Search results

I don't think that's a Christian understanding of justice. If justice and mercy are mutually exclusive, then God cannot be both just and merciful. Yet Scripture repeatedly affirms that He is both. In fact, Christianity is founded on the reality that God does not give us everything we deserve...

I think you're creating a false choice between justice and mercy. I've never argued against justice, nor have I argued that wrongdoing should go unpunished. The issue is whether justice is exhausted by giving a person what they deserve, or whether Christian justice must also be concerned with...

I understand why you'd like the discussion to move away from your changing positions, contradictory interpretations of John 11:2, and retroactive edits. However, those issues remain part of the documented record. Since you're unwilling to address them, I agree that it's probably best if you no...

I don't think Romans 13 means what many people assume it means when it's quoted by itself. Romans 13 follows immediately after Romans 12, where Paul instructs Christians: "Bless those who persecute you." "Repay no one evil for evil." "Never avenge yourselves." "If your enemy is hungry, feed...

More specifically, you said: But the issue is not whether you added scriptures. The issue is whether the edits changed the substance of the claims being made. Changing: to: is not the addition of scripture. And changing: to: is not the addition of scripture either. Those edits changed...

Your conclusion may not have changed. Your arguments did. You originally argued two anointings, later three, later three plus a note, and later four. You also offered multiple interpretations of John 11:2. Those are changes in position, even if your final conclusion remained the same. You just...

Nobody disputes that the conversation expanded. The issue is that your position expanded with it. The record shows your anointing count changed from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four. That is a change in position, not merely an expansion of the conversation. The issue is...

No one is claiming you wrote the Bible. The question is whether you were always arguing for four anointings. The record shows that you were not. You initially argued for two anointings, later three, later three plus a note, and later four. The passages did not change. Your interpretation of them...

The fact that the conversation expanded is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your claim that these positions "were always there." A discussion can expand without a person's position changing. In this case, however, your documented position changed from two anointings, to three, to three plus...

I agree that the situation in John 8 was not a formal judicial proceeding and that the accusers were acting in bad faith. That's an important distinction. But I don't think that resolves the broader point I'm making. My argument has never been that the woman caught in adultery and Christina...

I think this is where I'm confused. You agreed that a person is more than the worst thing they've ever done, and that repentance, transformation, suffering, and the state of the soul matter. But you also said the only relevant questions are whether she is guilty and whether the sentence has...

The fact that the conversation expanded is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your claim that these positions "were always there." A discussion can expand without a person's position changing. In this case, however, your documented position changed from two anointings, to three, to three plus...

I agree that the accusers were acting in bad faith and that the whole situation was meant to trap Jesus. But I don't see how that addresses the point I'm making. The woman was still guilty. Christ never denied that. Nor did He declare adultery acceptable or claim that the Law treated it...

The topic is about whether the repentant woman, Lazarus’s sister, Mary, and Mary Magdalene are the same woman. Your claim that “we did not start out talking about every anointing” is not accurate. In my opening post, I referenced the two anointings directly relevant to the identity question...

Part 2 And that love be a guide even in the relationships between authorities and subjects, be they either ecclesiastical or secular authorities. None of these, having been placed in high places, must be without love and justice. God - because it is God who has permitted this one or that one to...

Below is the explanation of Romans 12 and 13. Part 1 The Sacrifices were the basis and the forms of ancient religion. Everything was obtained and everything was expiated by means of sacrifices. Through the sacrifice, one intended to honour God and appease Him, thanking Him for a victory or for...

I presented my position. Your response was to change the number of anointings from two, to three, to three plus a note, and then to four; offer multiple contradictory interpretations of John 11:2; and retroactively edit earlier posts. I'd say that speaks for itself.

Yes. If I truly want to follow Christ, I should desire for even the worst offender what Christ desired for the adulterous woman: repentance, conversion, and salvation. My personal pain would not change the Gospel.

I don't think Matthew 25:30 addresses the point I raised. Christ's final judgment of souls and the state's execution of criminals are not the same thing. Of course Christ will judge mankind. Of course the wicked who reject God will be condemned. No Christian disputes that. The question is...

I understand the appeal to Genesis 9:6, but that doesn't really address the point I raised. My argument was not that governments have never been given authority to execute. My argument is that Christians should align their desires with the heart revealed in Christ. That's why I brought up the...