Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

They're in the old testament unless I have my books wrong.

Melissia wrote:They're in the old testament unless I have my books wrong.

With the exception of the second one which I missed on the first go, yes.
Also with the above exception: None of them apply to Christians.

Yeah. That's why I used the term "old covenant" many times in this thread, with the new testament a "new covenant" with god.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm not listening for a particular brand of Jesus, I'm asking how he thinks we should treat criminals.

And I keep telling you, Christianity is not about laying out a criminal code.

Gods a bigot 6:00
10:30 Jesus had 2 dads

Bigoted idiots, always good for a laugh, especially when they're attacking each other

-Edited by Mannahnin

Manchu wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm not listening for a particular brand of Jesus, I'm asking how he thinks we should treat criminals.

And I keep telling you, Christianity is not about laying out a criminal code.

Then it's even more useless than Sharia law. How could a Christian ever be a police officer, a judge or hell even a soldier? Even the most extreme liberal hippie will recognise that criminals have to have their freedoms and actions limited to some extent, even if its only to rehabilitate them and ensure they don't hurt others again. If what you're saying is true, then Christianity refuses to acknowldge that any society needs law and order to function in the most basic manner. Even a heavenly kingdom not of this world must have rules and laws of some kind. The only altenative is that there is absolutely no free will in this heavenly kingdom, because as long as there is free will there will be people that will operate in a manner harmful to society.

If a religion is to provide any sort of guidance it can't ignore important matters like this. "Love thy neighbour" and "Love God", while lovey-dovey and sweet sounding, simply won't cut it. Even if you personally adhere to these two requirements, there will be people who don't love their neighbors, people who will see fit to kill and steal from their fellows and you will have to do more than love them or love god to prevent them from continuing to hurt innocent people.

What kind of book lays out a set of guidelines and rules to follow in instance and then tells us that they're completely irrelevant and we should ignore them the next? At least Judaism and Islam has some consistency about it.

Then it's even more useless than Sharia law

... for the purposes of law, yes. But that's precisely what is being stated. It SHOULDN'T be used to determine law.

Religion, and more importantly one's relationship with a god or gods that may or may not exist, is an inherently personal thing. Matters of faith are matters between a person and their god(s), especially for Christianity

Civil matters, on the other hand, serve an entirely different purpose-- civil laws are for the safe, orderly running of society that benefits everyone within the society. They are earthly, secular matters that, while they can be motivated by religious beliefs, are still not the laws of a god or gods, but the laws of human beings.

Even if you personally adhere to these two requirements, there will be people who don't love their neighbors

And you are to love them, too, and try to help them.

Jesus never said the Christian path was easy.

What kind of book lays out a set of guidelines and rules to follow in instance and then tells us that they're completely irrelevant and we should ignore them the next?

A book whose first half is a historical record (the Old Testament) which allows people to understand the background that the religion believes it had at the time of the gathering of the collection of books, and whose second half contains the relevant set of philosophies for the religion.

Melissia pretty well covered it.

Harry, you seem to value a religion only to the extent that it can deliver us into theocracy. Fair enough, Christianity will rank pretty low for you. Rule of the state was not the goal of Christ.

Melissia wrote:

Then it's even more useless than Sharia law

... for the purposes of law, yes. But that's precisely what is being stated. It SHOULDN'T be used to determine law.

Religion, and more importantly one's relationship with a god or gods that may or may not exist, is an inherently personal thing. Matters of faith are matters between a person and their god(s), especially for Christianity

Can you really have a Christian judge then? If on one hand they are directed to love, forgive and show mercy how can they possibly administer justice? Does one's personal belief stop at their job, can one really show mercy and justice at the same time? I'd imagine not, given that mercy is showing leniency where none is deserved.

Civil matters, on the other hand, serve an entirely different purpose-- civil laws are for the safe, orderly running of society that benefits everyone within the society. They are earthly, secular matters that, while they can be motivated by religious beliefs, are still not the laws of a god or gods, but the laws of human beings.

Just out of interest then what kind of laws would a heavenly kingdom have?

Even if you personally adhere to these two requirements, there will be people who don't love their neighbors

And you are to love them, too, and try to help them.

Jesus never said the Christian path was easy.

You're right, I had just thought that a Christian society would be possible if not pleasant.

What kind of book lays out a set of guidelines and rules to follow in instance and then tells us that they're completely irrelevant and we should ignore them the next?

A book whose first half is a historical record (the Old Testament) which allows people to understand the background that the religion believes it had at the time of the gathering of the collection of books, and whose second half contains the relevant set of philosophies for the religion.

But when Jesus discusses the old testament does he really say that people are no longer bound by the 10 commandments? I know he regarded a lot of the additional laws and regulations with scorn, but the very basic commands set down in stone by God himself?

Manchu wrote:Melissia pretty well covered it.

Harry, you seem to value a religion only to the extent that it can deliver us into theocracy. Fair enough, Christianity will rank pretty low for you. Rule of the state was not the goal of Christ.

Since I have a keen interest in a career within the criminal justice system I suppose you're right. Like Melissia I'd like to ask you the same question though, what laws would a heavenly kingdom have?

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Then it's even more useless than Sharia law

... for the purposes of law, yes. But that's precisely what is being stated. It SHOULDN'T be used to determine law.

Religion, and more importantly one's relationship with a god or gods that may or may not exist, is an inherently personal thing. Matters of faith are matters between a person and their god(s), especially for Christianity

Can you really have a Christian judge then? If on one hand they are directed to love, forgive and show mercy how can they possibly administer justice? Does one's personal belief stop at their job, can one really show mercy and justice at the same time? I'd imagine not, given that mercy is showing leniency where none is deserved.

You shouldn't have a Christian judge, but you can have plenty of judges that are Christian.

To the extent that one can conceive of heaven as a place similar to a state that is ruled by God, please remember that all of the subjects are morally perfect and the society between them is utterly without conflict. In other words, there is no need for metaphorical law with regard to this metaphorical country.

The early Christians had no problems with the Roman law and the more philosophically inclined among them had no problem with the Roman idea of justice as a matter of civil law. When Saint Justin wrote to the emperor asking him to cease the persecutions, he did not write a condemnation of the system. Rather he said that Christians were ideal citizens because they followed the law in every respect excepting only the worship of idols.

Saint Augustine went on to contrast the "city of man" with the "city of God" and criticized the notion that Earth could be made into Heaven by human politics. Saint Thomas More, a lawyer and Chancellor of England, coined the term "utopia" ("no place") over one thousand years later to describe the earthly state that was perfectly good. In the West, we have considered civil and religious authority to be separate matters of jurisdiction. Even the Inquisition, after finding an individual guilty of some doctrinal fault, had to hand over the convict to the secular authorities for punishment.

Manchu wrote:To the extent that one can conceive of heaven as a place similar to a state that is ruled by God, please remember that all of the subjects are morally perfect and the society between them is utterly without conflict. In other words, there is no need for metaphorical law with regard to this metaphorical country.

If Jesus forgives us for our imperfections (which undoubtedly everyone has to a greater or lesser extent) how can everyone in the metaphorical kingdom be morally perfect?

Either this heavenly kingdom is completely depopulated of human spirits, or the 'forgiven' spirits allowed in have been altered to such an extent it would make the basis of a 1984 plot with angels.

The early Christians had no problems with the Roman law and the more philosophically inclined among them had no problem with the Roman idea of justice as a matter of civil law. When Saint Justin wrote to the emperor asking him to cease the persecutions, he did not write a condemnation of the system. Rather he said that Christians were ideal citizens because they followed the law in every respect excepting only the worship of idols.

Saint Augustine went on to contrast the "city of man" with the "city of God" and criticized the notion that Earth could be made into Heaven by human politics. Saint Thomas More, a lawyer and Chancellor of England, coined the term "utopia" ("no place") over one thousand years later to describe the earthly state that was perfectly good. In the West, we have considered civil and religious authority to be separate matters of jurisdiction. Even the Inquisition, after finding an individual guilty of some doctrinal fault, had to hand over the convict to the secular authorities for punishment.

While interesting, I don't disagree with any of this. But I don't see what it has to do with whether or not there would in fact be some kind of law in heaven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

d-usa wrote:
Can you really have a Christian judge then? If on one hand they are directed to love, forgive and show mercy how can they possibly administer justice? Does one's personal belief stop at their job, can one really show mercy and justice at the same time? I'd imagine not, given that mercy is showing leniency where none is deserved.

You shouldn't have a Christian judge, but you can have plenty of judges that are Christian.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Can you really have a Christian judge then?

You can have a judge who is Christian, who judges based off of civil law but does not judge others on spiritual matters.

Because judging others on spiritual matters is only in the realm of god, according to the new testament.

Hazardous Harry wrote:If on one hand they are directed to love, forgive and show mercy how can they possibly administer justice?

Because justice doesn't have to be retribution. Many judges assign rehab for addicts, for example, and time off for good behavior is quite well known. The judges, however, stay within secular laws to do this. Because civil, secular laws are not the laws of god, they are the laws of humanity-- and as judges are human, they are thus able to interpret them properly (usually) and are authorized to judge them.

Hazardous Harry wrote:given that mercy is showing leniency where none is deserved.

Mercy has nothing to do with whether or not someone deserves anything. It is, and I quote, "[c]ompassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm". Whether or not any particular person deserves mercy/compassion/leniency is an entirely different philosophical concept.

Hazardous Harry wrote:Just out of interest then what kind of laws would a heavenly kingdom have?

A sort of anarchic communistic society where everyone is equal and good and everyone has plenty of everything is, essentially, the concept of heaven as I understand it. As such a thing cannot exist in the real world, and as I'm a scientist who looks at the real world, not a hypothetical heavenly one, I honestly don't know if it would even have laws as you understand them. Somehow, I think not.

Hazardous Harry wrote:You're right, I had just thought that a Christian society would be possible if not pleasant.

You remind me of another biblical conversation:

An ideal "Christian society" would be a practical impossibility on all but some relatively small scales (a few dozen people as a "society"). Thus why Jesus is tolerant of secular laws-- because they are the best we can manage with our imperfect efforts on this imperfect Earth.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I know he regarded a lot of the additional laws and regulations with scorn, but the very basic commands set down in stone by God himself?

He had this to say, specifically:

“Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

In other words, the other eight commandments spring from these two in some way or other. The most important thing to keep in mind is that we must love one another and love god, and we should try to act in accordance with this, rather than through judging and condemnation.




edit: I feel like a preacher, but hey, this is just my understanding of the concepts, as I said I'm not a theologian.

Hazardous Harry wrote:If Jesus forgives us for our imperfections (which undoubtedly everyone has to a greater or lesser extent) how can everyone in the metaphorical kingdom be morally perfect?

This is a complex theological question. The general term for it is "justification." The discipline that studies it is called soteriology, in case you want to do some further reading. Very, very basically, heaven is the status of the human person made morally perfect. In Catholic tradition, this is the sum of people trying to be better, people helping each other be better, and (giving rise to and underlying the rest) God helping us be to be better and helping us to help others. The experience of this moral "betterment" is called grace and the striving of conscience is cooperation with grace. Moral goodness, in the course of human life, is a work in progress. The notion of "purgatory" stands for this work still being in progress after the death of the body. Heaven, also called salvation, is the completion in the sense of perfection of this process.

Either this heavenly kingdom is completely depopulated of human spirits, or the 'forgiven' spirits allowed in have been altered to such an extent it would make the basis of a 1984 plot with angels.

This is indicative of total misunderstanding. You should stop trying to conceive of heaven as a place, as if it were some other planet or dimension.

Thanks Melissia, I'm pretty happy with your response, just one point I have an issue with.

Hazardous Harry wrote:given that mercy is showing leniency where none is deserved.

Mercy has nothing to do with whether or not someone deserves anything. It is, and I quote, "[c]ompassion or forgiveness shown toward someone whom it is within one's power to punish or harm". Whether or not any particular person deserves mercy/compassion/leniency is an entirely different philosophical concept.

Melissia wrote:You remind me of another biblical conversation:

This is very true. Harry, your reaction to the story of Jesus and the adulteress, this whole demand that God be some kind of benevolent dictator, is the same position as the Pharisees in that very story.

Manchu wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:If Jesus forgives us for our imperfections (which undoubtedly everyone has to a greater or lesser extent) how can everyone in the metaphorical kingdom be morally perfect?

This is a complex theological question. The general term for it is "justification." The discipline that studies it is called soteriology, in case you want to do some further reading. Very, very basically, heaven is the status of the human person made morally perfect. In Catholic tradition, this is the sum of people trying to be better, people helping each other be better, and (giving rise to and underlying the rest) God helping us be to be better and helping us to help others. The experience of this moral "betterment" is called grace and the striving of conscience is cooperation with grace. Moral goodness, in the course of human life, is a work in progress. The notion of "purgatory" stands for this work still being in progress after the death of the body. Heaven, also called salvation, is the completion in the sense of perfection of this process.

Either this heavenly kingdom is completely depopulated of human spirits, or the 'forgiven' spirits allowed in have been altered to such an extent it would make the basis of a 1984 plot with angels.

This is indicative of total misunderstanding. You should stop trying to conceive of heaven as a place, as if it were some other planet or dimension.

I'm going to back off now because I am definitely way in over my head on this one. Thank you for being so cordial and informative in your responses, Manchu.

Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm going to back off now because I am definitely way in over my head on this one. Thank you for being so cordial and informative in your responses, Manchu.

Justification is a complex topic; just look at the Reformation! Feel free to ask if you have any other questions.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:You remind me of another biblical conversation:

This is very true. Harry, your reaction to the story of Jesus and the adulteress, this whole demand that God be some kind of benevolent dictator, is the same position as the Pharisees in that very story.

I'd like to think I wouldn't be seen stoning people to death for adultery, maybe keying their car but that's it.

As you've already guessed I don't really 'get' the relevance of a following that doesn't instruct us on how to go about building a perfect (or as close as possible) society in the real material world.

From my personal walk with Christ I give you my understanding of the message and purpose of the Old Testament as it relates to Christians (the way I see it):

The main purpose of the Old Testament was to set up the scene for the coming of Christ, to show why he needed to come and why we needed him. Starting with creation, then the fall, and then the continuing struggle.

The main purpose of the Old Testament Laws was to show us that we needed Christ for redemption and justification. The purpose was not "Follow these laws and you will be justified and go to Heaven. Just be good enough!", the purpose of these laws was "Look at all the stuff you would have to do, look how perfect you would have to be, everyone will fail, there is nothing man can do to justify himself." The Law didn't exist so that we would follow it, The Law exists to show us that we can never follow it and that Salvation by works is not anything we could accomplish. The only person that could follow the Law and be good enough for God was God himself (insert story of Jesus here).

And just for perspective (and again just personal opinion:

Reading the Old Testament it seems like no matter how often God himself came down and told Israel to follow His Law, Israel always managed to break the laws and land herself in trouble.

If God himself could not get a country to follow His Law, what makes us think that we could do better at making people follow His Law?

d-usa wrote:From my personal walk with Christ I give you my understanding of the message and purpose of the Old Testament as it relates to Christians (the way I see it):

The main purpose of the Old Testament was to set up the scene for the coming of Christ, to show why he needed to come and why we needed him. Starting with creation, then the fall, and then the continuing struggle.

The main purpose of the Old Testament Laws was to show us that we needed Christ for redemption and justification. The purpose was not "Follow these laws and you will be justified and go to Heaven. Just be good enough!", the purpose of these laws was "Look at all the stuff you would have to do, look how perfect you would have to be, everyone will fail, there is nothing man can do to justify himself." The Law didn't exist so that we would follow it, The Law exists to show us that we can never follow it and that Salvation by works is not anything we could accomplish. The only person that could follow the Law and be good enough for God was God himself (insert story of Jesus here).

The Old Laws, while rigorous, would not be impossible to adhere to. Unless we're including thought crimes.

If God himself could not get a country to follow His Law, what makes us think that we could do better at making people follow His Law?

We could try it his way. Fire, brimstone and lots of flammable examples.

Hazardous Harry wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:You remind me of another biblical conversation:

This is very true. Harry, your reaction to the story of Jesus and the adulteress, this whole demand that God be some kind of benevolent dictator, is the same position as the Pharisees in that very story.

I'd like to think I wouldn't be seen stoning people to death for adultery, maybe keying their car but that's it.

As you've already guessed I don't really 'get' the relevance of a following that doesn't instruct us on how to go about building a perfect (or as close as possible) society in the real material world.

I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others. If you live a Christ-centered and Christ-inspired life, then you will do your part in building a as-close-as-perfect society as you can.

I also think that sharing Christ should be the main focus of Christianity, not "passing Biblical laws", if we want people to act Godly we need to share the message of God.

If I had the options between:

1) A country where every sin is legal, but people choose to live a Christ-centered life and try not to sin.
2) A country based on Biblical law where nobody sins, but nobody knows God.

I would always choose #1. What is the point of living a sin-less live if there is no relationship with God?

Hazardous Harry wrote:I'd like to think I wouldn't be seen stoning people to death for adultery, maybe keying their car but that's it.

In their own society, stoning an adulteress was not conceived of as a terrible thing. Jesus told the people: "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say to you do not resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheeck, turn to him the other one." In Jesus's day, the idea of "an eye for an eye" was very "liberal." Basically, instead of killing the person who offended you, along with their entire family, and confiscating all their property that you could, you would only exact a proportionate vengeance from them. For Jesus, this was no kind of progression. Taking any kind of vengeance is not the prerogative of man but rather of God ("vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" from Ecclesiastes). And even more, Jesus seems to advocate a kind of active pacifism here. It must have shocked his listeners at the time. And even now, I can see that it shocks you! Similarly, stoning the adulteress to death would have been no more "wrong" in the sense of civil law than executing the murderer, as you suggest. But Jesus will not have it. Notice that he does not command them to cease, as if he were some kind of law man. In telling them that the one without sin should cast the first stone, he does not tell them that they are sinners. He makes it a matter of conscience. He says to them, you know whether you are sinners or not in your heart of hearts.

As you've already guessed I don't really 'get' the relevance of a following that doesn't instruct us on how to go about building a perfect (or as close as possible) society in the real material world.

Oh, it does. Please think even of this example: the adulteress doesn't get off "scott free." The people all know that she is an adulteress. Do you think they will simply forget that and treat her well? But they did not murder her and make themselves murderers. In that moment, for that society, the world was better than it had been mere moments before because of Jesus. Now, when you think of the way some Muslim families treat their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters even to this day, consider what the Sharia has on this simple appeal to conscience.

d-usa wrote:
If I had the options between:

1) A country where every sin is legal, but people choose to live a Christ-centered life and try not to sin.
2) A country based on Biblical law where nobody sins, but nobody knows God.

I would always choose #1. What is the point of living a sin-less live if there is no relationship with God?

What about:

1) A country where every sin is legal, and some people choose to live a Christ-centered life and try not to sin.
2) A country based on Biblical law where nobody sins, and pretty much everybody has a healthy relationship with God.

d-usa wrote:I think the focus of Christianity is on your relationship with God, then your relationship with others.

To me, this is a big problem and probably the cause of the kind of hate speech that pastor had. Where is Christ now? Where do you encounter him and have this "personal experience"? He told us himself: "For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me." We encounter Jesus in the ones who hunger and thirst, the strangers, the ones who need clothing and shelter, the sick and the imprisoned. Jesus is our neighbor. Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor -- what else can this mean, coming from God who became man, other than "you will find me in your neighbor and that is where you will love me"?

Manchu wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:I'd like to think I wouldn't be seen stoning people to death for adultery, maybe keying their car but that's it.

In their own society, stoning an adulteress was not conceived of as a terrible thing. Jesus told the people: "You have heard it said an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth but I say to you do not resist an evil person. If someone slaps you on the right cheeck, turn to him the other one." In Jesus's day, the idea of "an eye for an eye" was very "liberal." Basically, instead of killing the person who offended you, along with their entire family, and confiscated all their property if you could, you would only exact a proportionate vengeance from them. For Jesus, this was no kind of progression. Taking any kind of vengeance is not the prerogative of man but rather of God ("vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" from Ecclesiastes). And even more, Jesus seems to advocate a kind of active pacifism here. It must have shocked his listeners at the time. And even now, I can see that it shocks you! Similarly, stoning the adulteress to death would have been no more "wrong" in the sense of civil law than executing the murderer, as you suggest. But Jesus will not have it. Notice that he does not command them to cease, as if he were some kind of law man. In telling them that the one without sin should cast the first stone, he does not tell them that they are sinners. He makes it a matter of conscience. He says to them, you know whether you are sinners or not in your heart of hearts.

But in doing so he all but challenges the crowd to assert that they are not sinners.

If I say to a group of people "Let the man who hasn't had carnal relations with a goat step forward" I'm very probably implying that that group have all had carnal relations with goats.

As you've already guessed I don't really 'get' the relevance of a following that doesn't instruct us on how to go about building a perfect (or as close as possible) society in the real material world.

Oh, it does. Please think even of this example: the adulteress doesn't get off "scott free." The people all know that she is an adulteress. Do you think they will simply forget that and treat her well? But they did not murder her and make themselves murderers.

If the law at the time was that adulterers would be stoned then I don't think they would be considered murderers.

In that moment, for that society, the world was better than it had been mere moments before because of Jesus. Now, when you think of the way some Muslim families treat their mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters even to this day, consider what the Sharia has on this simple appeal to conscience.

If they were 'Christian' in the sense you argue they would be obliged to refrain from judging her for her adultery, and it would be the same for a murderer or child rapist. Personally I'd think that Sharia law at least sees Justice in such cases done. A proper 'Christian' can never achieve that, as dispensing justice invariably means passing judgement on someone, in a public capacity or no.

Hazardous Harry wrote:You must be looking at a different definition. The one we have in Social Justice and Ethics argues that mercy is showing compassion, leniency or kindness to someone who has absolutely no right or grounds to be given such.

That is a very weird, skewed, and disturbing definition and I wonder about the sanity of those who wrote it.

No, I'm using a general dictionary's definition, and perhaps a bit from Tolkien's book as well.

Mercy is a matter of showing compassion. One can be merciful to those deserving or undeserving.

Melissia wrote:

Hazardous Harry wrote:You must be looking at a different definition. The one we have in Social Justice and Ethics argues that mercy is showing compassion, leniency or kindness to someone who has absolutely no right or grounds to be given such.

That is a very weird, skewed, and disturbing definition and I wonder about the sanity of those who wrote it.

No, I'm using a general dictionary's definition.

It is being used in reference to judicial decisions so maybe there's that factor.

Hazardous Harry wrote:[But in doing so he all but challenges the crowd to assert that they are not sinners.

They could have but they did not, such was the authority of this simple man writing in the sand.

If the law at the time was that adulterers would be stoned then I don't think they would be considered murderers.

And yet they would have been anyway, no matter what other men considered them.

If they were 'Christian' in the sense you argue they would be obliged to refrain from judging her for her adultery, and it would be the same for a murderer or child rapist.

They would have refrained as individuals and left the matter to civil authorities. The issue at hand is that they wanted to murder her for religious reasons, which is why the Pharisees ask Jesus about what we call the Old Testament. Jesus creates a distinction that they did not expect: the distinction between civil and religious authority.

Personally I'd think that Sharia law at least sees Justice in such cases done. A proper 'Christian' can never achieve that, as dispensing justice invariably means passing judgement on someone, in a public capacity or no.

Some people argue just to argue. WWJD.
Not feed the trolls.