Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.

Commit To God

June 10th, 2015 Viewed 1116 times

Commit your way to the Lord;
trust in him, and he will act.
He will bring forth your righteousness as the light,
and your justice as the noonday.
-Psalm 37:5-6

Capital Punishment: Justice, Jesus and the Cross

March 20th, 2008 Viewed 2950 times

Alone amongst the dead header

We start this round finally making progress in our debate on the Death Penalty. For starters, Amanda admits that she does not believe the Death Penalty to be just. This necessitates that she’s not providing mercy for the convicted convict, but instead arguing for justice for the convict, and therefore negates her previous statement that sparing someone is both merciful and just. It’s simply is just.

Is the Death Penalty Just?

As far as the next statement, the verse I quoted does indeed support capital punishment– perhaps I need to provide the verse in context:

You Can’t Have Mercy Without Justice

March 6th, 2008 Viewed 5066 times

Alone amongst the dead header

One of the hardest things when it comes to a debate is to realize both what is your key point and where you are weak. You also need to know exactly what things you can afford to compromise on and what you cannot.

In this debate I’m having with Amanda, she believes that mercy is the point of the discussion and wonders why I gloss over this to focus on the justice aspect. It’s specifically because of this:

Perhaps I should say that regardless of whether or not the death penalty is just (and I do not think it is), I believe that it matters more if it is merciful. [emphasis mine]

What is Mercy? Who Decides What is Just?

March 3rd, 2008 Viewed 5550 times

Alone amongst the dead header

These questions are at the heart of a debate I’m having with Amanda over the topic of Capital punishment. In this debate, Mercy is a red herring– a diversion.

First, our working definition is flawed1 . Mercy ties in compassion and has the flavor of sparing someone from a negative consequence, rather than just not getting what is deserved2 .

  1. Under the current working definition of mercy would permit something like this: If I purchased a 10 piece flatware set but was only given 9 pieces the person who sold them to me would have been merciful. []
  2. Hence why in VeggieTales Jonah, the two are the lessons to learn. Nineveh was not only spared God’s wrath via destruction, but they were given a second chance. []

Mercy and Justice in Capital Punishment

February 28th, 2008 Viewed 13401 times, 1 so far today

Alone amongst the dead header

When you think “Capital Punishment” I bet the first thought that crosses your mind is not “mercy.” In fact, in Amanda’s opening statement she believes that sparing someone the death penalty is both merciful and just.

When I first started trying to respond to this line of thought, I had the problem of pinning down exactly what mercy means. In my mind it’s a shifting and subjective concept. But when we finally agreed on what it was, we came to the following:

Mercy is not getting what we deserve.

The problem with stating that Capital Punishment is both merciful and just is that you have to define what just is first.

Creator = Owner

January 15th, 2008 Viewed 2412 times

Young Photographer

To come to the topic of God and justice, we first must define who God is– what is His standing. I know that this will be philosophical and theological, but hang with me, because it’s important that we think through these things.

Who does God claim that He is? Of the many things, one that stands out as important to our discussion is that He claims to be the Creator of all that is. In Genesis 1:1 we read that God created the Heavens and the Earth– He spoke them into existence.

Continuing the Court Discussion

September 27th, 2004 Viewed 1899 times

Strangecloud posed a very interesting dilemma to my idea in the last post.  His point was that Judicial Review was put into place as part of checks and balances in the government.  If I remember my history
correctly, Judicial Review was actually a creation of a certain Supreme Court (I want to say Marshall, but I may be mistaken).  In fact, even at the time it was quite controversial.

There is a movement inside congress to restrict judicial review over topics such as homosexuality and school prayer.  The problem is that the judiciary has become all powerful, casting rulings on controversial issues that should be decided by the country’s populace and not the “enlightened” thinkers on the bench.

The part that even gets me more riled up is the fact that when the citizens do speak through their representatives about issues such as abortion and school prayer, these same justices have the audacity to say that their ruling trumps the clear reading and the people’s wishes.

My point is that since it seems impossible to keep these justices in check via legislation and since people put so much weight on how a justice will rule on moral issues (not issues of Constitutional understanding), that we need to take away or scale back that power.

Judicial Tyranny

July 17th, 2004 Viewed 1442 times

What gives the rights to the nine men and women in robes to determine right or wrong?  Certainly not the Constitution of the United States. It declared that the function of courts was to interpret the law, but
these courts have gotten out of hand.

When courts can find an imaginary right to privacy in the law, and thereby kill millions of children before they are born, we should have said this was too far.  I mean, think about it.  Whether you disagree
or agree with abortion, anyone knows that extreme caution should have been taken on that ruling.  In the best case, they were only removing tissue, but in the worst case, millions of lives could be lost because
of them.

Now we are bombarded with these blatantly false statements about discrimination.  I was reading a thread the other day where the person’s statement was that no where in our Constitution is discrimination enshrined.  Has this person even read the Constitution?  Without trying very hard, I can come up with at least two:  The President must be an American Citizen, 35 yrs old or older.

Think about this… more later.


Standing in the Gap in a Society that's Warring with God.