06-22-2009, 04:54 PM
Yes. He does. He wants us to be merciful in our individual dealings one with another. Between you and me - mercy. The state has other obligations. The state has the obligation of justice.
He still would have driven them from the temple though.
NO what Christ did was not a violation of the Mitzvot. He might have violated Talmudic interpretation of the law - but not the law itself. If he had - they would have had him up on charges. You are also overlooking a very basic concept here - the one that got Him all fired up in the first place - injustice. The money changers were using God and the obligations we owe to Him to make themselves rich.
Another thing I think that you have misunderstood is that I was not calling for mercy in all cases. I was stating that some cases are not cut and dry and should be judged on their own merits. When I entered this thread I was bemoaning the fact that Donte Stallworth got off light for the crime he committed. I wasn't inclined for the court to show him mercy after his particular act. I guess I shouldn't have commented on you statement of blanket punishment for all because that seems to be were all the misunderstandings started. I was not nor have I been saying that mercy should be shown to all by the court system but in some cases it might be appropriate. Most criminal cases that go to court are pretty cut and dry but for the cases that may have some type of mitigating circumstances I have no issues with a judge who wants to show mercy.
We are each entitled to our opinions and fortunately opinions are neither right nor wrong. They are just opinions. I value your input in all the discussions that you participate in and I respect you as a person. Sometime I agree with you, sometimes I don't but that is the nature of opinions and these forums are all about sharing opinions.
Maybe I'll start a thread and everyone can state their personal theology and it might save some confusion in the future and it would most certainly be an interesting (and probably heated) discussion. What you and I are tossing back and forth is one of those debatable matters that Paul references in Romans!Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
06-22-2009, 05:19 PM
We are just never going to agree on things. We're not coming at this issue - or just about ANY issue from the same angle. We both see a need to have mercy and justice - we just completely disagree on when each is called for and who should administer each. The church should bring mercy - and the state should stand for justice. When the two get confused we end up with people who think that the government should be dealing in charity and that deviancy in doctrine is worthy of death. :(
You and I and the body of Christ should be ready and willing to forgive any repentant soul - there should still be some measure of restitution - but forgiveness and mercy should be the rule of our lives. The state however should stand strong and uncompromisingly for justice. The state itself should never advocate for anything less than justice. And the way the laws are written currently with regards to driving under the influence - are NOT written to attain justice. Excuses are written right into the law and these laws need to be changed. There is no justice for the victims of drunk drivers - and when someone says that we need justice that person is accused of wanting revenge.
People have no problem driving drunk because people have no concern over the penalties that they might face if caught. This case is a prime example. Kill someone while driving drunk and you can expect a slap on the wrist.
Last edited by PoliCon; 06-22-2009 at 05:22 PM.Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
06-22-2009, 07:57 PM
Oh, perhaps I can give you some insight on the addicted mind. For some people (addicts like me) it isn't t a matter of not being concerned over the penalties of drinking and driving. I was very concerned about what would happen and I was even more fearful of the potential consequences like what happened to your loved ones. However, once a drug has control of someone the need for the drug overrides all that. The desire for a drug becomes a physical need with physical consequences for not getting the drug. It's like being a person dying of thirst. An addict will do whatever it takes to get the drug including risking imprisonment or death.
Peace and blessing,
GaryNever argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
06-22-2009, 08:08 PM
Per this report it sounds like this guy walked right in front of Stallworth's car. Given this information I can understand the lenient sentence. Who knows, even if he hadn't been drinking he might have hit the guy anyway.
The contents of the video apparently had a significant impact on the ultimate plea deal. Though the 30-day prison term and two years of house arrest light have triggered significant criticism, the ultimate question for a jury would have been whether the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Stallworth caused or contributed to the death of Mario Reyes. At a minimum, the contents of the tape, as they have been described to us, indicate that a reasonable jury could have found reasonable doubt.2009 CU Pro Football Pick'em Champ
06-22-2009, 11:14 PMNever argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|