I'd like to add something if I may.
It was stated that Saul of Tarsus persecuted those who believed in Christ, yet he was shown mercy.
What I want to point out is he did this while in ignorance of Jesus. Recall that on the road to Damascus when he saw Jesus in vision he wanted to know who this was speaking down from heaven to him. Obviously it was a miraculous event but he was unsure of to whom he was speaking. He didn't even know who Christ was except some human interloper who threatened to destroy that which he held most sacred as a Pharisee.
Now then when he discovered that the heavenly being speaking to him was indeed Jesus Christ, I think he had an epiphany and realized he had been wrong all along, as had his teachers and everyone who persecuted Christians. It takes great humility for a person to admit when he is wrong. It takes an even more humility to try to right those wrongs. There was something in Saul that Jesus saw and liked. He was shown mercy for his actions which were done in ignorance and out of misplaced duty.
I think this is the crux of the point Shelby was trying to make. Even those who deny Christ (not truly knowing him) are shown mercy. It would be UN-merciful to punish someone for their actions which were done in ignorance. How many times do we hear or see injustices done by people who "knew better" and yet they are let off the hook by our judicial authorities? We are outraged and rightly so. On the other hand what about when someone commits a "crime" and didn't know it was against the law?
Case in point. Where I live there are many Russian students who come here for the summer. Many of them break the traffic laws (jaywalking, crossing against red lights, etc). Americans would say the students should learn the laws before they get here. Unfortunately our state laws are unavailable for their perusal in Russia. So they have to learn by asking American Citizens or trial and error. Or by default they go with what they know of traffic laws in Russia, perhaps not even considering that there are differences.
This is the dilemma faced by anyone who metes out justice. Was it on purpose? Did they know it was wrong? How knowledgeable were they about this subject.
Consider that the Pharisees who condemened Jesus saw his miracles (obviously sent by God) but still sought to kill him and compare them to Saul (who had never seen the miracles done by Jesus or seen Jesus himself) who persecuted his followers and by default Jesus himself.
The difference here is the intent. The Pharisees could clearly see Jesus had some divine power, but ignored it. Saul on the other hand had only gone off of what he was told (kinda like belonging to a different religion) and acted on it. Had he known what the Pharisees had known and seen what they had seen, the likelihood that he would have persecuted Christians is very low.
Not all Pharisees were as blind as the ones in the example. If I recall correctly, Nicodemus (a member of the Sanhedrin..sp?) visited Jesus and asked him many questions. Some accounts even depict Nicodemus as a disciple of Jesus later on, who requested the body of Jesus from Pilate so that it might be buried before sundown. He put faith in Jesus whereas the Pharisees did not.
So I think the point of Mercy has been missed by many. The intent of one's actions depends upon whether mercy is shown or not. Was the "evil" actions based upon trying to protect someone or were the "good" actions based upon selfishness? "Evil" and "Good" being points of view of the ones doing and the ones observing. Since God is just and merciful, ONLY he can determine the person's true motives and only he should be the person to mete out punishment (if deserved). NOT imperfect humans who cannot read hearts.
This is why we are told NOT to judge others. We simply don't have the tools necessary to make an accurate assessment of the situation.
Peace and Love,
Awen
