Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I believe that "judge not, least you be judged" is for your
    benefit, not for the object of judgement.

    It is bad for you to judge someone and hold a grudge.  This
    impedes your freedom.  It gets in the way of getting closer
    to God.  Your mind dwells on the trivial when the Almighty
    is at hand.

    What are your reasons for judging?

    It can be because you have been slighted or injured.  In this
    case it is more important for you to learn to forgive, least
    you give up the greater goal of pursuing the Almighty.

    If it is because your society has called upon you to help
    with justice, I think it is your duty to humbly serve that
    society for the greater good.  Purely practical.

    You don't have to hate or revile the accused.  You don't have
    to say s/he's evil or bad.  You just have to decide if s/he
    did what they say s/he did.

    There's an interesting twist to being on a jury.  That is, even
    if you believe the accused did what they say s/he did, if you
    think the  law is unjust, you can declare the accused innocent.

    What a country!

    Tom

    Re: .0
    
    Because you've taken Christ's teachings in Matthew 7 out of context.

>    Because you've taken Christ's teachings in Matthew 7 out of context.

    I'm afraid I don't find that helpful.

    Tom

    Even the OT Law called for 2 or 3 witnesses for a conviction.  Christ
    came to fulfill the Law.

    
    We judge things all the time; we judge with whom we will associate, who
    our children hang around with, and we judge who is guilty of breaking
    the laws of the land. What we should not judge is another's relationship
    with God. We should judge their responsibility for their actions, not
    their state before God. In matters of Christian living, we should not
    be quick to find flaws in another's attempt to live a Christian life.
    But this has nothing to do with judging another as being the one who
    stole a car.

    Eric

    >    Because you've taken Christ's teachings in Matthew 7 out of
    > context.

    No, I don't think so.  From an earlier dialogue I had with Jack as well
    as from something I've read from a book called "The Hard Sayings of
    Jesus", I think I've got a fair handle on Matthew 7.  There's a lot
    more too, like "turn the other cheek", "forgive and you shall be
    forgiven", "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", "When you 
    do this to the least of your brothers..." etc... .  Jesus' message in
    this regard seems not to have been defined by one passage.  

    I like what Tom said.  It made a lot of sense.  I suppose it's possible
    to love the accused while doling out a verdict of guilty.  The capital
    punishment thing might be a different matter.
    
    The story of the prostitute who was to be stoned is very pertinent
    here.  She was found guilty under the law and was about to receive her
    just punishment.  Jesus classic response seemed to indicate that we
    sinners are not in a position to judge and/or condemn others. Yes?  No?
    
    -dave

>    The capital punishment thing might be a different matter.

    Lawyers and district attorneys are aware of this.

    Some Oklahoma City bombing trial jurors were rejected if
    they weren't willing to condemn someone to death.
    
>    The story of the prostitute who was to be stoned is very pertinent

    Actually, her crime was adultery (I think).

    And yes, there should be mercy in the courts.

    But, when is it appropriate to have our society forgive and
    when is it appropriate to hang the sucker?

    I have yet to be asked to serve on a jury.  Perhaps I'll never
    have to decide someone else's fate in such a direct and profound
    manner.

    Good luck.

    Tom

    So what's the purpose of trying and sentencing someone in a sense that
    would not contradict Jesus' teachings?  Might it be construed somehow 
    as an act of love?  Is it just a process for curtailing someone's
    liberty for the good of all involved?  Is incarceration a form of
    rehabiliation... an act of caring?  Is it a means to protect all
    involved from ferther danger or damage?  Or is it a form of punishment?
    
    ANother one that comes to mind is "Remove the beam from your own
    eye..."
    
    -dave
    

    re: prostitute
    
    you're confusing the spiritual condemnation vs. civil condemnation.

>    you're confusing the spiritual condemnation vs. civil condemnation.

    I'd be interested to hear how you interpret these two terms
    and how they differ.

    Tom

    
    Sin is in the heart as well as the deed. I think you hit the nail on
    the head when you used the word "rehabilitation." From a Christian
    perspective we don't want to approach the judicial and penal systems
    with a "make the bastards pay" attitude, but rather with an
    attitude toward rehabilitation. And of course, we need to discriminate
    between violent and non-violent crimes.

    It is possible to judge culpability without anger. It is possible to
    say "what you did was wrong," without wishing the person ill. If we
    equate justice with moral self righteousness, if we de-humanize the
    criminal rather than the crime, if we find satisfaction - even pleasure
    - at the thought of criminal suffering, then we surely are not
    following Christ.

    Eric 

|>    you're confusing the spiritual condemnation vs. civil condemnation.
|
|    I'd be interested to hear how you interpret these two terms
|    and how they differ.

    Tom, what did Jesus Christ say to her?  What did He not say to her? 
    What did He tell her to do no more?  As God the Son He had authority to
    do as He wished.
    

>    Tom, what did Jesus Christ say to her?  

    "Go, and sin no more."

>    What did He not say to her? 

    Lots of things.  He didn't say what she did was right.

>    What did He tell her to do no more?

    See above.

>    As God the Son He had authority to do as He wished.

    Are you saying we have no right to forgive her?

    Tom

    RE .11 (Eric)
    
    But let's face the fact that very little rehabilitation goes on in
    prison.  So when a jury passes down a verdict of guilty, and the judge
    passes sentance, in reality, they are sending the defendant into
    punishment.  Given this, should a Christian juror return a verdict of
    not guilty so as NOT to PUNISH the defendant?  True, caring
    "rehabilitation" is not an optio until and unless proson reform
    happens.
    
    -dave

    
    Good point, Dave. I guess I was talking about judgment in a more
    abstract, theoretical sense. Practically speaking, perhaps you're
    right; maybe a Christian should claim something like conscience
    objector status, given the current state of our penal system(s).
    
    Have you considered taking such an apporach to your upcoming jury duty?
    
    Eric

|>    Tom, what did Jesus Christ say to her?  
|    "Go, and sin no more."
    
    So Christ was obviously addressing a spiritual offense not a civil one. 
    Adultery is a spiritual problem - a problem of the heart; regardless of
    what the Torah said about it.

|>    What did He not say to her? 
|    Lots of things.  He didn't say what she did was right.
    
    Exactly.

|>    What did He tell her to do no more?
|    See above.
    
    ditto.

|>    As God the Son He had authority to do as He wished.
|    Are you saying we have no right to forgive her?

    Only God can forgive sin.

    I don't know.  I don't even know what kind of trials there might be.
    Maybe criminal trials, maybe just law suits.  Maybe the jurors are
    supposed to be of the mindset that they just decide whether or not
    someone committed the crime (as Tom said) and not think about the
    consequences od the verdict.  So the ball's in the judge's court.  And
    maybe s/he just doles out a sentance in accordance with the law.  SO
    now the ball's in the law's court.  Who ultimately takes the
    responsibility?  
    
    I think I'll have to play this one by ear.  
    
    -dave

    RE .16 (Mike)
    
    >    Only God can forgive sin.
    
    "Forgive and you shall be forgiven".  This suggests that man can
    forgive.

    Re: .11
    
    Eric, thanks for entering that reply.  You explained what I've been
    trying to tell Dave about Matthew 7.  Christ taught not to judge
    unrighteously, not to withdraw judgment completely like some think.  In 
    the same chapter He teaches not to cast pearls before swine or give to 
    the dogs.  Obviously you can't do this without judging.

|    >    Only God can forgive sin.
|    
|    "Forgive and you shall be forgiven".  This suggests that man can
|    forgive.
    
    See, this is what happens with pretexts.  It doesn't say "Forgive sin
    and you shall be forgiven."  Sin is a spiritual problem that can only
    be dealt with by someone who is in a higher authority.  Someone who has 
    conquered sin and all it involves.  Man does not have that authority.
    
    We are to forgive those who wrong us for doing things to us or
    offending us.  When someone offends you, you can forgive them, but you
    have no authority for forgiving them of their sin.  None of us do.  
    
    The Bible declares that only God can forgive sin.  This is one of the
    points that the Jews got so upset at Christ about.  They knew this to
    be true, and were shocked when they heard Christ forgiving people's
    sin.  This is one of the hundreds of reasons that we know Christ was
    God incarnate.
    
    Mike

>    We are to forgive those who wrong us for doing things to us or
>    offending us.  When someone offends you, you can forgive them, but you
>    have no authority for forgiving them of their sin.  None of us do.  

    When someone sins against society (eg. not paying their taxes)
    then it is up to society to either forgive or punish or rehabilitate
    or reeducate or whatever.

    Society is comprised of us.  In these cases we not only have the
    authority but also the duty to judge, and perhaps, to forgive.

    Tom

|    When someone sins against society (eg. not paying their taxes)
    
    I don't agree that this is a spiritual sin.  It is a civil offense.
    You might extrapolate this to dishonesty, but that is still between God
    and the person.  Render to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God
    that which is God's.  We are to obey the laws of the land, but breaking
    them won't always get you a ticket to Hell.  You already have that
    ticket anyways if you aren't covered by Christ's atoning blood.
    
|    Society is comprised of us.  In these cases we not only have the
|    authority but also the duty to judge, and perhaps, to forgive.

    I agree we have that authority in civil matters.  Not spiritual ones.
    Even then our civil authority is derived from God.  Much of our legal
    code comes from the Torah.  Even the varying degrees and punishment for
    homicide.

    Mike:
    
    >Eric, thanks for entering that reply.
    Ditto!
    
    >You explained what I've been
    >    trying to tell Dave about Matthew 7.
    
    No need, I got it some time ago.  The source that makes the best sense
    so far is a book by Frederick Fyvie Bruce.
    
    >Christ taught not to judge    unrighteously...
    
    In my mind, I'd rephrase it "Jesus taught not to judge in a condemning
    way".  So I guess the difference lies in "righteous" vs "condemning
    way".  
    
    
    >See, this is what happens with pretexts.  It doesn't say "Forgive sin
    >    and you shall be forgiven."
    
    I chose my words carefully.  I intentionally avoided saying "man can
    forgive sin" to avoid the lecture.  Your reply to Tom's inquiry in .13
    didn't seem to answer his question about man forgiving man.  Your
    statement  in .20 "We are to forgive those who wrong us..." did.  
    Thank You.
    
    Getting back to something I mentioned to Eric, if the default action of
    a judgement is in fact to condemn (in a physical sense), is it correct
    to judge?  If the jurors of the Oklahoma City bombing case know that a
    verdict of guilty will send McVeigh to the firing squad, can they,
    with a clear conscious and in a caring/loving way, render a guilty
    verdict?  
    
    
    -dave
    
    
    

    
    Perhaps it's the difference between making a judgment and being
    judgmental... Language can be filled with nuance, *sigh*.

    Eric

    >Language can be filled with nuance, *sigh*.
    
    Countries have gone to war over miscommunications.  double *sigh*
    
    When I think of the judicial system we have, it would appear that we've
    got a system where the responsibility of judging and condemning is passed
    "over the wall" to others.  A juror can think "All I'm being asked to
    do is determine whether someone dit it or not and I'm not condemning
    anyone. Besides, I'm just one of twelve".  The judge can think "Heck,
    the jury decides guilt, I just pass sentance according to the law". 
    And not the responsibility lands in the lap of "The Law" and not a
    person (at least not directly).  I mean the law is decided on by
    elected or appointed official, both past and present, who are removed
    from individual court cases or the sentances paseed in those cases.
    
    Who passes judgement and condemns?
    
     Not the jurors.
     Not the Judges.
     Not the officials.
    
    Who then?
    
    -dave

>    When I think of the judicial system we have, it would appear that we've
>    got a system where the responsibility of judging and condemning is passed
>    "over the wall" to others.  A juror can think "All I'm being asked to

    And so it should be.

    It is right and fitting that laws be made by the legislature.  It
    is right and good that a judge follow the laws and shows mercy whe
    s/he deems fit.  It is also right, good and fitting that the pronouncement
    of guilt be made by a jury of civilians, where the power of the
    system and state ultimately resides.

    This means that laws can be passed after rational thought and debate
    (or, at least, that's the theory) and the judge, in a fit of passion
    of prejudice, cannot sentence someone to life imprisonment for picking
    his nose is court.

    We make laws.  We follow them.  We follow them even when someone
    else breaks the law.

    The one thing that scares me more than unpunished criminals and
    freed terrorists is a police force and judiciary that makes it's
    own laws.  (Why? Because we say so!)

    Tom

    I would encourage anyone who is going to sit on a jury to read the
    account of the trial of William Penn, which we are fortunate enough
    to have because an anonymous spectator committed it to paper as it
    happened.  Your public library would have it.
    
    Juries have more power than they're normally given to realize.
    
    Incidentally, one of the grievances listed against the crown in our
    Declaration of Independence was the absence of trials by jury.
    
    Richard
    

    epilogue...   I didn't get picked as a juror.  I guess my appearance 
    in the "one day, one trial" system practiced here in Mass excuses me
    from service for 3 years.

    Regarding the Timothy McVeigh trial, how would you like to be sitting on
    that jury now?  A man's life literally rides on your decision.  

    I used to be for capital punishment until I heard an interview on a
    radio show one evening.  The woman being interviewed was the mother of
    a child who was brutally murdered. They caught the guy, tried and
    convicted him, and sentenced him to death.  While on death row, this
    woman, who originally applauded the sentence, changed her mind and
    pleaded with the governor for his life.  She said that the turning
    point came when she was thinking to herself how wrong the man was for
    killing her child.  She argued in her conscious that no one had the
    right to take the life of another.  Then it dawned on her... "NO ONE
    HAD THAT RIGHT".  

>    Regarding the Timothy McVeigh trial, how would you like to be sitting on
>    that jury now?  A man's life literally rides on your decision.  

    This brings up an interesting question.  It is right and good for
    you to forgive someone.  If you don't, then you won't be forgiven,
    either by yourself, others or God.  From a spiritual point of view
    it is the best thing you can do.

    But can the state afford to forgive such transgressions?  Does the
    state work on a spiritual or just a socialogical level?  Does a
    nation have a soul and is that soul in need of forgiveness?  Does
    the state, of necessity, have to play by different rules than
    people do?

    I personally believe that Jesus didn't die for the state, but
    that He died for the sake of people.  The state does not have
    a soul.  Whereas people need to surrender to God, the state
    must control it's people (within reason).  Laws are passed and
    convicts are not assured of forgiveness.

    Hmmm... It seems we are closer to God than the state...

    Tom

    Which brings  to mind:

    If we crucify McVeigh he could become a martyr, especially if
    it's shown later that the trial was rigged and that he was
    innocent.

    It is in the state's best interest to  sentence him to 999 years.

    Give him a chance to repent and  regret.

    Blowing up children cannot be tolerated in a civilized society.

    Tom

re Note 1353.29 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

> >    Regarding the Timothy McVeigh trial, how would you like to be sitting on
> >    that jury now?  A man's life literally rides on your decision.  
> 
>     This brings up an interesting question.  It is right and good for
>     you to forgive someone.  

        Remember that the remaining issue before the jury is not
        whether to forgive but the form of punishment.  (Life in
        prison is hardly being forgiven.)

        I'd actually like to see him kept alive not only because I'm
        against capital punishment but also because I think he knows
        more than he's saying and that eventually he may talk.

        Bob

    Interesting idea.  It's reminiscent of the note on corporate sin.
    
    If the state is a collection of "souled" people, then would not that
    state, by necessity, have a soul, or a collective soul (isn't that the
    name of a rock group?)?  By regarding the state as being something
    separate from and different than the people, we also disconnect
    ourselves from the responsibility for the actions of the state.  It
    allows us to say that "the state" is executing McVeigh and not us. 
    "The state" is not forgiving and will not be forgiven in return,
    insulating us from the responsibility and lack of forgiveness.  I
    suppose the men on trial in Nuremberg tried to throw responsibility for
    their decisions and actions onto the state.  Yes? No?
    
    The bottom line is that people have tried and convicted and will
    sentence McVeigh.  Others may be the ones who throw the switch or pull
    the trigger (or however they execute people in Colorado).  And the rest
    of us are part of the system... the state.. that's allowing this.
    
    McVeigh should be forgiven... and then locked up for the rest of his life
    as an act of love to the rest of the population who might, in the future,
    fall prey to his madness if he were free.  

    And as we yell "CRUCIFY HIM" from the gallery, what does
    it do to *our* souls?  You may be right that people with
    souls cannot "afford" to condemn someone to death.
    
    Then there are other practical matters.  We've been all 
    through these before, haven't we?

    RE: "I was only following orders."

    Killing one man who has been tried and convicted is different from
    humiliating and exterminating an ethnic group.

    Yes.  I'm glad I'm not on that jury.  Either way it is decided,
    they may face the wrath of the rest of the populus for making the
    "wrong" decision, whatever it is.

    Tom