Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mari

So what punishment would you give homosexuals and heretics then?
What could get them to see your way and not resent you for it?

I'm not saying we would do that.

Most heretics were punished by fines, banishment or excommunication. That seems valid, to me.

I haven't researched the punishments of homosexuals much, so I can't say about them.

[Mari]

Well, I wasn't asking about what they did in the past, I'm interested in what you think would be an acceptable punishment nowadays, with so many people fighting for their rights etc. I do realize that your ideas are ideas and not ready to be implemented, but I was just wondering if you had thought of the practical side of things.
I'm sorry, I am a rather practical person myself most of the time, so I like concreteness

[littleadanel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

The 1450-1750 witchcraft trials were at the very end of the Medieval Ages. They were more of a Reformation and Early Enlightenment phenomenon. There were some witchcraft trials before that, and I know less about them (I just finished taking an entire course on the later witchcraft trials, which is the vast majority of them), for the big number of witchcraft burnings was during the 1450-1750 time period.

I don't have a problem with the principle of killing witches for witchcraft. They are dealing with Satanic powers, and it is going to be harmful to anyone they "bless."

o.O

Ok, this made me curious. If you don't mind me asking, what was this course like, what did you learn about? How did you examine the trials? Just askin' because I, too, had a course (this time last year) on witch beliefs and trials, though I suspect our topics were different. Ours was more centered around witch beliefs - with the trial documents providing a source material of people's ideas in those times, about witches and their practices -, and their possible origins.

Just curious...

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't have a problem with the principle of killing witches for witchcraft. They are dealing with Satanic powers, and it is going to be harmful to anyone they "bless."

Sometimes you are so off the deep end Lief that its not even worth replying BUT...

Of course you realize this is the same kind of horribly flawed logic that allowed Nazis to exterminate jews and Pagans to kill off Christians right? If I believe Christianity is evil and harmful do I therefore have the right to have you burned at the stake?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Sometimes you are so off the deep end Lief that its not even worth replying BUT...

Of course you realize this is the same kind of horribly flawed logic that allowed Nazis to exterminate jews and Pagans to kill off Christians right? If I believe Christianity is evil and harmful do I therefore have the right to have you burned at the stake?

This is a rhetorical question, right?

Obviously it would be wrong to kill people for the wrong reasons. What they do in the former Soviet Union to Christians is persecution, Lief's system is justice.

What gets me, more, is that Lief believes that what these 'witches' do is dangerous. Such an odd belief to have, in America. Personally, it reminds me of Mark Twain's "War Prayer." They're superstitious, and completely off that whole New Testament "Golden Rule" business.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't have a problem with the principle of killing witches for witchcraft. They are dealing with Satanic powers, and it is going to be harmful to anyone they "bless."

I agree with IR and sis. This is hypocrasy. It is wrong to assume rule over life, for anyone in any religion or of any political persuasion.

I do think that punishments of homosexuals and heretics for their crimes is justified, but the punishments that were brought to bear on people most commonly were usually nowhere near the diabolical images of popular imagination today.

Heretics: Maybe. they were basically committing treason. But why homosexuals?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Whoa, this is soundin' mighty dangerous. Lief, I have to say I seriously, seriously disagree with you about witchcraft.

As far as punishing heretics is concerned, and state-enforced Christianity, that doesn't make any sense... you realise you'd be the one gettin' fined and banished, don't you? But regardless, religion is not something that the state can enforce. It is an interior matter, a matter of the heart, of the soul, of faith. You can't make someone be a Christian. All you'll have is a state filled with insincerity.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Whoa, this is soundin' mighty dangerous. Lief, I have to say I seriously, seriously disagree with you about witchcraft.

I'm not coming up with this out of my own head, of course. This has been the normal Christian position for at least one and a half thousand years. Perspectives only changed with the increased secularization of society.

And Christians throughout history saw things this way for a reason. Witchcraft, as many practicing witches will tell you, can be used to kill or harm people. They will say that only a minority of witches would use magic in this way. I've heard this from a professing witch, before.

But "good" magic, conservative Christians also generally agree comes from Satan, a use of power in seemingly beneficial ways. And it also is generally agreed among conservatives to be ultimately harmful for people involved in its use or reception. This is because the Bible is pretty clear, in its description of witches, that magic is Satanic.

The decision to punish such practices under law was first established by God in the Old Covenant. Christians all the way up to the modern era have usually acknowledged the validity of this particular civil law. Christians today still agree that the much of modern law has originally Christian roots, but most of those roots, it must be admitted, come from the Old Covenant still. And many also will agree that those roots are being eroded with time and increasing secularization.

The Old Testament is the main place in the Bible that talks about what laws a state should establish in its country. The New Testament was less concerned with the government, because the first one or two centuries of Christians had very, very little role in influencing the government. Next to none. So they didn't generally write about how Christians in government should behave.

There are some scriptures that talk a little bit about it, though, in the New Testament. And the political implications of some of those are being completely ignored by modern Christians, who usually interpret them in pretty new ways, now.

Old governments, during the Medieval Ages, rooted much of their law upon principles derived from the Bible. They also took things from old Roman laws. Those parts of Roman laws that ran strongly counter to their view of Christianity, they over time came to generally change. But many of the civil laws in Christian kingdoms were taken from the Old Testament. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it.

The interpretations of the scriptures as the basis of law was strongly changed with the Enlightenment. Laws against abortion and infanticide were established because of the principles of the Bible. Now, because of the new acceptability of man's making up his own principles, abortion has become legal in modern, secularized society, where it was not legal in Christian societies. The main reason that we reject the laws accepting abortion is that we live in the time period when abortion was recently illegal.

Similar battles were fought, historically, over such issues as the removal of laws against witchcraft, laws against heresy, and laws against sexual immorality. The currents of time and secularism are what has changed common Christian views. Not God.

We're getting kicked out of the government and our beliefs are getting watered down more and more in society, so because we want to get along, we change with society.

It's worth noting that the common Catholic perspective accepting religious freedom only became the Vatican position in the mid-20th century.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

As far as punishing heretics is concerned, and state-enforced Christianity, that doesn't make any sense... you realise you'd be the one gettin' fined and banished, don't you?

In today's society, yes. If the principles of the world were established in law.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

But regardless, religion is not something that the state can enforce. It is an interior matter, a matter of the heart, of the soul, of faith. You can't make someone be a Christian. All you'll have is a state filled with insincerity.

I agree that you can't make someone a true believer through laws. But I think you can protect true believers through laws. Heresy, and the spread of false religious beliefs, can erode people's beliefs. Especially for weaker people.

[Mari]

I assume then that the Christians you speak of in a general sense would not include me and many other Christians who do not agree with your opinion?
Too bad.

[Nautipus]

Lief, do you still believe it is morally sound and justified to kill witches? Why not try to convert them to Christianity, meet evil with good, I think you know the verse.

There are reasons those practices diminished: they are barbaric at best. As a Christian, you should recognize this. Christ didnt say "go forth and terrorize the masses."

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I was still kinda hanging on "Judge Not lest ye be judged", myself, but that's a good one, too.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I was still kinda hanging on "Judge Not lest ye be judged", myself, but that's a good one, too.

Much of my response to Nautipus below responds directly to this passage, as well.

Jesus was talking, in the verse you have quoted, to a crowd of people who would apply it in their personal lives. I believe that on a personal level, this passage applies. Since Jesus was talking to private citizens rather than government officials, this is likely how it was intended to apply. If you apply it to the government's prosecution of crimes, the whole corpus of our criminal law goes out the window. Most Christians, I'll wager, don't see that as the proper interpretation.

I will add that you should also consider Romans 13, when you consider this passage.

Romans 13:4 says, "[The one in authority] is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

The government, according to St. Paul, has the mandate to judge. Jesus was talking about how people should behave in their private lives. If someone hits me, I should turn the other cheek. If someone wrongs me, I should forgive rather than retaliating. This rejection of judging is to be practiced on an individual basis, and it is beautiful and plainly holy. For society to be an ordered place, however, the earthly government has to judge.

Originally Posted by Nautipus

Lief, do you still believe it is morally sound and justified to kill witches? Why not try to convert them to Christianity, meet evil with good, I think you know the verse.

This is why I support such ministries as Prison Fellowship, people who meet those in prison and try to bring them to Christ, changing their lives. And I simultaneously support the authorities who put the prisoners in jail in the first place. These two perspectives are not inconsistent.

I believe that when there are murderers in society, they should be brought to justice. The same for thieves. The same for witches.

I believe that Christ's love should be brought to all of these people too, and the opportunity to repent should be afforded them. Of course, if a murderer repents and asks for forgiveness, does that mean that the penalty of the law should be removed, in his case? The man might be faking his repentance in order to get out of prison quickly.

The law must be enforced whether the person repents or not. Repentance should be offered though as an option, because if their repentance is true, it might save the souls of those who engage in it.

Justice should be tempered with mercy, though. That was plainly Jesus' teaching, when he saved the woman accused of adultery from those that planned to stone her. He did not tell the Pharisees that the law they were following was wrong, but he instead showed them that we should practice mercy as well.

I believe that is true in the case of murderers and thieves as well as in the case of witches. There should be a law against these crimes. Justice should be exacted on all of these cases where people harm other people, and themselves. Justice should also be tempered with mercy, however.

And considering the small number of witchcraft trials throughout the Medieval Ages, until the end of the Medieval Ages (1450-1750), I suspect that this is how it used to be generally practiced, until the beginning of the modern era.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that thieves and murderers should be treated only with mercy, and do you think that all earthly laws against their actions should be repealed?

If not, why not?

Originally Posted by Nautipus

There are reasons those practices diminished: they are barbaric at best. As a Christian, you should recognize this. Christ didnt say "go forth and terrorize the masses."

Well, Romans 13 said that if a person does wrong, he should be afraid, for the ruler doesn't bear the sword for nothing. And it says that this ruler's use of his power is his mandate by God. I don't care if a murderer who has committed a crime feels scared of the government that's coming after him! In fact, it's good that he does. He's that much more likely to either make a mistake or give himself up.

Laws against witchcraft did not terrify the masses. The masses were not generally practicing witchcraft. Some people did. And at the beginning of the modern era, many people were unjustly killed when accused of witchcraft they never engaged in. This was horrible, and much of what was done then is justly condemned today.

But even at that time, most witchcraft prosecutions were local affairs rather than widespread "witch hunts." About 50,000 people across Europe were killed in witch hunts, in 300 years. This is a horrible figure, but it is also relatively small when considered against the numbers of people killed for other crimes. And the common people tended to feel it was just. They were usually the ones who called for a witch trial in the first place. The "masses" were not terrified. They were much more afraid of witches than they were of witchcraft trials.

Originally Posted by Mari

I assume then that the Christians you speak of in a general sense would not include me and many other Christians who do not agree with your opinion?
Too bad.

I don't know exactly what part of my post you're responding to, so I'm afraid I don't know what you're saying. I don't consider you (from what I presently know of your beliefs) to be a conservative Christian, if that's what you mean. I didn't know that you are a Christian at all, in fact, until just now.

I don't know what you're saying, though, because I don't know what part of my post you're responding to.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Really Lief, your point of view is so odd. First of all, your POV on what constitutes "crime" is so completely random. Part of it is "crime" and part of it is "sin", and you don't seem to need evidence for either. It's clear to me that, as far as 'witchcraft" goes, you're exactly at 'she turned me into a newt." with it. Where on earth would you get the idea that 'witches' are dangerous to anyone safe in God's hands? They may be misguided, or ill-intentioned (of course you want witches' 'blessings' punished too) but why would you fear them?

Last I checked, Satan himself couldn't touch the godly. Why would his minions have a power stronger than his, assuming any of these people existed? It just makes no sense.

So much of your program seems to be about removing the temptation to sin from people. But God himself faced temptation, and taught people some of the ways of resisting it. That's part of how people develop, spiritually.

Your cherry picking of Bible verses is so weird. This business about whose audience got "judge not" and the connection to Romans is just ...well, weird. I mean, why don't you point out that Jesus was lecturing Jewish men? Then you can tell me that not being neither a Jew, nor a man, he wasn't speaking to me, at all. In fact, my ancestors, at the time, were painting themselves blue, and He didn't choose to appear to them, so hey, I'm completely off the hook for this message.

Your point of view is that the standards for godliness are completely different depending on whether you hold public office or not? That'll be a big relief to Elliot Spitzer.

And, I could point out, that if you have THAT slavish a respect for 'those in governmental authority" you can stop complaining about public schools, abortion, vaccinations, and whatever else they choose to impose on you. After all, you've got Paul's word for it that they're inspired and empowered by God in these policies.

[Mari]

Lief, I was referring to your general (and loose if I may add) use of the term Christian. I am Christian, but I do not feel like the Christian you are describing.

Furthermore, though human law is human law and we should obey that, I do believe that we are not the ones to judge morality. God gave us laws through Mozes, in the form of the Ten Commandments. But it is IMHO God who will do the final judging.

Okay, I'm talking to several people at the same time here, so I kinda forgot what point I wanted to make...

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Much of my response to Nautipus below responds directly to this passage, as well.

Jesus was talking, in the verse you have quoted, to a crowd of people who would apply it in their personal lives. I believe that on a personal level, this passage applies. Since Jesus was talking to private citizens rather than government officials, this is likely how it was intended to apply. If you apply it to the government's prosecution of crimes, the whole corpus of our criminal law goes out the window. Most Christians, I'll wager, don't see that as the proper interpretation.

I will add that you should also consider Romans 13, when you consider this passage.

Romans 13:4 says, "[The one in authority] is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer."

The government, according to St. Paul, has the mandate to judge. Jesus was talking about how people should behave in their private lives. If someone hits me, I should turn the other cheek. If someone wrongs me, I should forgive rather than retaliating. This rejection of judging is to be practiced on an individual basis, and it is beautiful and plainly holy. For society to be an ordered place, however, the earthly government has to judge.

So if I was actually in office I could dish out judgement in any way I wish? If this is true, Lief, why are you so adamant about public schools and....oh, wait, sis beat me to it.

( I am NOT discrediting Paul's testimony here) So, if a government has the right to come after you for a crime (which it should, to a point), would that mean that I could deal out the punishments I see fit? This ties in to the point about judgment in office. But why does a mere man have the right to say either way? Why do we listen to the flesh and not God?

This is why I support such ministries as Prison Fellowship, people who meet those in prison and try to bring them to Christ, changing their lives. And I simultaneously support the authorities who put the prisoners in jail in the first place. These two perspectives are not inconsistent.

Okay, that sounds pretty good.

I believe that when there are murderers in society, they should be brought to justice. The same for thieves. The same for witches.

But on who's authority? Your's? The government'? Maybe, just maybe, God's? If you hit someone at a crosswalk by mistake and kill them, should you go to jail, even if you stopped to help? What if the govenmental office says so? What is legal, is not always right, Lief.

I believe that Christ's love should be brought to all of these people too, and the opportunity to repent should be afforded them. Of course, if a murderer repents and asks for forgiveness, does that mean that the penalty of the law should be removed, in his case? The man might be faking his repentance in order to get out of prison quickly.

The law must be enforced whether the person repents or not. Repentance should be offered though as an option, because if their repentance is true, it might save the souls of those who engage in it.

Justice should be tempered with mercy, though. That was plainly Jesus' teaching, when he saved the woman accused of adultery from those that planned to stone her. He did not tell the Pharisees that the law they were following was wrong, but he instead showed them that we should practice mercy as well.

I agree with most of this.

I believe that is true in the case of murderers and thieves as well as in the case of witches. There should be a law against these crimes. Justice should be exacted on all of these cases where people harm other people, and themselves. Justice should also be tempered with mercy, however.

And considering the small number of witchcraft trials throughout the Medieval Ages, until the end of the Medieval Ages (1450-1750), I suspect that this is how it used to be generally practiced, until the beginning of the modern era.

Out of curiosity, do you believe that thieves and murderers should be treated only with mercy, and do you think that all earthly laws against their actions should be repealed?

If not, why not?

Back to the crosswalk analogy, who claims malicious intent? And to say that all laws should be repealed is useless. People will always make their own rules, it is almost constant. Malicious intent should be paramount. (Along with stupidity for that matter )

Well, Romans 13 said that if a person does wrong, he should be afraid, for the ruler doesn't bear the sword for nothing. And it says that this ruler's use of his power is his mandate by God. I don't care if a murderer who has committed a crime feels scared of the government that's coming after him! In fact, it's good that he does. He's that much more likely to either make a mistake or give himself up.

Yes. Very true, but once again: who says the government is taking the right course of action in their judgment. Not that it matters in the end (the very very end), but, in your view, should they not at least consult the Lord? In a perfect world human judgement, of course, would not be a factor, but one never knows.

The ruler is given the sword for a good reason: to protect the masses according to what they think is the best way, not the other way around.

Laws against witchcraft did not terrify the masses. The masses were not generally practicing witchcraft. Some people did. And at the beginning of the modern era, many people were unjustly killed when accused of witchcraft they never engaged in. This was horrible, and much of what was done then is justly condemned today.

But even at that time, most witchcraft prosecutions were local affairs rather than widespread "witch hunts." About 50,000 people across Europe were killed in witch hunts, in 300 years. This is a horrible figure, but it is also relatively small when considered against the numbers of people killed for other crimes. And the common people tended to feel it was just. They were usually the ones who called for a witch trial in the first place. The "masses" were not terrified. They were much more afraid of witches than they were of witchcraft trials.

But whose to know who did or not? A jealous woman could accuse a man's wife of it rather easily. Simple superstition put on a pedestal.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Nautipus

There are reasons those practices diminished: they are barbaric at best. As a Christian, you should recognize this. Christ didnt say "go forth and terrorize the masses."

Hear hear!

I find it reassuring that the liefs' of the world are being reduced. Draconian anything scares me.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It's clear to me that, as far as 'witchcraft" goes, you're exactly at 'she turned me into a newt." with it.

I got better!






(Oh come on, admit it many of us were just waiting until Monty python was quoted in this discussion. )

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I'm not coming up with this out of my own head, of course. This has been the normal Christian position for at least one and a half thousand years. Perspectives only changed with the increased secularization of society.

I'm aware that you are not coming up with this out of your head. Do you know the justification that was given for witch-slaying. The book of Leviticus: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". I, personally, do not think that as a Christian, I ought to live by the Old Law as my guide.

It's worth noting that the common Catholic perspective accepting religious freedom only became the Vatican position in the mid-20th century.

It's also worth noting that Catholicism was not monolithic.

In today's society, yes. If the principles of the world were established in law.

No, I'm not referring to the principles of the world, I'm referring to the anti-heresy laws of the past.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Eärniel

I got better!






(Oh come on, admit it many of us were just waiting until Monty python was quoted in this discussion. )

Lol!

Originally Posted by Mari

Lief, I was referring to your general (and loose if I may add) use of the term Christian. I am Christian, but I do not feel like the Christian you are describing.

Notice that a few times, I qualified my term to "conservative." Because of your statement, "I do believe that we are not the ones to judge morality," among other things you've said on Entmoot, I'd consider you to be liberal, so several of the things I said would apply less to you. But again, as you haven't given me specifics of what I said that doesn't work, I can't have much idea as to whether I made a linguistic error or not.

Originally Posted by Mari

Furthermore, though human law is human law and we should obey that, I do believe that we are not the ones to judge morality. God gave us laws through Mozes, in the form of the Ten Commandments. But it is IMHO God who will do the final judging.

Yes, he will do the final judging. Yet, as you pointed out, we should also obey a human law while here on Earth.

I agree with you that it is not for us to decide what is moral and what is not. That is why I believe we should follow Biblical teachings on morality, as well as the authoritative religious teachings of the Early Church Fathers and the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Really Lief, your point of view is so odd. First of all, your POV on what constitutes "crime" is so completely random. Part of it is "crime" and part of it is "sin", and you don't seem to need evidence for either.

First of all, I will say that because I believe the Bible to be inerrant, if its condemnation of witchcraft was all the evidence needed, it would be sufficient for me. There is very good reason, in my view, to believe the Bible to be inerrant, but discussing this foundational issue would lead to a whole different (and very broad) debate.

"Sin" is condemned in God's eyes. "Crime" is condemned in human eyes. My position that witchcraft constitutes a crime is based first on the Bible. The Old and New Testaments present witchcraft clearly as a real, powerful, and terrible phenomenon, and the Old Testament (the New doesn't spend much time on the role of the government) condemns it in law. Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the Law but to fulfill it, so the early Christian nations, after Christianity had gained a position in the political realm, made witchcraft illegal. They made it a crime because the Bible does.

I have heard people talk about their firsthand experiences at the receiving end of witchcraft, and it's pretty dark. No, it is not "she turned me into a newt" . I also have had some drastically negative experiences with powerful demons (as opposed to mental peeves) in my own past, which convince me thoroughly that the spiritual realm is powerful and can be very dangerous. Witchcraft has never been used on me, but I have talked with people that do dabble in witchcraft or who have experienced it. I also once had an experience of seeing a person in a college class for the first time, someone I had never known or seen before, and the instant I saw him and heard his voice, I had an extremely powerful sense of darkness and personal revulsion toward him. Over the next year or so of meeting the person and talking with him from time to time, I got to know him better, and I learned that he was strongly interested in at least two forms of witchcraft and was involved in a personal quest for "divine energy." There were other things rather messed up in his life too, but on the exterior, he is very confident, handsome, eloquent and dignified.

One of my cousins had a similar experience, when she was working in a hospital. One day she walked into an hospital hall, and she had an intense feeling of evil when she neared one of the men on a bed. Later, she learned that the man was a self-professing warlock.

I have also heard stories of believers in foreign lands, particularly Africa, who have had spells used against them, and when they had forgotten to pray for safety, these spells created bizarre kinds of incidents. For instance, one family's mother and father prayed every night for protection against magic (they had heard threats that spells would be used against them). One night, they forgot to pray for defense, and that night their tent burned down in a fluke accident. They barely escaped with their lives.

Evidence outside of the Bible convinces me that the common human consensus since the origin of our species, that witchcraft has real power, and the conservative Christian consensus, that witchcraft is dangerous, is correct.

So does evidence from within the Bible, which would be enough, either way.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It's clear to me that, as far as 'witchcraft" goes, you're exactly at 'she turned me into a newt." with it. Where on earth would you get the idea that 'witches' are dangerous to anyone safe in God's hands? They may be misguided, or ill-intentioned (of course you want witches' 'blessings' punished too) but why would you fear them?

Last I checked, Satan himself couldn't touch the godly. Why would his minions have a power stronger than his, assuming any of these people existed? It just makes no sense.

Christians, just like anyone else, can be murdered, or stolen from, or can die by accidental causes. Or can be killed by witchcraft. God protects us from any of the above things when we pray, and sometimes he protects us from them even when we don't pray. The power of prayer plays a significant role in our protection, though.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

So much of your program seems to be about removing the temptation to sin from people. But God himself faced temptation, and taught people some of the ways of resisting it. That's part of how people develop, spiritually.

Part of the Lord's Prayer is, "lead us not into temptation." The scripture also says that the Lord does not tempt anyone, but people are led astray when tempted by their own evil desire.

Your argument makes as much sense as it does to allow a drug dealer to have full access to your children.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

Your cherry picking of Bible verses is so weird. This business about whose audience got "judge not" and the connection to Romans is just ...well, weird.

The audience is everyone. The passage applies to every human. However, it doesn't apply to every form of judging. Romans 13 makes it clear that this is not meant to remove the right of secular authorities to enforce laws. Do you think that Jesus intended to abolish the entire corpus of criminal law when he said, "judge not"?

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

And, I could point out, that if you have THAT slavish a respect for 'those in governmental authority" you can stop complaining about public schools, abortion, vaccinations, and whatever else they choose to impose on you.

You don't see me bombing abortion clinics, do you?

We live in a democracy. I have a responsibility to take part.

[Lief Erikson]

I'll respond to the other posts in a few hours.