You can assume general agreement on the parts I snipped.

> > > So you're saying that there exist people whom Jesus has chosen not to forgive?
> >
> > Of course!--those who don't ask.
>
> That's not his choice. That's theirs. There is an important distinction.
>
> (In fact, I'd rather phrase it that they've been forgiven but they haven't accepted that forgiveness and its consequences. You can't choose to forgive yourself or not to forgive yourself if you haven't been forgiven yet; you can only accept or reject forgiveness that has been offered.)

I believe the position I stated to be the Biblically correct one: those who ask receive forgiveness, those who do not ask do not receive forgiveness. John 3:36 says, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains upon him." If you think I am misinterpreting this far-from-vague statement, enlighten me.

> > James is quite clear that mercy is the opposite of justice, even on the personal scale. James 2:13 "...judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!" Note also where God spoke to the nation of Israel, "...what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy...(Micah 6:8)"
>
> BTW, in fact, in the last verse you quoted God asks Israel to *both* act justly *and* to love mercy, indicating that the two, though they appear to be opposites, are not mutually exclusive and that both are required of us. How can we be both just and merciful at the same time? By recognizing evil for what it is and calling for and working for repentance and a turn away from evil, but at the same time recognizing evildoers as those loved by God and calling for and working for their welfare and forgiveness.

That is what I was getting at, except for two nitpicks. First, the verse was addressed to a nation, not an individual. We've already been over how the government and the citizens of the government do not have exactly the same rights and responsibilities. Second, it says the nation is to *act* justly and to *love* mercy. That is the big distinction I was hoping to convey earlier.

> Love encompasses the Law: Galatians 5:14.

"The entire law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" -- In other words, the law tells us to love.

>The Law does not encompass love: Matthew 5:20.

"For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven." -- Is this the verse you meant? There's nothing here about law or love.

>Or I Corinthians 13:2-3. There are others.

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing." -- There's nothing about the law in these verses either.

I think this business of the law being a subset of love may be justifiable from an abstract logical and theoretical basis, but is not really present in the Bible, or at least of no consequence whatsoever. The law was given by one who loves, and it instructs us to love. That should be enough.

> > > One very well *can* commit crimes against the soul; James told us to commit crimes against the body was basically committing crimes against the soul.
> >
> > Where?
> >
> James 2:15-16. If I show concern for a person's spiritual well-being and even pray for the person's future physical well-being but do no concrete action to help that person physically, I'm basically not doing anything. Faith without works is dead, and here James is implying love without works is likewise dead.

"Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, 'Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?"

First, lack of faith is a far cry from a crime against the soul. Second, these verses don't mention the soul. Third, they are talking about faith, not love.

> I don't mean you can do anything directly to "harm" the soul in the sense that damnation "harms" the soul, but since a soul comprises a person's consciousness, mind, and experience, persecuting a person in body in a manner so that they will experience it is persecuting them in soul; wouldn't it be?

There is no hard scripture reference to say that the soul is any of those things. We are triune beings; most Christians seem to believe the mind, will, experience, and personality to be what the Bible refers to as the spirit.

> Anyway, the original point was, IIRC, that the Law provided no penalties against the soul because the soul could neither commit nor be the victim of sin, which I think is first of all wrong because Jesus *did* tell us there would be a penalty imposed on the soul, Matthew 10:28,

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell." -- Will or can? I think it is an important difference.

>and second because the soul (or "heart") is the source of sin, Matthew 15:18, and the only part truly victimized by sin, see above.

I don't agree at all that the "heart" is the soul. See Deuteronomy 10:12. I would include that label in the spirit with "will," instead.

> > Or there might be concrete concepts of good and evil.
> >
> What do you mean by "concrete", exactly?

I mean that there is a real good and a real evil, as real as anything else. One can quibble over the precise definitions and natures of good and evil if one likes, but it is hardly important as long as we can distinguish between them. In such a case, it wouldn't matter how I define them; they simply are. This is usually invoked when people ask the ridiculous question "If God said that something bad were good, would it then be good?" or a something similar. Perhaps a simpler and stronger defense could be made by reminding that God is good and unchanging, rendering the question moot.

> A loving God could not allow true evil in the world, because he cannot tolerate evil ("sin"; the Greek word used means "missing the mark", "falling short", the Way Things Should Not Be), not only as part of his true nature but out of love for those evil victimizes. Something must be done; evil must be vanquished.
> [and more, which I accidentally snipped too quickly]

More simply (and, I think, accurately), he chooses to give us free will, whatever that may entail, good or evil. We are all every one of us evil, so he doesn't separate us into good people and evil people. He asks us if we want to be with him, and if we do, then he forgives us and lives with us, and we with him. If we don't want to, then he remains apart from us, because he cannot bear sin.

> This comes straight from my reading of the Bible, though parts of it are semi-high-level interpretation. I think all the pertinent parts are fairly well-accepted by the Church and well-documented in the Bible, though.

This may just be a difference of opinion, but what some call 'high-level interpretation,' I call 'speculation.' Excepting the poetic sections, I vastly prefer to remain firmly grounded in what the text actually says. Where it is poetic, I'm more open to unusual meanings.

> Out of curiosity, what simpler explanation would you propose? Starting from my worldview, that explanation is the "simplest" (actually, the only one that makes complete sense to me, though others come close). The only assumptions I started with were that God was the source of everything that exists, and yet God is also the standard of everything that *should* exist; all-powerful and all-good. And the only belief system I've found that can explain a God like that given the world we live in is Christianity.

Granted, 'simple' is often in the eye of the beholder. Also granted, I have the ability to cheat, in that I am rather sparing with words. Short seems tightly mixed with simple. ;) I won't cheat, though.

Regarding the death penalty issue that all of the above referred to, you use semi-high level interpretation to show that mercy is preferable to justice, and to show that this applies to allowing people to live as long as possible to give God more opportunities to find them.

The explanation I use involves direct interpretation: God gave divine recognition that the death penalty is allowable in the Old Testament and he continued to give divinely inspired recognition of the same in the New Testament.

In all honesty, the death penalty is an issue I have flip-flopped on before. My current position is that it isn't any great, wonderful thing, but I'm not going to contradict God's direct words that it is OK for a government to do.


Despite the name of the thread, this is all interesting.

gabby