# Christian Reconstructionism



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 16, 2005)

Saw this link discussing Christian Reconstructionism, a literalist movement designed to actually implement the Old Testament (Mosaic) laws of the Bible:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

I offer this from the article...

_*Practices:*

If they gained control of the US or Canadian federal government, there would be many changes: 


The use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when the Hebrew Scriptures' laws are reapplied. People will be executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say Witchcraft), etc. The Bible requires those found guilty of these "crimes" to be either stoned to death or burned alive. Reconstructionists are divided on the execution method to be used. 

A church or congregation which does not accept the Mosaic Law has another god before them, and is thus guilty of idolatry. That would be punishable by death. That would include all non-Christian religious organizations. At the present time, non-Christians total two-thirds of the human race. 

The status of women would be reduced to almost that of a slave as described in the Hebrew Scriptures. A woman would initially be considered the property of her father; after marriage, she would be considered the property of her husband. 

It would be logical to assume that the institution of slavery would be reintroduced, and regulated according to Biblical laws. Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery. Female slaves would retain that status for life. People who owned slaves would be allowed to physically abuse them, as long as they did not beat them so severely that they lived for three days before dying. 

Polygyny and the keeping of concubines were permitted in the Old Testament. However, Reconstructionists generally believe in marriage between one man and one woman only. Any other sexual expression would be a capital crime. Those found guilty of engaging in same-sex, pre-marital or extra-marital sex would be executed. 

The Old Testament "Jubilee Year" system would be celebrated once more. Every 50 years, the control of all land reverted to its original owners. In theory, this would require every part of North American land to be returned to the original Aboriginal owners (or perhaps to those persons of Aboriginal descent who are now Christians). Hawaii would be given back to the native Hawaiians. 

Governments would all have balanced budgets. 

Income taxes would be eliminated. 

The prison system would be eliminated. A system of just restitution would be established for some crimes. The death penalty would be practiced for many other crimes. There would be little need for warehousing of convicted criminals. 

Legal abortions would be banished; those found to be responsible for abortions would be charged with murder and executed. 

The reinstitution of slavery appears to be a hot button item among Reconstructionists. We have received a few negative E-mails which complained that the movement does not recommend the resumption of human slavery. But we have received many more Emails from Reconstructionists claiming that legalizing slavery would be good for North America._


Note that two thirds of the population would face extinction by these standards.


They lost me on the polygyny restriction.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 16, 2005)

Whoa.  It gets scarier.

http://www.serve.com/thibodep/cr/words.htm

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/r10.html

And they DO support slavery.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 16, 2005)

Allow me to venture this comment....

These people are certifiably insane.

Another, as a question....

How do other people who are practicing of an Abrahamic faith - in particular, Jewish or Christians - feel about one group using a text to push their idea of society down everyone else's throats?

This is madness.


----------



## MisterMike (Jan 16, 2005)

Somehow I think their sphere of influence is rather small.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 17, 2005)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Somehow I think their sphere of influence is rather small.




Nope.  They have great influence among the Christian right.

They've influenced the thinking of conservatives like Francis Shaeffer (a popular Christian writer) and John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute. The Rutherford Institute had Christian Reconstructionists on its board.  

The founder of the Coalition On Revival (COR), acknowledges his gratitude to Reconstructionist leaders and "brilliant scholars" Rushdoony and North.  COR members include John Whitehead, Don Wildmon of the American Family Association, bestselling author/evangelist Tim LaHaye, Randall Terry of Operation Rescue, Houston GOP activist Steven Hotze, lobbyist Robert Dugan of the National Association of Evangelicals, former US Congressmen Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA) and Mark Siljander (R-MI).

Recognize some of those names?

Pat Robertson's Regent University stocks North and Rushdoony's books and tapes in their libaries and uses them in their law classes and public policy courses.  Regent University board chairwoman Dee Jepson is married to Senator Robert Jepson (R-Iowa) who helped raise funds for Rushdoony's Chalcedon Foundation.

California philanthropist and power broker Howard Ahmanson and political consultant Wayne C. Johnson are directors for Chalcedon.

A series of Reconstructionist-oriented books called Turning Point: Christian Worldview Series, are available in Christian bookstores throughout America.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5722.htm

The above link goes to an interesting article outlining the impact of the Reconstructionist on conservative Christianity in America.

Reconstructionists are closely linked with the John Birch Society, whose membership has been growing.  U.S. Representative Larry McDonald was a JBS chairman at one point.  He was killed in the KAL 007 shootdown incident in 1983, which fueled JBS communist conspiracy theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birch_Society

And, finally, Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Reconstructionism


Regards,


Steve


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 17, 2005)

As a Christian myself (of the 'born again variety) I find the idea of reconstructinism rather bizarre, and can't fathom why any Christian who had read Romans would take such ideas seriously.

 Paul makes very clear that the Mosaic Law was put in place to show simply that we cannot live up to the moral standards neccessary to be in relationship with God by our own efforts and that therefore the need for the 'ultimate sacrifice' of Jesus. Paul was particularly critical of those who, once they had accepted Christ as that sacrifice, were returning to the rules and regulations of the Mosaic Law, which Paul made clear had been satisified in Jesus and were thus no longer neccessary to be followed.

 Why Christians would exchange the freedom in Christ for slavery to the law is beyond me.  Why Christians would enforce a set of religious laws that their own religion itself says is no longer needed on those who do not even follow the same God is really weird (1 Corinthians 5:9-13 I've always taken to mean that as Christians we should be more concerned with those in the church; let God deal with those outside  )

 Moreover, given historical precedent, I'm very concerned when those claiming the name of Christ and to be acting as God's hand on earth starting looking for political power. Usually when that happens, a lot of stuff get's done in the name of Christ that I don't think Christ is too pleased with. I believe in seperation of Church and State because I believe in protecting the Church from the corrupting influence of the State and the seduction of power


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 17, 2005)

As an additional thought:

I've compared the Old Law to the New Freedom in Christ to the difference between childhood and adulthood.

When you are a child, you are told what to do and what not to do (and why).  This shapes your character so as you mature you understand the principles of how to act so you do not have to have a 'do this/don't do that' instruction for your life.  The specific rules ("don't hit your sister") become a character trait and that character influences how you handle many situations.  As you mature, you no longer need a rule because you have character that can apply to many situations.

Similarly, I view the OT Law as a rules of "dos and don'ts" that illustrate what God expects as moral behavior.  However, like rules laid down by a parent, they are intended not *just* as a set of dos and don'ts but as intended to give examples whereby you learn proper character.  I think Jesus pointed out that 'you think the law is what you do, I'm saying that the principles of  the law should be much deeper in who you are' (Matthew 5:27,28) and Paul (in Galatians 5:1) that Christ has set us free from the law.

So for Christians to go back to the law is like the adult who can't live with the freedom and maturity of adulthood and wants to go back to live under their parents specific rules

And this only applies to Christians.  For Christians to try to apply the Mosaic law to non-Christians is...well..seems a big misunderstanding of what the Law is, what Jesus said, and what Christianity is all about.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 17, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Moreover, given historical precedent, I'm very concerned when those claiming the name of Christ and to be acting as God's hand on earth starting looking for political power. Usually when that happens, a lot of stuff get's done in the name of Christ that I don't think Christ is too pleased with. I believe in seperation of Church and State because I believe in protecting the Church from the corrupting influence of the State and the seduction of power


I agree - for the corruption and removal of human rights that can go *both* ways (corrupt the Church; corrupt the State).

Word.


----------



## Zepp (Jan 17, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> How do other people who are practicing of an Abrahamic faith - in particular, Jewish or Christians - feel about one group using a text to push their idea of society down everyone else's throats?
> 
> This is madness.



Madness is certainly a good word for it.  And to an extent, it's also humorous that non-Jews can be more fanatical about the laws of the Torah than than the most observant ultra-orthodox Jews (with exception of an even less influential lunatic fringe).

My opinion as a Jew:  The old laws can't be understand when they're taken out of their context, namely the time, place and particular situation to which they were applied.  Whether you believe the origins of the "Old Testament" to be divine or mundane, you have to both insane, and just plain stupid to think that the words were meant to be taken literally in all cases, throughout all time.


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

As a bible believer and student of prophecy, I can tell you that these people and others like them are *not* true believers. They are not following scripture, and their existence and modus operandi were prophesied by Jesus.. in Matthew He said many would come in his name saying they were "Christ" (in other words, false teachers seeking *power*) but that they were actually *ravening wolves.*


The only old testament laws that believers are to commanded to obey (By Christ) are the ten commandments. You may find them in Exodus 20. None of us keep them perfectly but we are to try with all our will to get progressively closer to perfection through these simple rules. We believers are not commanded to become politicians and force our faith or obedience to G-d down the throats of others, but to *teach and help* those who *want* to obey G-d and follow Christ. Others may do as they wish as long as they do not harm my family, friends or neighbors. G-d will judge and deal with wrong doers in His time, it's not my job as a mortal follower to interfere unless they commit a crime and have to be dealt with, in order to defend the innocent.

I do believe in the death penalty for instance but I do not need to resort to scripture to prove the necessity for the death penalty, the need for the death penalty stands alone based on common sense and protecting the innocent by eliminating those who are proven insane and dangerous by their actions, and convicted in a court of law by a jury of their peers.


----------



## Baytor (Jan 20, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> As a Christian myself (of the 'born again variety) I find the idea of reconstructinism rather bizarre, and can't fathom why any Christian who had read Romans would take such ideas seriously.
> 
> Paul makes very clear that the Mosaic Law was put in place to show simply that we cannot live up to the moral standards neccessary to be in relationship with God by our own efforts and that therefore the need for the 'ultimate sacrifice' of Jesus. Paul was particularly critical of those who, once they had accepted Christ as that sacrifice, were returning to the rules and regulations of the Mosaic Law, which Paul made clear had been satisified in Jesus and were thus no longer neccessary to be followed.
> 
> ...


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to FearlessFreep again.
​


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 20, 2005)

_You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to FearlessFreep again._

I must admit, I don't totally understand how 'reputation' works


----------



## Baytor (Jan 20, 2005)

It's the scales icon on the right side.  

To return to the subject at hand though, I'm not so sure you can even call this group "christians".  After all, aren't christians people who follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?  And isn't what these people want to do is return to the Mosaic law handed down in the Torah (or Pentetuech...depending on religious tradition)?  Therefore, do these people even care about Christ's teachings?  Like that little thing about loving your neighbor?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

Well, that's the first time we've seen somebody actually arguing that a) murders are by definition insane, and b) we should kill insane people, c) this fits perfectly well with Christ's teachings.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

> To return to the subject at hand though, I'm not so sure you can even call this group "christians".



Personally, I wouldn't call +90% of the people that claim themselves as such to be "Christians".

There might be a few speckled here or there in the world's various monasteries and retreats, but most of those who could lay claim to this label were murdered by the Literalists some 1600 years ago.

And, to note, Christianity's core teachings are very anti-Torah in any sense...


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

Christ clearly explained that the ten commandments are still required of His followers. This was when the young rich man came to him proclaiming that he kept the commandments all his life. Christ said he did well, and lacked but one thing: To give up his wealth (in this instance because it must have been a stumbling block) and give it away and follow Christ. Christ said to:


Love G-d with all your being (This is the first 4 commandments)

Love your neighbor as yourself (This is the last 6 commandments)

You can find them in Exodus 20

One of the ten commandments is "Thou shall not murder". This is one way we love our neighbors (not to murder them) The bible punishment for murder was death. Nothing has changed.. if you murder you should be killed. Christ and his army, at His return, are going to kill a very large number of people: murderers and evildoers. See Revelations 19 and the end of Luke 19. For now we as humans are required to deal with extreme evildoers by stopping their sprees. If we fail to protect our communities and families from them *we* are doing evil, and not loving the innocent. It's simple societal self defense which is obvious even without the bible.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> Christ clearly explained that the ten commandments are still required of His followers. This was when the young rich man came to him proclaiming that he kept the commandments all his life. Christ said he did well, and lacked but one thing: To give up his wealth (in this instance because it must have been a stumbling block) and give it away and follow Christ. Christ said to:
> 
> 
> Love G-d with all your being (This is the first 4 commandments)
> ...



I just _love_ these cut-and-paste interpretations of Biblical literature!!  

Like, saying how one should "honor mother and father" but forgetting the NT admonition about giving up one's family, friends, and possessions to follow the Way --- which, in this particular context, referred to assuming a Pythagorean/Stoic lifestyle of a homeless, socialist preacher.

No, the core of Christianity is Hellenistic philosophy --- especially Platonism. Most of it runs contradictory to the Old Testamental philosophy.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> Christ clearly explained that the ten commandments are still required of His followers. This was when the young rich man came to him proclaiming that he kept the commandments all his life. Christ said he did well, and lacked but one thing: To give up his wealth (in this instance because it must have been a stumbling block) and give it away and follow Christ. Christ said to:
> 
> 
> Love G-d with all your being (This is the first 4 commandments)
> ...


If we have prisons, and we put people in them who murder, how are we not protecting other people?

If we murder an innocent man or woman on Death Row, how have we obeyed the Ten Commandments - or Christ's teachings?


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> If we have prisons, and we put people in them who murder, how are we not protecting other people?
> 
> If we murder an innocent man or woman on Death Row, how have we obeyed the Ten Commandments - or Christ's teachings?



Yup.

Bible also says "judge not, lest ye be judged".

It also says, "Give unto Caesar what is his" --- a curious admonition to obey existing laws.

How do we harmonize this contradiction in regards to capital punishment??

You don't. The Bible is an ahistorical document that contradicts itself perpetually. You deal with it, and derive whatever moral wisdom you can from it --- _without_ treating it as the perfected blueprint to human existence.


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 20, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> _
> 
> The use of the death penalty would be greatly expanded, when the Hebrew Scriptures' laws are reapplied. People will be executed for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, evil sorcery (some translations say Witchcraft), etc. The Bible requires those found guilty of these "crimes" to be either stoned to death or burned alive. Reconstructionists are divided on the execution method to be used.
> _


_ 

 While I agree with the idea of expanding the death penalty, this is a little overboard.  The penalty should include murders, drug dealers, rapists, child molesters, and gangbanger.  As for the method of execution lets bring back the guilletine (cheap, reusable, and u don't need a doctor to tell u the scum is dead)





			It would be logical to assume that the institution of slavery would be reintroduced, and regulated according to Biblical laws. Fathers could sell their daughters into slavery. Female slaves would retain that status for life. People who owned slaves would be allowed to physically abuse them, as long as they did not beat them so severely that they lived for three days before dying.
		
Click to expand...

 reintroduced, when did they completely eliminate it?  the rulling class is still white anglo saxon prostestant male.





			The Old Testament "Jubilee Year" system would be celebrated once more. Every 50 years, the control of all land reverted to its original owners. In theory, this would require every part of North American land to be returned to the original Aboriginal owners (or perhaps to those persons of Aboriginal descent who are now Christians). Hawaii would be given back to the native Hawaiians.
		
Click to expand...

 Hell yes!  give us back the land the white man stole from us.





			Governments would all have balanced budgets. 

 Income taxes would be eliminated.
		
Click to expand...

 Excellent Idea.






			The prison system would be eliminated. A system of just restitution would be established for some crimes. The death penalty would be practiced for many other crimes. There would be little need for warehousing of convicted criminals.
		
Click to expand...

 Our state, California, is already burdened to the max to house the scumbags that should have been justly executed.

_


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

dr ~ so once accused/arrested, someone must therefore be guilty?

We have an imperfect legal system.  The fact that we have already exectured innocent people makes me extremely unhappy with expanding the death penalty even more.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

"Christ and his army, at His return, are going to kill a very large number of people: murderers and evildoers. See Revelations 19 and the end of Luke 19."

Gosh, thanks for the threat. And good to see that we've got beyond that whole disgusting wishy-washy "Christ's Mercy," thing. 

Meanwhile, there is before the Supreme Court the appeal of a guy who really did kill someone--he's a paranoid schizophrenic who's mentally retarded and addicted to alcohol, the product of the worst kind of family abuse imaginable. It appears that his defense attorney didn't feel that the evaluations done by the prosecution, together with an account of his gawdawful family history, was relevant--so he rejected looking at them, and they were never brought up in trial. 

One doesn't really buy the whole Revelations thingy. But one suspects what the attitude of Christ towards this sort of, "burn him!" ugliness might be.


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 20, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> dr ~ so once accused/arrested, someone must therefore be guilty?


 dont forget convicted by trial or jury.




> We have an imperfect legal system. The fact that we have already exectured innocent people makes me extremely unhappy with expanding the death penalty even more.


 No, legal system is perfect.  The vast majority of those on death row deserve to be there.


*   "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no     deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute     murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have     allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk     the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."*  *  John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on   deterrence
*​ ​


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

"Thou Shalt Not Kill --- Unless Big Brother Okays It First."


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

digitalronin said:
			
		

> dont forget convicted by trial or jury.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OK, convicted by trial or jury.

So it's OK to you that our legal system - IMPERFECT though it is - has executed innocent citizens? 

So as long as some innocent people die, that's OK to quench the desire to kill those who did do wrong?


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 20, 2005)

Here is a Columbia University study of death penalty error rates:

http://www2.law.columbia.edu/instru...an/liebman/Liebman Study/docs/1/section2.html

Here are a series of biographies of severely mentally retarded people who we sentenced to death. My favorite is the first--Limmie Arthur, who was apparantly incapable of understanding why he was on Death Row. He believed that he was going to be executed because he could not read.

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/ustat/ustat0301-07.htm#P996_176857

I'm not sure what contenporary fundamentalists might have to say. However, one has a pretty good suspicion about what the Christ of the New Testament would have to say.


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 20, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> OK, convicted by trial or jury.
> 
> So it's OK to you that our legal system - IMPERFECT though it is - has executed innocent citizens?
> 
> So as long as some innocent people die, that's OK to quench the desire to kill those who did do wrong?


 
 Am under the inclination that more innocents will die under the hands of 
 parolees and excapies than under the death penalty
*
We're Not Executing the Innocent
 *By Paul G. Cassell      

The Wall Street Journal
  Friday, June 16, 2000


 I am willing to conceed that some innocents have died under the death penalty, but vast majority of those on the row did the crime.


 peace


 p.s.  Where did u get the cool avatar.  It seems several of the members have one by the same artist.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

digitalronin said:
			
		

> Am under the inclination that more innocents will die under the hands of
> parolees and excapies than under the death penalty
> 
> *We're Not Executing the Innocent*
> ...


The article dismissed the error rate entirely, to begin with - when it has been demonstrated that innocent people are killed by the state, on Death Row.

So our government should only be slightly statistically *worse* at murdering people than its citizens? The fact that innocent citizens have died does not phase you at all?

And, as others have mentioned, the death penalty is not a good *deterrent*. Once someone is in prision for life, how will they harm another (aside from other inmates)? It is simply because we want revenge for the crime. So revenge is worth it, even if some innocents die?

Not to me. 

I'll find a link to the avatar site - it's a Japanese site, where you can create your own avatar. There was an old thread on it at some point, too - you might be able to search for it.

ETA: here you go http://illustmaker.abi-station.com/index_en.shtml


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 20, 2005)

AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> One of the ten commandments is "Thou shall not murder". This is one way we love our neighbors (not to murder them) The bible punishment for murder was death. Nothing has changed.. if you murder you should be killed. Christ and his army, at His return, are going to kill a very large number of people: murderers and evildoers. See Revelations 19 and the end of Luke 19. For now we as humans are required to deal with extreme evildoers by stopping their sprees. If we fail to protect our communities and families from them *we* are doing evil, and not loving the innocent. It's simple societal self defense which is obvious even without the bible.




You've broken this down into a black and white issue without considering any possible extenuating circumstances.  See the death penalty thread for some of those...I won't go over it here.  

You know, Martin Luther hated Revelations and tried to get it taken out of the Protestant canon.  Other church fathers thought it was pretty ridiculous too.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 20, 2005)

What happened to a discussion of Christian Reconstructionism?

Anyway, for what it's worth, the only requirements for being a Christian are simple, admit you've sinned and that you cannot redeem yourself from those sins and to let Christ do it for you  There are no tests to prove worth and no litmus tests to prove continual standing.  As a matter of fact, Jesus made the point that it was not for the well but for the sick that he came.  THe upshot of all that is that there are a lot of Christians who...well...are jerks   They were jerks before they were Christians and sometimes remain jerks afterwards.  One would hope that the become less of jerks as they spend time with Christ but..doesn't always happen, and doesn't even really have to happen.  From a thelogical perspective, all that really happens is they go from being sinning jerks to sinning but forgiven jerks.

All I can say is, my apologies for what they've done.  Hopefully, with prayer and humility, I can do better.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jan 20, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> What happened to a discussion of Christian Reconstructionism?
> 
> Anyway, for what it's worth, the only requirements for being a Christian are simple, admit you've sinned and that you cannot redeem yourself from those sins and to let Christ do it for you There are no tests to prove worth and no litmus tests to prove continual standing. As a matter of fact, Jesus made the point that it was not for the well but for the sick that he came. THe upshot of all that is that there are a lot of Christians who...well...are jerks They were jerks before they were Christians and sometimes remain jerks afterwards. One would hope that the become less of jerks as they spend time with Christ but..doesn't always happen, and doesn't even really have to happen. From a thelogical perspective, all that really happens is they go from being sinning jerks to sinning but forgiven jerks.
> 
> All I can say is, my apologies for what they've done. Hopefully, with prayer and humility, I can do better.


FF, I think some of our stances on Christianity are different, but I will give you mad props for the "they can still be jerks" comments.  Very true.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 20, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yup.
> 
> Bible also says "judge not, lest ye be judged".
> 
> ...


this is one of the most truthful posts i have read in regards to the bible.
you cannot connect old and new testament and expect a semblance of uniformity....old testament-old way, new testament-new(old)way. 
if im not mistaken....the literal translation of the ten commandments from the torah is different from your run of the mill king james "version" bible. and note i put version in quotations, simply because when it was translated (supposedly as close as possible to whatever hebrew and GREEK texts they used.) it was for a different time with different laws.

shawn

ps. if someone could put the 10 commandments from the torah on here so we can compare it would be great(exact translation)


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 21, 2005)

*
you cannot connect old and new testament and expect a semblance of uniformity....old testament-old way, new testament-new(old)way. * 

Neither can one harmonize the four Gospels.  Modern pop apologetics attempts to do this, but in doing so asks us to abandon our intellectual honesty.  That would be an interesting topic for another thread.

*ps. if someone could put the 10 commandments from the torah on here so we can compare it would be great(exact translation)*

A link with three versions--Catholic, Protestant, and Hebrew.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/whichcom.htm


Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 21, 2005)

*While I agree with the idea of expanding the death penalty, this is a little overboard.  The penalty should include murders, drug dealers, rapists, child molesters, and gangbanger.   * 

So...no woman has ever filed a false rape report?   Nobody has ever done time for a false child molestation charge filed by an irate ex-spouse?  We kill a person who develops pedophilic impulses only following the formation of a brain tumor?  We kill someone for selling one of his friends a bag of pot?  By gangbanger I assume you mean a gang member...that, in itself is a prosecutable and capital crime?



*Am under the inclination that more innocents will die under the hands of 
parolees and excapies than under the death penalty*

Quite possible...but having the state execute innocent people and "letting God sort 'em out" goes beyond reason and sanctifies the killing of innocents.  Killing innocents in the name of revenge is insane.  State sanctioned killing is preventable.  Homicide typically is not and never has been.  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 21, 2005)

i dont know if i can completely agree with the hebrew translation......i would like to see it in plain english....not elizabethan english. but thanks for the link.


shawn


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 21, 2005)

So the Bible-thumpers (differently from Christians) have no problem with the idea of executing somebody who's so mentally-retarded that he tries to hide from the cops but forgets that he's left his feet sticking out, then goes through his trial believing that he's going to be executed because he cannot read. They have no trouble with executing someone who asks if he can watch TV after his execution, later. They have no trouble killing somebody who's a paranoid schizophrenic, with an IQ estimated to be in the 60-70 range, who was abused as a child in ways you don't even want to think about.

Lovely. Beyond congratulations for retreating back before Judge Blackstone and the M'Naghten rule (One hears that the courts in Iran do this beautifully), only quoting the wisdom of Huckleberry Finn can be in order.

Upon finally figuring out that his aunt, teachers, preachers and everybody else believes that slavery is the Will of God and that in helping his friend Jim run off, Huck is guaranteeing his damnation, Huck says to himself:

"Well, I'll GO to hell then."

Me too, Huck. Me too. Let the Bible-thumpers have their ugly little, "Heaven," with their vindictive, hateful Christ, from which they can look down smugly upon billions in torment for eternity.


----------



## Erik (Jan 21, 2005)

I don't think they'd be Chrstian.  They would be neo-Jews.  Neo- because they weren't part of the original 12 tribes and Jews because they would be following Jewish laws.

 Remember, the apostles were Jews though they followed Jesus.

 Also, slavery is allowed in the bible (but only from neighboring countries).  See Lev. 25:44:

 " 44 As for your male and female slaves _whom you may have_: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round about"

 There's another version of the bible where it states "You may own slaves" plain and simple in Lev. 25:44.


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *While I agree with the idea of expanding the death penalty, this is a little overboard. The penalty should include murders, drug dealers, rapists, child molesters, and gangbanger. *
> 
> So...no woman has ever filed a false rape report? Nobody has ever done time for a false child molestation charge filed by an irate ex-spouse? We kill a person who develops pedophilic impulses only following the formation of a brain tumor? We kill someone for selling one of his friends a bag of pot? By gangbanger I assume you mean a gang member...that, in itself is a prosecutable and capital crime?


 
 In places I grew up the term is gangbanger not gang member.   Yes, my upbringing made me bias against them.  Apparently u come from a middle to upper class family and did not have to grow up around the scum.  Try living in the neighborhoods where the bangers are re-released time after time after time.  Just yesterday one of the rehabilitated gentlemen sufficated a four month old girl.  I would post it but they already took it off the website.   Too bad for kid but luckily her killer will soon be rehabilitated  thanks to california's liberal judicial system.  Note: the murderer was a parolee from previous violent crimes.

    As for the pedophilia, What percentage of child molesters actually fit ur profile?  If it is a medical condition can you cure it, or is it like rabies where u are better off just shooting the animal. 




> *Am under the inclination that more innocents will die under the hands of
> parolees and excapies than under the death penalty*
> 
> Quite possible...but having the state execute innocent people and "letting God sort 'em out" goes beyond reason and sanctifies the killing of innocents. Killing innocents in the name of revenge is insane. State sanctioned killing is preventable. Homicide typically is not and never has been.





 Apparently some of them are preventable.  Keep the rabid dogs in the cage or better yet shoot them.

"During their first year after release from prison, male homicide offenders were about 250 times more likely to commit homicide than members of the general male population"

*Factors associated with homicide recidivism in a 13-year sample of homicide offenders in Finland.*

 Checks and balances are already in place to prevent the possibility of executing an innocent person.  Does it occur, yes but not to the degree the anti-capital puninishment proponets would have you believe.  That dual edge of modern forensics that is freeing the few innocent is at the same time convicting the very guilty.  


 Peace,

 G


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 21, 2005)

*In places I grew up the term is gangbanger not gang member.   * 

Just wanted to make sure you weren't using the original definition of the word.

*   As for the pedophilia, What percentage of child molesters actually fit ur profile?  If it is a medical condition can you cure it, or is it like rabies where u are better off just shooting the animal. * 

I don't think the "put them down" argument quite works in a democratic republic with a Constitution like ours.  Sounds a little more like Germany, circa 1936.

As for percentages of pedophiles suffering from tumors...it is probably very low.  Once again, you're suggesting killing them all and not worrying about extenuating circumstances (brain trauma, mental retardation) or the possibility of their innocence.  

Here's the one case study of a tumor I know of:

http://216.117.159.91/crimetimes/03a/w03ap5.htm

Note a quote from another web site:

_Neurologist Daniel Tranel of the University of Iowa has seen people with brain tumors lie, damage property and, in extremely rare cases, commit murder: "The individual simply loses the ability to control impulses or anticipate the consequences of choices."_

There is also a strong correlation between serial killers and head trauma.  I posted elsewhere a case study of a young man who killed his mother and molested his corpse after having fractured his skull on a fall from a horse.  The kid was normal prior to the accident, and went through an instand personality change.


*"During their first year after release from prison, male homicide offenders were about 250 times more likely to commit homicide than members of the general male population"*

I'm not arguing for their release.  We're not talking about letting them walk.  We're talking about not killing them because they might be innocent or mentally disabled.


* Checks and balances are already in place to prevent the possibility of executing an innocent person.  * 


_Right._  As of October 6, 2004, there have been 117 exonerations in 25 different states.  We're talking 117 people who were framed...either intentionally or through incompetence...and sentenced to die for crimes they didn't commit.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=412&scid=6#inn-st


Regards,


Steve


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 21, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I don't think the "put them down" argument quite works in a democratic republic with a Constitution like ours. Sounds a little more like Germany, circa 1936.


 Comparing convicted murderers to the Jews of the holocaust.  Do we really want to go there?  




> As for percentages of pedophiles suffering from tumors...it is probably very low. Once again, you're suggesting killing them all and not worrying about extenuating circumstances (brain trauma, mental retardation) or the possibility of their innocence.
> 
> Here's the one case study of a tumor I know of:
> 
> ...


 As your citation states it is an "extremely rare"  case.  Most murders do not suffer from the condition.





> _Right._ As of October 6, 2004, there have been 117 exonerations in 25 different states. We're talking 117 people who were framed...either intentionally or through incompetence...and sentenced to die for crimes they didn't commit.


 
 117 out of  a population of over 3000 currently serving death row inmates.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cp03.htm

 I'll be very generous and give that 4% of the population didnt do it.  This means 96% of them did in fact commit the crimes.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 21, 2005)

Ah, good. And how many of the 117 innocent people will you personally be executing, to maintain this justice?


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 22, 2005)

The bible does not contradict itself.. you simply do not understand it... and you never will without G-d Himself teaching you the hidden symbolic codes and the bible's true message, which + - 98% of those who _call_ themselves christians do not know. If anyone _sincerely _wants to know and has an open heart, PM me and I would be more than happy to help/explain, but if your heart is not right with G-d, don't bother, it's better that you stayed in the dark.

Christ said "In _vain_ do ye seek me, teaching instead the doctrines of _men._"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

Ah, esotericism. Just like the Rosicrucians, the Masons, and the Illuminati. With, no doubt, a little Dan Brown thrown in and just a soupcon of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah, esotericism. Just like the Rosicrucians, the Masons, and the Illuminati. With, no doubt, a little Dan Brown thrown in and just a soupcon of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade."


 illuminati??  :uhyeah:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

Yeah, these guys ALWAYS get around to the Illuminati. And the Trilateral Comission. And Roswell.


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yeah, these guys ALWAYS get around to the Illuminati. And the Trilateral Comission. And Roswell.


 Never mind, i thought u were supporting that theory.


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 22, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ah, good. And how many of the 117 innocent people will you personally be executing, to maintain this justice?


 I'll pull the lever with a grain of salt, because it would result in saving a lot more innocent lives being saved.  If you havent noticed our prison system is filled beyond capacity and of those released more than half will commit the crime again.  

http://www.sgc.wa.gov/PUBS/Recidivism2002/Recidivism_Report2002.pdf

 Ok,  I'm willing to hear an alternative soluntion to prison overcrowding and recidivism.  My proposal results in zero inmate recidism and a vast decrease in the prison population. 





​


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

You'd actually be willing to say, "So what if they're innocent?" when it was, say, your brother?

As for your other question: a) do something about the poverty, abuse, and persistent racism that we've known have been the root (if  not the cause) for much of crime (though certainly not all) for well over a century; b) do something rational and hard-headed about our crazy drug laws; c) support education in prisons; d) pour money into hiring more, better-trained cops in cities like LA.

And oh yes--do something about the our cheerful production of an uglier and uglier, more and more rushed, more and more family-destroying, more and more greedy, society.

yeah, as if.


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 22, 2005)

> a) do something about the poverty, abuse, and persistent racism that we've known have been the root (if not the cause) for much of crime (though certainly not all) for well over a century;


 Wow three strikes,  I should be out holding up a 7-Eleven instead of posting online.  Nah, I was brought up better than that in the barrio.




> b) do something rational and hard-headed about our crazy drug laws;


 which crazy drug laws?  Why should an addicts have easier access to hard drugs?  I'll am willing put in a few more tax dollars for better treatment programs and the legalization of marijauna for medical reasons.  



> c) support education in prisons;


 They had their chance at an education outside of prison, too late now.  If on the other hand you propose to increase education funding for non-offenders  and the poor am with u.



> d) pour money into hiring more, better-trained cops in cities like LA.


 We agree on this one, cops deserve the best training and benefits.  On the other hand why do we need more. Is it because the current justice system keeps releasing the scum back to the streets.



> And oh yes--do something about the our cheerful production of an uglier and uglier, more and more rushed, more and more family-destroying, more and more greedy, society.


 
 ah thought control, birth control, confiscation of personal property, and denial of rights.  Who does that remind me of? hmm  1930's funny looking mustache.  Perhaps a more recent facist like [size=-1]Che Guaverra.  They did a film on him last year and another is comming out this year.[/size]


 peace


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 22, 2005)

You should put money into prison education--one part of in which I work--because it works. It cuts recidivism, it cuts violence--in part, because it means that prisoners have something to lose for the first time. 

We should work on poverty because while lots of folks will manage no matter what--you're one, so am I--lots of folks won't. Poverty, racism, etc., put up obstacles that too many folks can't get around for whatever reason.

We should put money intop giving addicts clean needle, legalizing heroin with a prescription, etc., BECAUSE IT FRICKIN' WORKS. EVERY country inEurope where there do this has lower addiction, crime, and HIV/Hep. 3 infection rates than we do. It works--and the only reason we don't handle it boils down to crazy "moral," ideas. 

Yes, I understand that it's fun to call anybody who thinks that a little planning and common sense and democracy might be good a commie rat. So tell me--we presently have virtually unbridled capitalism, urban sprawl, the endless expansion of corporations, a fairly-wacko group of "free market" (translation: favors for one's buddies) rightists running the country. Things going in a direction you like, are they?


----------



## TCA (Jan 23, 2005)

The Law (Mosiac Law) lead to death by no one being able to meet its standard.  God did this to show us that we can not work our way to heaven as most religions spout.  Christ came so that we may have life.  He died and made the sacrifice for our sins.  

Why these people would want to bind themselves to mosaic law is mind boggling.  They could never obide to its strictness.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 23, 2005)

1. The only followers of Mosaic Law of whom one is aware are Jews, and arguably, Muslims. Nice comment.

2. The reason one supports education for prisoners is that it works. it is practical, it cuts violence, it cuts recidivism, and it does so cheaply. However, those who prefer ivory-tower, ideology-driven theory need not attend to the facts.

3. Similalry, we refuse to adopt pragmatic drug laws and policies--the ones that civilized countries have, and which have been "field-tested." Instead, we prefer to jail more people than any other industrialized country. Nice.

4. One had thought that Christ taught forgiveness, and mercy. Thanks for the corrections.


----------



## digitalronin (Jan 24, 2005)

1.  wheres the proof that education to prisoners works?  I'm not saying its not true, just to see some studies.  Whats the sucess rate?

 2.  Its wrong to assume that all pro death penalty supports are religious zealots.


----------



## Adept (Jan 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Similalry, we refuse to adopt pragmatic drug laws and policies--the ones that civilized countries have, and which have been "field-tested."


 Like Thailand?

 I fail to see what more can reasonably be done to ease poverty in most western nations. The means to get and education and a good job are there for everybody (at least in Australia). To do more would consist of forcibly removing wealth from the rich, and using it to aid the poor. However, that would be little more than stealing. One is also unable to force people to educate themselves and to work, or to be responsible or mature, without enforcing such draconian laws as to make pre-war Germany look like the smurf village.

 I also dont think that racism should be addressed by the law. At all. In any form. Someone who refuses to let black people into his establishment will be boycotted by most decent folk, and go out of business. Someone who fires a black person because of their skin should let the public decide how to deal with him. Society should regulate itself in this regard, I feel.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 24, 2005)

*Comparing convicted murderers to the Jews of the holocaust.  Do we really want to go there?  * 

Who said anything about the Jews?  Hitler exterminated retarded children, people with physical defects, the insane...anybody regarded "defective."



* As your citation states it is an "extremely rare"  case.  Most murders do not suffer from the condition.*

Of a tumor?  No.  From head trauma?  Likely a greater number than that of tumors.  We may never know because few check, in spite of the correlation between violent behavior and early head trauma.


* I'll be very generous and give that 4% of the population didnt do it.  This means 96% of them did in fact commit the crimes.*

No.  It does not.  It means that 4% so far have been exonerated.

It appears that you are more than ready to kill innocent people in order to get at the truly guilty.  I'm not.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

FearlessFreep said:
			
		

> Anyway, for what it's worth, the only requirements for being a Christian are simple, admit you've sinned and that you cannot redeem yourself from those sins and to let Christ do it for you.



According to you, anyway.

That most certainly is not how the bulk of early Christians (i.e., pre-300's) saw themselves. Then again, most of them believed in reincarnation, too.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

Erik said:
			
		

> Remember, the apostles were Jews though they followed Jesus.]



An intriguing concept, considering none of them could apparently read Hebrew or were familiar with existing Jewish laws (a la divorce rights) or Palestinian geography.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

Uh...we do realize that the argument for removing all discussion of civil rights from the law and from practice trashes ALL civil rights legislation and two hundred years or so of legal precedent, including the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

digitalronin said:
			
		

> Yes, my upbringing made me bias against them.  Apparently u come from a middle to upper class family and did not have to grow up around the scum.



Its precisely for reasons such as this that individuals emotionally involved in criminal cases _do not_ decide the punishment. Namely, a lack of rational objectivity.

Which, of course, is what most of our punitive system boils down to: revenge. The concern is not to "protect society" or any such benevolent concerns. Rather, it is to make those "scumbags" pay for what they have done. It is societally getting one's kicks in.

This, of course, is just another example of baseless philosophy and ideology giving science, statistics, and logic the old heave-ho.


----------



## ghostdog2 (Jan 25, 2005)

The problem with most of the "solutions" suggested by the Left is that they discount, as always, personal responsibility.
The litany of the liberal is: Society is the problem; Government is the answer; and people are malleable.
Throw more money and more programs at a problem and it will go away. Failing which, why, throw even more of both at the problem. Because, you see, it's your fault, and society's fault and so you must be made to pay. Change is up to you.
Now, the slacker or the addict or the criminal, he's just fine. He continues his anti-social behaviour 'til you figure out how fix him. Get it? We're the problem, not him.
And if you can't fix him, just give in. Make jails more pleasant, schools easier, drugs legal. Oh yeah, and put "moral" in quotation marks because that's something to be ashamed of.....
That's the kind of fuzzy thinking that got us here in the first place.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh...we do realize that the argument for removing all discussion of civil rights from the law and from practice trashes ALL civil rights legislation and two hundred years or so of legal precedent, including the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States?



Apparently not.

Although you could attribute such thinking to the failings within our own education system. Money for bombs is more important than money for textbooks and teachers, I guess.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> The bible does not contradict itself.. you simply do not understand it... and you never will without G-d Himself teaching you the hidden symbolic codes and the bible's true message, which + - 98% of those who _call_ themselves christians do not know. If anyone _sincerely _wants to know and has an open heart, PM me and I would be more than happy to help/explain, but if your heart is not right with G-d, don't bother, it's better that you stayed in the dark.
> 
> Christ said "In _vain_ do ye seek me, teaching instead the doctrines of _men._"



Kettle. Pot. Black. Indeed.

Sure there is a 'pneumatic' layer to the teachings of the New Testament, juxtaposed to the 'psychic' understanding most give to it. But, clear evidence you don't understand this pneumatic teaching is:

1) If you don't have at least a basic understanding of core Greek philosophical concepts, terminology, and an accurate translated version of the Greek New Testament.

2) If you think the core of the New Testament has anything whatsoever to do with a 'personal savior' or having one's pitiful little ego-self living forever and ever in some lofty paradise.

I think Saul of Tarsus said it best with, "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life".

And yes, by the way, the Bible does contradict itself repeatedly at a literal, historical level. Namely, because different people wrote the different books. At no point during the individual books' creations were they intended to be part of some large corpus.

Hell, just compare the "Paul" of Galatians to the "Paul" of Titus if'n you don't believe me. Or, compare the "Jesus Christ" of Mark (a Jewish apocalyptic prophet with leanings toward Kabbalah and Sophiology) to the "Jesus Christ" in John (a symbolic expression of the Platonic Logos principle).

Or, you might actually do some historical research and look at the _really old_ Christian writings like the Gospel of Thomas --- which is a lot more straightforward and exoteric in its portrayal of Christian teachings.

Ta ta.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

Sigh. The question of, "individual," vs. "social," responsibility has been discussed and debated again and again and again, in left circles. For the last two centuries. The most easily-available source of discussion remains Cornel West, "Race Matters," which specifically takes up the issue of the libs/Left focusing too much on social and historical issues and the Right's ignoring them.

One also blames bad social support for education for this sort of thing. But let's not forget--there're some LOUSY teachers out there!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 25, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> That's the kind of fuzzy thinking that got us here in the first place.




"Here" being...???

Now that you've encapsulated the entire concept of liberalism into one post, please tell us _where we are_, exactly.  

Do you buy into the reactionary notion that we are declining as a culture?  Do you, like so many others, propose there was a time in America's history where we were more moral or possessed of rock like values?  When exactly would that be?  

Would it be during the Colonial era, when Americans drank five times the amount per capita than we do today?  Would it be during the Industrial Revolution, when we permitted children as young as five to work in factories?  How about the labor struggles of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and the murder of labor activists?  Do we ignore the Puritan witch hunts, the slave trade, indentured servitude, the wholesale slaughter of Indian women and children?  How about the denial of women the right to vote for the first 144 years of this nation's history?

Please tell me WHEN this pristine and pastoral time was, if you buy into the myth that we are in "decline"...so far I haven't been able to find a time where things were really any better.  

Incidentally, if you'll note...the "left" has been at the forefront of many of the battles to combat those aforementioned evils.  Look up "liberal" in the dictionary and you'll probably find it synonomous with "progressive."  We're the folks that got your mother the vote, and we're the folks that gave you the weekend.

Regards,

Steve


----------



## Marginal (Jan 26, 2005)

ghostdog2 said:
			
		

> The problem with most of the "solutions" suggested by the Left is that they discount, as always, personal responsibility.
> The litany of the liberal is: Society is the problem; Government is the answer; and people are malleable.
> Throw more money and more programs at a problem and it will go away.



The converse of that is looking over the ruins of a burst dam and pointing out the first pebble that dislodged before a crack began to form and eventually destroyed the entire structure. (Along with the town downriver)

The engineering wasn't unsound. It was the pebble's fault! 

Personal responsibility is important, but you can't discount how one's environment shapes one's development and subsequent choices.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 26, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> The converse of that is looking over the ruins of a burst dam and pointing out the first pebble that dislodged before a crack began to form and eventually destroyed the entire structure. (Along with the town downriver)
> 
> The engineering wasn't unsound. It was the pebble's fault!
> 
> Personal responsibility is important, but you can't discount how one's environment shapes one's development and subsequent choices.



Like the whole nature/nurture issue, I am really surprised people are still arguing over this kinda stuff...

... isn't it plainly obvious that delineations between 'individual' and 'society', while in a sense useful, are just horridly arbitrary?? How exactly does one tease apart individual merits from societal/environmental conditioning?? The two are inexplicably intertwined.

Its similar to the fantasies that some biologists have that the influence of genes and DNA (going so far as to claim that DNA "encodes" or "contains data" about certain behavioral traits) can somehow be made magically distinct from the influences of the material environment. Apparently, we humans inherited a genetic system that puts out a lot of information but doesn't take any in. Intriguing.

And, since all this individual vs society stuff is the ideological basis for everyone's philosophical constructs, this would probably explain why the Left and the Right are so horridly off-base in so many endeavors. And, furthermore, why those with a Better Way tend to so commonly get left to the shadows.

Ta ta.


----------

