|
|
"Tom" <dantoXSPAM@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:Z8c8e.7249$yq6.3949@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "De Roberts" <deroberts2@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:dM48e.57000$B12.9804@trnddc09...
was[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Jesus did not say that any harm inflicted on a child was an unforgiveable
> sin.
But he did say that anyone who did anything to "trip up" a little child
would have done better to put a large weight around his own neck and cast
himself into deep water....
He was specifically referring to leading a child away from following
> his teachings.
No, he wasn't.
>Look it up.
You need to look it up. He (or the writer of the gospel) goes on with
quotations which do refer to those who are "little ones" in the faith; but
these verses are general in nature.
>
>
> No. But that doesn't mean he was unwilling to forgive them.
>
> Nor is he "my" Jesus. I'm simply noting what is being narrated in the
> bible.
No. You are misinterpreting what is written there. There is nothing in these
passages which yuou can use to excuse child molestation.
Shez decided to try to justify her desires for revenge and torture
> of people she hates by incorrectly quoting the bible. Ask her about *her*
> Jesus, if you like. He's not the same one written about in the bible.
> She's already made it perfectly clear that she doesn't believe the bible.
But she is capable of reading it and understanding what it says. You are
either unable or unwilling to do so.
>
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> They weren't molesting children either. They were selling crap in the
> temple. Jesus got really mad at anyone who did stuff he didn't like while
> they were in the temple.
The point was that he was capable of indignation. Do you really consider
selling crap in the Temple worse that child molestation?
>
>
> Yes, you managed (probably by luck alone) to get that right. He
considered
> himself a revolutionary teacher who was reforming the Jewish faith in
order
> to save them. The followers of Christ, those who believed his
revolutionary
> teachings, were and are called "Christians", even if they were also called
> Jews.
>
>
> Only if you don't examine my arguments rationally. To those caught up in
> the recent unreasoning hysteria around child sexual abuse, who believe all
> sorts of false claims about the unchangeable and monstrous nature of
anyone
> who commits this crime, any attempt to defuse that unthinking rage and
lust
> for vengeance will appear to be an "apologist".
All valid data does suggest that repeat offenders are unable to change their
nature.
>
> My point is that the Final Solution that Shez promotes is wrong-headed. I
> do not and never have condoned any sexual relationship between an adult
and
> a child. It is an appalling crime, but the solution is not to commit yet
> more appalling crimes.
>
>
> That's correct. I'm not talking about the effects of child sexual abuse
on
> the victim. I'm talking about what action society should take that best
> approximates justice and fair play for all, even for those who commit
> crimes.
>
> All kinds of crime can result in the harming of a child. How about
someone
> who drinks and drives, gets into an accident, and thus harms a child?
Shall
> we lock that person away forever because they are unchangeable and
> unforgiveable, too?
If they do it repeatedly, we must find some way to insure that they are
never permitted to drive around with children in the car.
Just where do we draw the line of unforgiveness and
> prediction of complete incorrigibility?
Where the evidence suggests that the nature in incorrigible and that
"forgiveness" will contribute to the continued infliction of suffering on
innocent children.
Should every crime that affects a
> child result in the torture and death of the one deemed responsible?
If it is an ongoing predeliction which is inflicting significant damage on
the Children; Yes; I'm all for it.
>
> Shez's attitude towards this issue of what comprises a just punishment is
> extreme, vicious, unreasoning, and grossly unfair. That's what I'm
saying.
>
>
|
|