> > > ...where you make a statement that I am so incapable of comprehending that I lack the ability to refute it.
> >
> > Well, this is a difference in our POV. If you really believe that an unsaved person is going to Hell when he dies, and you condemn him to death, you're condemning him to Hell, correct?
>
> No. One, as you yourself said earlier, we can't tell who is saved and who is not, and as far as human government is concerned, it is irrelevant. Illegal acts are punished according to human laws, and if those laws and punishments are ones God endorses, then rightly so. If a death sentence is just, then it is just, regardless of what consequence it has on one's eternal fate. You can't just arbitrary transfer the responsibility for what happens as a consequence to what initiates the sequence of cause and effect. People going to hell just doesn't "happen." God is a person who consciously judges -- flawlessly righteously, I might add. God is not a passive natural law of the universe that can be treated as a disinterested, non-active entity in a cause-and-effect chain.
>

I agree with you up to a point; for instance, I do accept this line of reasoning for why God allows people to die in infancy and allows people to die in places the Gospel has not yet reached (though I'm not certain how far the latter principle reaches, since applied indiscriminately it would make missionary action a waste of time).

(snip)
>
> Yet no one dies before God's grace grants him chances to turn to him, and everyone is responsible for his or her own actions (barring mental disability, which, I believe, God takes into consideration and acts justly thereon). No one goes to hell without refusing the terms on which one obtains mercy from it. I am not responsible for someone else going to hell -- as much as it is my duty and responsibility, as a servant of Christ to take what steps the Bible indicates to spread the gospel and so forth.
>
> > Our *job* is to bring people to Christ, to save souls, even the most depraved.
>
> Our job is to witness, evangelize, and all that -- even to the most depraved -- but it is God that does not just the saving part but the work in the heart that leads up to the acceptance of Christ in the first place. The act of witnessing is more of a catalyst than a cause. It may sound like I'm being overly nitpicky here, but the distinction has significant bearing on the distribution of responsibility under discussion here.
>

I agree that, as Paul said, once we have brought the message we are absolved of our responsibility and can and ought to shake the dust off our sandals, as he did; but there still seems to be a distinction between not forcing evangelism too far and consciously limiting the time a person has to choose.

I think that while God's power certainly doesn't need to be limited by our understanding and our actions he chooses to limit it that way, to exert his power through us so that our decisions can have a real consequence. If I kill someone he really dies; I don't think it was necessarily God's hand killing him through me. And I don't think God screws around with the functions of the Universe so everything we do ends up being a good thing somehow. Evil isn't evil if it has no evil consequences.

And so I still interpret the Scripture to mean that if we choose not to bring the Gospel to somebody, there is a consequence for our negligence. Maybe she will be saved, maybe not, but things can and will end up worse because we avoid our duty. And I think shortening people's lives and eliminating their chances is the same way.

> > (Especially the most depraved; Matthew 9:12-13.) There will be judgment of the saved, not for whether we are guilty or innocent, but of, in our innocence, how much positive good we have done in the world (the Parable of the Talents comes to mind, as does that of the Sheep and the Goats). God *does* care very much about each and every sinner, and, as a corollary, cares very much about how we treat each and every sinner.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > I'm not sure I agree with this. What is the fundamental difference between death by lynch mob and capital punishment?
>
> Um. God respects the rule of human law (except where it conflicts with his own). This is not a greatly kept biblical secret.
>
> Spiritual marriage is sex; yet God still wants us to marry in accordance with the laws of the land, rather than just up and deciding to seal the deal. Render to Caesar what is Caesar's, but private citizens don't have the right to tax mandatorily, or take back what is given. Later in this post you point out that government *can* do things that private citizens cannot, but your stated reasons don't substantiate some of the things government can do (such as taxation) nor do I see that the line drawn at capital punishment is other than arbitrary.
>

Correct, but what makes human law human law? (This is starting to get deeper than intended, but I think this may be the issue we disagree on.)

I think I used this analogy somewhere else, but consider if, for instance, there's some sort of nuclear war, Washington DC is bombed, the US government falls to pieces and we lose contact with the rest of the world. (Unlikely, but conceivable.)

Now, what if, say, I fall in love with someone and want to share my life with her? Because the original country's government has collapsed, it is now impossible for anyone to marry, have sex or have children without sinning?

Of course not, right? If the US government falls a new one will be established in its place, or many smaller, more local ones. It could be that the only "government" is one person who manages to get enough people with guns to support her and hence becomes de facto leader of the immediate area. (There've been historical situations not too dissimilar; in a sense, that's how all governments get their start.) Admittedly, it wouldn't be a very good government, but it would still be all I had, correct?

This is why I think, strictly speaking, there is never a time when there is no government; the government is just the body that, by popular consent, has been given the right to keep order and carry out the majority's will.

So in a sense, the government and its employees are people we hire to take care of the work of, well, governing, and taxes are the wages we pay them. True, I can't avoid paying taxes, but that's because I can't avoid needing the government's services; if I stop paying taxes, all that happens is the government stops working for me and I lose the rights it protects and affords. In this country, that means going to prison; in others, it could mean dying. But, then, it would be highly unlikely for me to be able to find a place to live that wouldn't entail paying rent or mortgage to anybody, and it'd be hard for me to eat without buying food from a grocery store or restaurant. But that doesn't make landlords or grocery store owners fundamentally different people with different rights from the rest of us; they just sell different services. I have the right to "tax" someone for living on my land; it's called "rent". I can impose penalties up to a point if they don't pay my tax, and if they don't pay it for long enough I can deny them the service I provide, that is, living on my land. Same deal with the government. Of course, if I tax someone unfairly, if the amount of money I take for a service is not proportional to the service I provide, then I am in the wrong (and, probably, the other guy will find a higher authority to rectify the situation). The government, likewise, can tax unfairly; this is the sort of thing we dislike in rogue nations. So the people look to the one human authority higher than a civil government, the country's population as a whole, and decide to rectify the situation, through peaceful means if possible (mass protests, referendums, petitions, etc.) or, if it proves impossible (in their minds), through violent means. That's how revolutions happen.

God respects human law because he respects our right to make mutual decisions; the government is in the end all human beings in an area acting in concert. (There are governments where a certain group of people has used their position and power to, for a time, gain control over the majority and deny their rights, but the forces of society make sure they don't end up lasting long.) Even when all human beings act in concert, though, they're subject to the same standards as God sets for individuals.

We already kind of agree (you said civil law can't contradict God's law) but I think we disagree on whether God's law means the same thing for individuals as it does for governments.

> > Yes, Paul said the government has the power of the sword to enforce fairness and security, but the "sword" doesn't necessarily mean killing.
>
> What else do you do with a sword? Role-play? Lop off fingers? Smoke a peace pipe and hack down a peace tree?
>

You use a sword to enforce your own authority because it means you have the power to injure or, in extreme circumstances, to kill if someone attacks you. That gives you authority and power over what other people have, because you are *protected*; if anyone else gave you an order, you could kill him or incapacitate him and that would be it, but if I'm armed, that means I have more power than you and all of a sudden my words have weight.

If you are the authority, if the people as a whole decide you or the entity you represent should have the power to govern them (governance by consent, I'm a Locke fan, yes), then you have the right to the protection of the sword. It doesn't mean you have the right to use it to kill outside of self-defense.

New metaphor: The most obvious equivalent of a sword is a sidearm, not an injection needle.

I don't question the right of police officers to carry sidearms for their protection. I don't question their right to shoot criminals in self-defense, or in defense of innocent civilians. (Though even then I would say they should make every effort not to lethally injure but only to incapacitate; this is IIRC correct police procedure.)

But I don't believe that police officers should have a Judge Dreddesque right to determine that a person is guilty of a crime and shoot him on the spot, if he makes no immediate effort to resist or threaten or harm. There is a very real difference between self-defense and vengeance or execution. (The one is to prevent future death; the other is in response to a past death.) And I don't support this "right" either when it is extended to the courts and to the overarching governments, even when it's done "humanely" after a due-process trial in a sterile room with a needle.

So, yeah, I support the right of the sword, but not that of the executioner's axe, to stretch out another metaphor.

Even then, the sword should be used sparingly, and only in self-defense and to protect the peace and public safety; remember what Jesus said about those who live their whole lives by the sword.

> I think agreeing to disagree, as you suggest later, is probably the best idea. I'm tired of this thread and lack the motivation to dig up hard references, especially since I think you and I are the only ones left reading this. I do respect your logic and position, inasmuch as I disagree with it, and that's not a statement I am generally able to bring myself to make. The paradox of me is that I can usually see both sides of any given argument, and yet I am very opinionated on most things.

Well, there's also Nyperold. But yeah, I think those riots might be starting soon. :) I hope Brunnen_G hasn't decided to euthanize herself yet or anything...

Considering this thread has reached page three now, it's probably a good time to quit. And, before I say anything else, I do respect your opinion greatly. I think your position makes sense and is self-consistent, but your view on a few basic principles is just slightly different from mine and that's why we disagree. And I know how you feel: I'm probably the most opinionated person I know, and yet I also usually know the most about both sides of the argument. It's not a real character trait for me, it's just experience from arguing with people about it over and over again and hearing the arguments all the time. :)

All this is aside from the fact that, of course, you are the Great and Powerful Wizard of Rinkworks and deserve nothing but our unfettered praise. *kowtow*

Ar"even I get tired of arguing, eventually"thur