condoning a breech in the Hebrew Law, but to go further and say "He who is without sin cast the first stone." If I recall correctly, anyone who had ever committed the same sin was prohibited from participating in the executions (Although I could be incorrect about that, I seem to recall it being mentioned in a commentary somewhere) but it was not required normally for the person to be totally sinless. Jesus went further (Fulfilling the Law) and said that anyone without sin throws the stone. I don't think there's any good reason to say he was making a point about the death penalty, after all, you can judge someone and give them a life sentence, but he was trying to make a theological point that only because of God's grace is EVERY sin not punishable by death. Its meant to show hypocricy and about how they, even though they were righteous in their own eyes, needed the same Savior just as badly as the adulterous woman did.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[MobBoss]

Well, would the saying 'he who is without sin cast the first stone' preclude at least someone, say a witness, from testifying against her? Because according to the law, she must be condemned by witness's and judges prior to being stoned. And yet, no one was even willing to testify against her after this was said.

And no, I dont think it was solely about legal procedure; but I do think knowing the process is still key to understanding what is being told, and why.

 

[JollyRoger]

If knowing the legal procedure is so important, why did God not divinely inspire one of the writers of the gospels to put in an explanation?

 

[GhostWriter16]

If knowing the legal procedure is so important, why did God not divinely inspire one of the writers of the gospels to put in an explanation?

Because anyone who was there at the time would have immediately understood it?

Sometimes God leaves certain things less clear so we'll search on their own.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Because anyone who was there at the time would have immediately understood it?

Sometimes God leaves certain things less clear so we'll search on their own.

Or you know, so it's easier for people to interpret them in the ways they wish rather than the way they were 'intended'.

I find it hard to believe god would leave so much interpreting and searching up to his sinning sons and daughters.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Or you know, so it's easier for people to interpret them in the ways they wish rather than the way they were 'intended'.

I find it hard to believe god would leave so much interpreting and searching up to his sinning sons and daughters.

Since you aren't a Christian, I really don't care what you think about my faith to be honest.

Paul seems to think that as we "Mature" we will change our views on certain things:

http://bible.cc/philippians/3-15.htm

The reality, also, is that the books were originally written in Hebrew and Greek. Any Hebrew or Greek metaphors would be harder to figure out, as would something like, you know, a nuance in the Jewish legal system.

 

[Flying Pig]

On the contrary, I think if it had been totally clear and laid down a perscriptive (spelling?) set of rules detailing exactly how to live, it would have rapidly become outdated - somebody living by it nowadays would have been as much an anachronism as somebody trying to live by the Roman model of virtue (which essentially revolved around trying to be Henry V). Instead, the Bible gives us good general ideas on how to live, and a good example (Jesus), and invites us to read it and then think how we should best live. Odds are, the answer you come up with yourself is the best one.

 

[JollyRoger]

It just seems that rather simple, straightforward messages in the Bible get twisted by Christians in ways that would make the Pharisees blush.

 

[MobBoss]

It just seems that rather simple, straightforward messages in the Bible get twisted by sinners in ways that would make the Pharisees blush.

Fixed that for you.

 

[JollyRoger]

Like I said

 

[Formaldehyde]

Fixed that for you.

What were you just saying in a recent thread about people modifying your statements in quotes?

 

[GhostWriter16]

It just seems that rather simple, straightforward messages in the Bible get twisted by Christians in ways that would make the Pharisees blush.

To the non-Christian, yes.

However, even the above isn't a totally true statement. I've become aware of a few cases that I just have a hard time reconciling "Traditional" Evangelical interpretations with what the text actually says. Everyone twists at least some scriptures. The idea is to try to avoid doing so and to not do so willfully.

 

[JollyRoger]

You should see the game of twister going on by whoever started that Chamber ask-a-thread in the Tavern last night.

 

[caketastydelish]

In terms of pay, American soldiers are already getting ripped off (see my mercenary thread).

To think they have to deal with people protesting their funerals too would make it just unbearable for me. My opinion is they should not be allowed to protest military funerals. Whether the law agrees with me or not, I do not know.

 

[GhostWriter16]

In terms of pay, American soldiers are already getting ripped off (see my mercenary thread).

To think they have to deal with people protesting their funerals too would make it just unbearable for me. My opinion is they should not be allowed to protest military funerals. Whether the law agrees with me or not, I do not know.

So basically the argument is "Since we don't pay our soldiers enough, we should restrict free speech as well?"

I think the idea that they can't protest on private property is blatantly unconstitutional.

Now, if they do go onto private property to protest, the 2nd amendment and castle doctrine just might come in real handy

 

[JollyRoger]

Free speech does not equal freedom to trespass

 

[GhostWriter16]

Free speech does not equal freedom to trespass

That was my point in the post above yours. That was why I said if its on PUBLIC PROPERTY it has to be legal, but if they do it on private property, invoke the castle doctrine.

 

[caketastydelish]

I am nowhere near what could be called a "nationalistic" person, but the point is, soldiers have an absolutely terrible job. They get paid practically nothing and they have to go off in very stressful (not to mention life-threatening) situations.

Heck, I'll even go as far to say that I completely disagree with American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that is besides the point. The point is, the men in women in uniform have an absolutely terrible job, and I just feel sorry for them.

I would not be opposed to a law that forces idiots to leave them alone.

 

[JollyRoger]

American soldiers get lots of benefits and perks. Many collect "disability" when they get out of service while holding down a private sector job that is similar to their military job.

 

[GhostWriter16]

I am nowhere near what could be called a "nationalistic" person, but the point is, soldiers have an absolutely terrible job. They get paid practically nothing and they have to go off in very stressful (not to mention life-threatening) situations.

Heck, I'll even go as far to say that I completely disagree with American presence in Iraq and Afghanistan. But that is besides the point. The point is, the men in women in uniform have an absolutely terrible job, and I just feel sorry for them.

I would not be opposed to a law that forces idiots to leave them alone.

I didn't use the word "Nationalistic" to describe you. That said, the fact of the matter is such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional. Do you have any comments on that fact?

I don't remember who said it, but I heard a quote once: Free speech can refer only to unpopular speech. Popular speech, by definition, needs no protecting. The man is right. What if you find out one day your opinions are unpopular and getting restricted?

Now, I get, I don't think anyone here is as radical or hateful as the WBC. However, the point remains. To give a more moderate example, did the Philadelphia 11 deserve to be arrested for preaching against homosexuality at a gay pride event? Some people think yes, because apparently there's a right not to be offended in the Bill of Rights somewhere, I think it was the 28th one... oh wait. Oh, yeah, and freedom of speech is first. The whole point was to avoid people getting arrested for controversial, political speech. It wasn't about obscenity, or pornography, as some would have it, or Twilight, but that deeply-held political and religious convictions could be expressed, even if extremely unpopular.

Now, I do think you are trying to do the right thing by protecting our soldiers. Many well meaning people do the same thing with flag-burning. But the reality is, there's no right not to be offended, no matter how stressful your life is.

If the government takes advantage of our servicemen, why not attack that instead of saying "Well, the government does one thing wrong, so let's give them authority to do something else and hopefully that will fix it."

The inherent illogic in that quote (Meaning the one I just gave) is pretty much what drives small-government conservative ideology.