Texas Barbecue: America watch and learn how its done!

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
In the end, I'm some proud of him. It doesn't erase his past, but he did right in the end.

Proud he killed a Police Officer? Make your mind up, Slowwie...

[snoopy369]

One presumes he's proud that the guy felt guilty for doing the crime, admitted it, and accepts his punishment like a man...

[SlowwHand]

Thank you, snoopy. I don't speak idiot, which is why I don't see a particular response. You got it though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Monk
Huh?

As far as I understand and interpret the phrase, it basically means that there's a difference between the commands of the state and the commands of God, and that's all. The same difference that is stressed by the fact that Jesus wasn't a politician, unlike Muhammad and others.

Obviously secular life 'belongs' to God insofar as it is subordinate, but the point is that God shouldn't be invoked. The 'turn the other cheek' idea goes against ANY penalty, not just corporal punishment. It's an ideal, not a law.

It is ambiguous:

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

The gospels say that when Jesus gave his response, his interrogators “marvelled, and left him, and went their way.” They were unsuccessful in getting Jesus to unambiguously come out either in favor of paying the tribute to Rome or in favor of tax resistance. Advocates for either argument could interpret his words in either way.

Time has not resolved this ambiguity, and people continue to interpret this passage to support positions that are poles apart.

One interpretation of Jesus’s words was that he was making an analogy — the coin is made on the orders of the emperor and is stamped with the image of the emperor, and the emperor may call on you to give it to him in tribute; by analogy, you were made by God and in God’s image, and you must therefore devote your life in tribute to God, rather than Caesar.

Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker movement put it this way: “If we rendered unto God all the things that belong to God, there would be nothing left for Caesar.”

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by snoopy369
One presumes he's proud that the guy felt guilty for doing the crime, admitted it, and accepts his punishment like a man...

There is nothing to be proud of just because the guy decided to grow some balls and accept his punishment.

The guy still killed a cop, and at the end of the day Slowwie is proud of him as a indirect result of his initial crime.

Guys kills cop > stuff happens > Slowwie is proud of cop killer...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


It is ambiguous:

Yep. But Matthew 25:40 isn't.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by Grandpa Troll
I feel in my heart that a murderer should be put to death....humanely as opposed to say stoning or hanging with off chance not cleanly breaking neck.

I believe Jeshua ben Joseph's words on the matter were, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone." You are also commanded to turn the other cheek.

Regarding the First stone story: The passage you are quoting is a forgery that does not appear in the earliest versions of the text but even if we do take its contents at face value Jesus doesn't challenge the right of the crowd to do what they are doing.

Regarding the commandment to turn the other cheek: What you are refering to is what he urged people to do in thier relationship with each other and not a way for people to escape secular punishment forthier crimes.

[Arrian]

I rather doubt that Jesus was anti-DP. I don't think he'd be terribly fond of people celebrating executions, though. It just doesn't seem like his style.

-Arrian

[SlowwHand]

Who is celebrating an execution? On this last one in particular, remorse is shown for not only the victims, but the executed. There's nothing funny or entertaining about it. I've not seen anyone say that there was, at any time. What I have seen is regret that it's necessary.