Our hearts are still hard. We still "return" tithes from "our" increase. Jesus, in addressing the issue of taxes, also recognized that we owe obedience to Caesar as well as to God, showing that both tithes and taxes were to be paid. In other words, we obey God when we obey government (as long as government does not conflict with an established law of God).

When we recognize the authority of government in things like taxes this is acceptable with God. This also includes things like capital punishment. Certainly, God Himself has established a system of capital punishment, and therefore, it is not new to today's governments. At the same time that God allowed other nations to have the rule over His people, He established that they were to be obedient to those governments. It was for their good, and for the hardness of their hearts.

The question of the thread is not whether or not God established capital punishment. The question is why. Tom's answer seems to be that God did so on account of the hardness of their hearts.

I disagree. I believe capital punishment had much more to do with God's mercy toward the righteous. In mercy, God removed the influence of the wicked from them, so that they would not also be led astray. (Note the contrast of this with the concept of removing them so that the righteous would be avenged, as if from hatred. The concept here is not "punish" but "cleanse." If hatred were involved, it was murder.)

Tom, by turning the focus toward an avenging God, ready to punish, tries to tell us that this is not in harmony with God's character, and that Jesus showed a better way later. However, I believe that Jesus had already showed the best way. God never gives His people anything but the best.

Ellen White tells us that when we reach the fair shores of Heaven, when we see the way in which God has led us throughout our lives, we would not choose to be led in any other way. I am a firm believer in that this is not only true of people in my day and age, but in every age, including that of the children of Israel, and including the laws which they were given by God.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you intend to say that not only is making a comparison off topic, but merely asking if a comparison is relevant off topic too?

(Glad to see you are able to make a comparison with tithe returning)

Wouldn't you say it is good to make sure that people are clear on terms being used, especially AS A MODERATOR, none the less? Thank you for finally summarizing what you mean about murder and killing. Now, with a proper distinction, I may be able to answer your other questions.

That person being me also went on to explain that Lucifer was not guilty of sinning until he was convinced that pursuing his course further would be viewed as a sin by God. Until then his course was not considered a sin by God. Rosangela suggested he was ignorant of the fact his course was sinful until the moment he was convinced it would be indeed a sin to continue pursuing it at which point he was no longer ignorant.

However, as GC has pointed out, this is off topic.

I am reposting this post. Somehow it got overlooked.


Do you believe Jesus commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? And, do you believe he obeyed Him?

I would like to answer this question by saying the woman was led into sin by religious leaders for the sole purpose of entrapping Jesus. The Sabbath-breaker and the blasphemer, however, were guilty of willfully, deliberately, defiantly sinning against God out of anger and resentment. The woman was immediately repentant, whereas, the other two were stubborn and defiant til the moment they died. As such, I do not believe Jesus would have treated them any different had He been there in person. Do you see what I mean?

I get the impression from what you’ve written that you believe the words and works of Jesus in the OT are a lesser, inferior revelation of the character of God when compared to the words and works of Jesus in the NT.


The fact Jesus used the OT (without adding to or subtracting from) to explain the truth about the final judgment indicates the words and works of Jesus in the OT are perfectly suited to the task. You, on the other hand, seem to believe they are insufficient and inferior when compared to the words and works of Jesus in the NT.


Is your answer to the first question above yes?


Please summarize your answer here. Thank you.


Would He have pardoned them in the same sense He pardoned the woman?


Do you agree it was Jesus who commanded Moses to stone sinners to death? And, do you believe it is within the character of God to command Moses to stone sinners to death because of the hard-heartedness of the COI?


The question above concerns Jesus giving the go ahead to stone the woman to death. So, as you can see, it is dealing with the words and works of Jesus as revealed in the NT. It would help me understand your point of view if you would answer the question. Thank you.

No, that does seem clear now.


So now back to the questions you asked:

By implying it was wrong, you seem to be. But, referring to your last statement, should we do everything the government tells us to do or only if it doesn't conflict with God's laws? Which, if you say killing is ok with God, then we should follow the government's laws.

You never said to answer them as to what specific circumstance, so I will use the killer of the abortion doctor. (Not sure how all these questions are relevant, but will answer them just the same)

Who does it?

• Tiller Killer.

When?

• When he "had to do it".

Where?

• Near the killing office.

How?

• With a gun.

With what attitude?

• With a saving attitude.

With what spirit?

• A spirit of love. Not hate. Only hating the acts of killing the babies.

For what reason?

• Because he had to and it needed to be done for the good of society to remove the wickedness of the slaughter of innocents.

So, he did not hate, therefore, using your definition, he did not murder.

The question becomes whether he obeyed the law of the government. I think we both agree he did not.

However, excepting the issue of disobeying the government since we are not defining sin but defining murder and killing, would you say he did wrong killing the abortion doctor?

But before you answer that, let's consider it from the abortion doctor's perspective.



Who does it?

• Tiller.

When?

• As the non-planners not wanting a family came in.

Where?

• In his office.

How?

• With suction devices or knives or other instruments of distruction.

With what attitude?

• Performing a service.

With what spirit?

• A spirit of love. Not hate. Only helping non-planning mothers/kids not wanting to be burdened by a family.

For what reason?

• Because he had to and it needed to be done or those mothers would have to care for babies they didn't want.

So, he did not hate, therefore, using your definition, he did not murder.

The question becomes whether he obeyed the law of the government. I think we both agree he did obey the current laws.

So would you say the abortion doctor was doing wrong? He had no hate, he killed while following the laws of the government.



What law is God following if you say he kills us? And before you say this is off topic, showing it is wrong for God to kill us (that He doesn't) would show it wrong for us to do capital punishment. So the question becomes, why did He command it? Saying He did to create a better environment is no better than the killer of the abortionist.

It's what I've been saying. I think God's counsel regarding capital punishment is of the same character as His counsel regarding polygamy and divorce. I think God's idea will in this matter is reveled in Christ. In particular, we see this in how Christ treated the woman caught in adultery.

I'll also repeat that I've suggested many times that if we wish to understand God's character, the way to do so is to build a foundation based on what we see in Christ first, and then come back to the OT. You've steadfastly rejected this idea. I don't think focusing on the OT first works. I think focusing on the revelation of Christ first works.

The woman repented *after* Jesus treated her the way He did. It's the goodness of God that leads to repentance. God treats all "good," not just those who repent.

I would say that Christ is a greater, clearer revelation of God than that of any other source whatsoever.



I don't know what you're talking about here. What passages do you have in mind? I don't recall saying anything at all about this. What are you basing your opinion of my thoughts regarding this on? To the best of my knowledge, I haven't even thought about this, let along comment on it, so I can't imagine what you're basing your ideas regarding what I think about this on.



No, my answer is "it depends." It depends upon what you mean by your question. As I've explained, forgiveness involves different aspects. I actually think I gave a very full answer to this question. I went into detail regarding the different aspects of forgiveness, and gave examples. I don't know why you're still asking this. My answer was a detailed and complete answer. Why not refer to that, or ask me something about that?



As I stated before, I have no means of knowing this, baring some clear statement from inspiration. If I had to guess, I would guess not. Why do you think this is worth asking?



It depends. Which sense are you talking about? If you're talking about the sense of forgiveness being accepted by the offending party, then that would depend on them, right? So are you postulating that they respond as the woman did? If so, then yes. If not, then no. If you're talking about the other aspect, dealing with Christ's desire to pardon another, then yes, as Christ is not a respecter of persons, and gave His life for them as much as for the woman.



You asked the first question above. Regarding the second, I believe it's in harmony with God's character for Him to have acted as He did. Where we disagree is in regards to how God acted. I believe He acted in a similar fashion as He did in regards to the divorce question, or the polygamy question, or the "can we have a king" question, or many other matters where God acted differently than His ideal will due to the hard-heartedness of the people with whom He was dealing. I believe God's ideal will was revealed in Jesus Christ, while here in the flesh, when He came for the specific purpose of revealing God.



Jesus didn't give the go ahead to stone the woman to death.



Since Jesus didn't give the go ahead to stone the woman to death, I'm not understanding your question. Regarding God's acting according to His character, I addressed that.

Basically I believe God is against violence. I believe God is non-violent. I believe compelling power is only to be found under Satan's government, and that the Lord's principles are not of this order. I believe the exercise of force is contrary to the principles of God's government. I believe God's will was clearly revealed in Christ. I believe discerning God's will from the OT is much more difficult, and most people (everyone before Christ, and everyone since who doesn't take into account Christ's life and teachings) get it wrong. I think even holy angels, who are of much greater intelligence and have no sin to cloud their thinking, were unclear in regards to things until Christ's revelation.