by Cassiline 12 Replies latest jw friends
In light of the recent events, and all the different viewpoints of the members of this forum. I would like to ask what are your thoughts of Exodus 21:23,24? Just would like to know what your views of these scriptures are?
Thank you for your time in advance.
C
When the pain of being where we are, becomes greater than our fear of letting go...we will risk and heal and grow.
That was the old law. Is not the new law based on love, mercy, forgiveness?
Im sure that the old law was there, so people would learn to love and forgive, but they used the law to trap each other... JUST LIKE THE JEHOVAHS WITNESSES.
Christ fulfilled the law, yet he kill no-one, he stoned no-one, he loved, forgave, had mercy etc etc.
But when do the US & world governments take notice of Christ, except when it benefits their own means?
I am aware that some believe the old testament was obsolete after God gave his only begotten son. Then there are some who believe the Bible should be looked at in its entirity and both Old and New testament are applicable. I have only researched religion on a whole very little. I ask the question because of the religions who do believe the Bible as a whole should be used in that respect, some pointing to Revelations 22:18.
As I have said before I am just now starting to examine the JW belief system and other religions, after spending 26 years as a JW.
Please bear with me.
C
When the pain of being where we are, becomes greater than our fear of letting go...we will risk and heal and grow.
Dear Cassiline--
It is funny that there are two sets of laws in the bible. Why would that be? If the NT negates the OT why would they be combined? My opinion is this: the OT HAD to be included so as to confirm that Jesus was a "son of David". Of course this does not coincide with the assertioin that Jesus has no earthly father. I mean they go to a lot of trouble in the NT to trace Joseph's bloodline back to David and yet it is claimed Joseph is not really Jesus' father.
Just one of the countless contradictions in the bible. It is this sort of thing that forces hard-core fundies to have to LIE in order to justify/explain their religion.
Eye for an eye is primitive. Just like the rest of the OT. Barbaric, primitive and superstitious. I am not so sure that the war America is about to fight is so much retaliatory as it is to try to stamp out terrorism. I saw today where the Taliban resistance in northern Afghanistan welcomes America to come and squelch the Taliban. They tell us they have 15,000 trained fighters and 15,000 others who want to help. This could actually turn out to be a good thing in the long run for the poor people in Afghanistan who have suffered so much already.
Hope all is well with you dear--
Julie
: I would like to ask what are your thoughts of Exodus 21:23,24?
It's bullshit.
An eye-for-an-eye leads to a dramatic increase in blindness.
The U.S. Constitution is a far wiser document than the O.T. Compare the Eight Amendment with Exodus 21: 23, 24. Matthew 5:39 directly contradicts Exodus 21:23, 24, but even that verse when taken too literally is idiotic: it actually rewards and encourages criminal behavior.
The problem with all such so-called axioms is that they cannot fit all situations in the human condition. I favor expediency over generalistic hard and fast rules. In the case of the WTC terrorists, I favor blowing their sorry asses to oblivion. I'm glad I don't have the power and responsibility to make life-and-death decisions though. Once carried out, the death penalty cannot be reversed.
Farkel
"When in doubt, duck!"
Logical,
The Christ Jesus you claim to be a non-violent, never an 'eye for an eye' promoter, has to be reconsidered in the light of what Revelation has to say about him.
In case you forgot, he is supposed to be the rider on the 'white horse' wielding a sword of death and destruction. That is what makes the Bible such a conundrum, when a man he speaks nothing but peace, when glorified to heaven, his assigned job from 'god' is a warrior capable of mass murder.
Just how do you reconcile this?
DannyBear
Americans all around are expressing temerity and are insisting with coruscant eyes that the perpetrators be avenged. For this, I agree, their lives should be taken from them. However, what I disagree with is President Bush's misanthropic statement: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists, and those harboring them." This is not perfect justice. Thousands and thousands of innocent lives are at stake. Why is American blood esteemed so highly over Arab blood?
I hope that Bush will renege on his words, and will realize the importance of human life. Track down the terrorists and those involved, but don't destroy innocent lives and families for what they're not guilty of.
Bush was not talking about civilians, he was talking about governments who harbor terrorists..
ohhhhhhh, ok, thanks julien.
Frightmare
Those who harbor them are basically acomplices in a conspiracy to commit mass murder. They must also be held accountable. To think otherwise is just plain naive.
TheEye
