Re: Death Penalty: vision 2020: Eric E.

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

Eric E, and others:

Eric, I guess we must start over.

I did not confuse your doubt about the guilt or innocence of a particular 
man condemned to death with your overall conviction that the death penalty 
is commanded by God.  My reason, as clearly stated in my previous 
communications, which used the wording "...Christian thinkers who are at 
polar opposites on the death penalty, both for and completely against," was 
to highlight the disagreement about the validity of whether the death 
penalty OVERALL is moral under Christian ethics.  You responded to this 
question "I would love to read them, but I would always have in mind that 
one side of the issue must be right, EVEN IF I AM NEVER ABLE TO FULLY 
DETERMINE WHICH."  (caps added)

Where is my confusion?  Please read over what you wrote in direct response 
to my statements about Christian scholars who are at polar opposites on the 
death penalty.

As far as you doubting the integrity or genuineness of the Christian 
scholars who disagree with the moral validity of the death penalty, is not 
the Pope one of the most powerful and respected representatives of 
Christianity in the world?  And is not his knowledge of Scripture excellent? 
  He has clearly stated his opposition to the death penalty, and this was 
long before his current health decline.  You must know that almost all of 
mostly Christian Europe has outlawed the death penalty, by the way?  So you 
must be saying most of Christian Europe is violating God's divine will?  
Along with the Pope, who millions of Catholics believe in certain decrees 
(ex cathedra), speaks with divine revelation?  I have some of the actual 
documents from the Vatican that argue against the death penalty, and I will 
post these in the future.
It appears some rather "heavy hitters" in Christianity disagree with you.

You call the Bible "miraculous" and give other evidence that it must have 
been divined inspired.  But you really are not exploring all the 
contradictions and inaccuracies in the Bible, which are well documented, 
even advocated ethical conduct that contradicts each other.

And my basic claim is still correct that other competing religious documents 
make the same claims you are making regarding the Bible about their 
religious documents (the Koran etc, even Nostradamus). And the flawed and 
imperfect human mind must make judgments about which book is "more 
miraculous" than the other.  I have heard devout Muslims argue vehemently 
about the perfection of the Koran, everything stated in it being accurate, 
proving it's divine miraculous inspiration.

There are many guides to ethical human behavior, Eric.  It is not your 
religion or nothing!  In Japan their are very strict ethical rules that lead 
them to a society that in some ways is more moral than the USA, yet they are 
overwhelmingly NON-CHRISTIAN.  If your ethical guidelines were so critical, 
and worship and belief in your God so necessary for "salvation,"  how do you 
explain highly moral behavior (even by your standards!) by non-believers in 
Christianity?  Are not there millions of kind and honest and gentle and 
loving Hindus and Buddhists and Muslims in the world?  I am not really 
expecting you to explain this, only hoping it will give you pause for 
thought about being less dogmatically convinced your religion is the only 
valid one.

Well, I could address a few more points, but the above few are enough for 
now, especially when one of my main points appears to have been 
misunderstood when I referred to the disagreement in Christianity over the 
death penalty overall, which I thought you were answering, only to find you 
say you were not answering that question.  The question still remains, 
though I think at this point I will have to start quoting the Biblical 
scholars who disagree with you to make my point more pointed!

And I think my point about flawed human minds trying to determine which 
religious document is "more miraculous" than others still is on the table!

Thanks for your reply!

Ted


>From: Eric Engerbretson <votive@earthlink.net>
>To: Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: Death Penalty: vision 2020: Eric E.
>Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:44:49 -0700
>
>Ted wrote:
>
> > I understand YOUR POSITION about one position having to be the true one. 
>  My
> > goal is simply to see if you will admit that given the serious debate 
>among
> > Christian scholars about the death penalty, that even if your 
>assumptions
> > about a God given set of ethical rules outside the human realm is 
>correct,
> > you may make mistakes about these rules, given the filtering of our
> > knowledge through imperfect human minds.  And so why do you appear so
> > convinced the death penalty, carried out with forethought my a State 
>that is
> > supposed to stand for the highest morals, is moral?
>
>Given the assumption that you mentioned-- that I am correct that there is a
>God who gave us directions, I could divide those ethical rules into two
>categories: those that are very clearly and unequivocally described in
>Scripture (such as the 10 commandments), and those that aren't clearly
>described (some would say infant baptism is an example).  The latter
>category, I would say, are those things that I could casually debate with
>members of my church or other Christians, and even if I came to a firm
>stance on a particular issue, I would do as the scripture commands and "not
>divide over these things."
>
>If I assumed that EVERY command of God, since it was knowledge filtered
>through imperfect human minds, was debatable, and therefore I shouldn't 
>take
>a stance on any thing the Scripture said, then I would go through life with
>a huge sail and no keel.  And someday I would face God and have to tell him
>"I just couldn't take a stance".
>
>I don't believe that the knowledge that is the Scripture was "filtered"
>through imperfect human minds. I believe that is what makes it miraculous.
>I believe God directly inspired human minds to write precisely what he
>wanted on paper-- "unfiltered". On what topic could you ask 40 authors over
>1500 years to write, and then when you gathered the papers together, they
>all said the same thing-- fitting together as perfectly as a huge puzzle?!
>Try a topic like "Who God Is, And What He's Telling Me" with 40 
>NON-inspired
>authors over 1500 years and see what you get.  The Bible has 40 authors,
>most of whom couldn't have known each other, and in three different
>languages.  Add to that hundreds of fulfilled prophecies made hundreds of
>years before, and historical and geographical facts consistently varifed by
>archeology. If the scripture were "filtered through imperfect human minds"
>it would be absolutely nothing like what it is. It is a miracle. The God 
>who
>made us didn't want to leave us without an owners manual--  and a 
>"filtered"
>version would be as incomprehensible as a manual for a complicated piece of
>electronic equipment written and translated in Japan. If you haven't
>experienced one of those manuals consider yourself blessed.
>
>The answer to your question "why do I appear so convinced  that the death
>penalty is moral?" is that I think it falls into the former category of
>things clearly described in the Scripture as being a command of God. Yes, I
>will absolutely admit that humans will make mistakes in administering the
>death penalty, but that does not change the fact that I believe that God
>himself ordained that ethic.  Does the fact that fifty percent of marriages
>end in disaster mean that we should abolish marriage and try to say that
>perhaps God never intended it?
>
>As for Christian scholars debating the death penalty-- the term "Christian
>scholars" is one of the broadest I can imagine.  You can find two 
>"Christian
>scholars" who will debate just about every one of the ten commandments!  
>The
>scripture couldn't possibly be more clear about how God feels about
>homosexuality. He doesn't think it is an "alternative lifestyle" anymore
>than he thinks that drunkeness is an "alternative lifestyle", even if they
>are both helped along by genetic tendencies. I have a strong genetic
>tendency to be attracted to women other than my wife, but I don't then say
>that I can act on that and call it an "alternative lifestyle" that is valid
>because nature made me do it.
>
>My point is that there are some things that God made extremely clear-- I
>don't think that reasonable people, upon a reading of the entire Scripture,
>can make mistakes about what God's intent was on rules such as "thou shalt
>not steal."  But you sure can find "Christian scholars" that will debate
>even that-- just as you could at one time find "Scientific scholars" who
>would heatedly debate the roundness or flatness of the earth.  There will
>come a day when theologians and scientists will look back on our current
>debates and think about them as we think about that 15th century debate.
>
>There will always be a glut of debaters. That is why, thank God, He made
>some things very clear.  If you believe that Scripture is the word of God,
>then I think the required death penalty is one of those clear things. If 
>you
>don't believe in Scripture, well, then there are more important things to
>talk about.
>
> >You do concede you
> > might be wrong about the death penalty, but then go on to argue 
>vehemently
> > as though you have no doubt.
>
>Ted, I think you're confusing my saying that I might be wrong as I
>administer the death penalty to John Doe with me saying that I might be
>wrong about God commanding the death penalty.   I concede I might be wrong
>about John Doe's guilt-- but I do not concede that I might be wrong about
>God's intent concerning the penalty for taking human life maliciously.  And
>while I can imagine few things more horrible than an innocent man going to
>the chair, I still maintain my position that overall, more innocent people
>are caused to suffer by a nation not having captial punishment than if the
>death penalty was nation-wide, consistent, speedy, and consequently,  
>feared
>by the public.
>
>Much obliged,
>
>Eric Engerbretson




_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx