I take it he meant Deuteronomy 4 and 17. Those would be the relevant texts here.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Jonathan Safarti above says “But that’s not all that the Mosaic Law demanded. The Mosaic Law also said, it is the witnesses at whose testimony someone is being executed, they must be the ones to cast the first stone. But that’s not all. In Exodus 4 and Exodus 17, it’s also pointed that the witnesses at whose word someone is being executed, they must not be guilty of that same sin.”

I can’t see his point in these passages. Are they the right Bible references?

David Roberts

Ditto with your very long response to Jonathan. Not only have I allowed you to go on at length about the Greens in a previous comment (a generous concession on my part, given the very deep concerns I have about the party), but this is not related to the original post, so it has gotten rather far afield.

If you two want to debate this amongst yourselves, feel free, but this is not the place for it.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

But I have exercised a bit of editorial privilege here, and cut you short. As you know, I have given you a very generous run here, letting you post numerous lengthy comments defending your position. But the subject is becoming somewhat repetitious now, and you are not adding much new material to the debate.

I have said before that this is a topic in which genuine differences of opinion exist, and one which Christians can agree to disagree on. I am aware that different positions on these questions have been held throughout church history. In my understanding, it is not a test of Christian orthodoxy.

As I say in my blogging rules, if a person wants to follow a topic to his or her heart’s content, they can feel free to set up their own website. As there are many pressing issues which are taking up my time, I will draw this particular debate to a close.

Hopefully it has helped to set out to the reader differing points of view on some important ethical and theological issues. But as I say, I think there is room to move on some of these questions, although you apparently do not think there is much room to move. Thanks again for your contributions.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

PS – I do not lecture Ethics at my college. I am first and foremost a church historian.

Jim Reiher, Victoria

Jim Reiher, Victoria

I think we are not covering much new ground here. And it seems many of my direct questions are not being answered by you.

As to your Bush comment, yes I am horrified. Horrified at your bizarre moral equivalence. You implied before that Bonhoeffer was a terrorist, and now you imply Bush is one. You equate these two men with Hitler and Saddam. It is indeed horrifying when an ethics lecturer makes such remarks.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

Reiher stated: “To impose Christian rules on non-Christian unwilling people is to wander away from the New Testament.” This is absurd: all laws impose morality. The only question is whose morality is imposed. Laws against murder and rape impose morality against murderers and rapists.

As has been pointed out, at one time, society imposed an evil form of morality on slaves. Wilberforce wanted to impose Christian rules on slave-owners which would protect slaves from them. And after he had won that battle, the Royal Navy imposed Britain’s anti-slavery views on slave-trading nations in what would be called “imperialist aggression” today.

More recently, Martin Luther King appealed to biblical morality to end discrimination against blacks. He also pointed out that sometimes force was required to protect innocent victims.

Nowadays, we find secular feminists, including in the Green party, imposing their anti-life morality on unborn babies. It is our Christian duty to impose morality on those who wish to snuff out unborn lives in the name of “choice”, as per official Green party policy.

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

Bill, once again you push me into extreme corners that I have not said, to try to ignore the arguments I have raised. (I have never said that the Judeo-Christian tradition has nothing to say to non-believers for example).

Spencer is closer to a better answer when he notes Stott’s position about persuasion instead of enforcement. I believe that Christians should live a better example; argue; persuade; convince; demonstrate; be involved and do all these things … that is all appropriate and consistent with Christ and the apostles. But we have no mandate to enforce and rule with secular power. Sorry guys. It’s just not there. It is a post Constantine adaptation of Christianity to the aquiring of secular power.

Changing tack: A question that harps back a few comments ago ….

If Bonhoeffer was right to try to kill Hitler (you used the “moral equivalence” argument: kill one to stop the killing of thousands) then why would it be wrong to try to kill George Bush because of the war that he began, which has killed tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians? I hope that question horrifies you. It should. Because both scenarios are sinful acts of terrorism.

And I have been checking into Bonhoeffer a bit more since this debate, and he knew he was sinning in his attempt to kill Hitler. He was angry that he felt compelled to sin. At least he admitted what he was doing was wrong. He would never say (like you have tried to above) that he and Jesus agree that this is a good thing to do – to save more lives. He knew it was an act of sin, but he felt compelled to take that path as the lesser of two evils. But evil it was.

To allow terrorism by individual Christians, you are opening the door to anachy. Acts of terror forget the Biblical mandate to love our enemies and bless those who curse us. How inconvenient of Jesus to make such demands on us!

Jim Reiher, Victoria