|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 23, 2009 18:51:25 GMT
what is so difficult to understand about the simple fact that a murderer makes the conscious decision that he is not worthy of being deemed deserving of ANYTHING, particularly life? give me just one rational reason to show compassion to a murderer. the operative word is RATIONAL. emotional bullshyt such as "he's still a human being" is NOT rational. To be pedantic, to say 'he is a human being' is not only rational but factual and not an emotional statement. To say that we should extend equal compassion to every human being is emotional and perhaps a bit christian in outlook. nope. the fact is that a murderer has made the conscious choice to not be worthy of being deemed a human being. nonetheless, humans are born homo sapiens. you have to earn the right to be considered a human being
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 23, 2009 18:52:38 GMT
_ God created angels as his official warriors against evil, they certainly are not passsive. So, shall we emulate angels or emulate cowards? Am I misunderstanding you, or are you genuinely stating as fact that angels both exist and are active in the material world? you did NOT misunderstand her. she just made a statement of fact.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 18:59:16 GMT
To be pedantic, to say 'he is a human being' is not only rational but factual and not an emotional statement. To say that we should extend equal compassion to every human being is emotional and perhaps a bit christian in outlook. nope. the fact is that a murderer has made the conscious choice to not be worthy of being deemed a human being. nonetheless, humans are born homo sapiens. you have to earn the right to be considered a human being Human Being is defined as any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae. So once again we have to debate around your own personal interpretations of concepts, do we?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 19:00:11 GMT
Am I misunderstanding you, or are you genuinely stating as fact that angels both exist and are active in the material world? you did NOT misunderstand her. she just made a statement of fact. And what does 'fact' mean in the iamjumbo dictionary?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 23, 2009 19:02:18 GMT
anytime that you try to bring in willingham, you totally destroy your credibility. there is not an iota of doubt that he murdered his kids. the imbecillic "innocent executed" lunatics try to claim that because it's been discovered that certain indicators which had once been thought to be present only in arson fires, can be present in normal fires. that doesn't even come close to creating any doubt of his guilt I don't have any credibility to destroy. I bow to your superior knowledge of the details of this case and vow to try to read up on them myself. Are the other examples on that site also lunatic assumptions?
|
|
|
Post by everso on Jan 23, 2009 19:05:32 GMT
Jesus was compassionate to the thief on the cross and forgave him, even though he was still executed. You're talking about a condemned man and saying he doesn't deserve compassion. We're not talking about letting him go. What you said isn't really what I'd consider "Christian", Jumbo. "you should always be compassionate toward those who are worthy of your compassion. however, compassion is like pearls, and you don't cast it before swine, no disrespect to the poor pigs intended. they certainly don't deserve to be lowered to a murderer's level" and "maybe not, but it's comical as hell. anyway, the lad is talking about garbage for whom NO compassion should be shown" what is so difficult to understand about the simple fact that a murderer makes the conscious decision that he is not worthy of being deemed deserving of ANYTHING, particularly life? give me just one rational reason to show compassion to a murderer. the operative word is RATIONAL. emotional bullshyt such as "he's still a human being" is NOT rational. Jumbo, I'm with you insofar as a murderer deserves to be punished. I differ with you in that I feel that life imprisonment is a better choice. What I'm trying to understand is that you profess to be Christian yet you seem to conveniently forget that compassion is part of that faith. Or so I thought. Or, maybe you aren't exactly Christian, more Old Testament-ish?
|
|
|
Post by cammie on Jan 24, 2009 18:20:29 GMT
Riotgirl, You understood correctly. IMO Angels do exist and are active in our world. They also are here to protect us. Humans cannot die and then become angels bc angels are a different phylum or species. Testiments to angels are the many miracles humans experience here on earth.
|
|
|
Post by cammie on Jan 24, 2009 18:43:28 GMT
Everso, One can certainly be Christian and be a PRO DP supporter. It is the Christians who want to save one's eternal soul. The murderers who deliberately and intentionally murder are lost for this lifetime, no matter what. The best thing to do is put the POS murderer out of their misery so they can reincarnate to begin the many lives it will take them to step up bit by bit spiritually (lifetime by lifetime) IF and only IF each lifetime is lived better by doing unto others. __________________ Keeping murderers alive only prolomgs their potential progress as a soul, is a burden to the taxpayers, AND a slap in the face the the murder victim's family and loved ones. In addition, I believe the DP is a deterrant if it is used in sufficient time, NOT waiting 20 years. Of course, the DP should only be used on cases of absolute guilt.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 24, 2009 18:59:09 GMT
what is so difficult to understand about the simple fact that a murderer makes the conscious decision that he is not worthy of being deemed deserving of ANYTHING, particularly life? give me just one rational reason to show compassion to a murderer. the operative word is RATIONAL. emotional bullshyt such as "he's still a human being" is NOT rational. Jumbo, I'm with you insofar as a murderer deserves to be punished. I differ with you in that I feel that life imprisonment is a better choice. What I'm trying to understand is that you profess to be Christian yet you seem to conveniently forget that compassion is part of that faith. Or so I thought. Or, maybe you aren't exactly Christian, more Old Testament-ish? the point is that execution is the ONLY way to deter the murderer from performing an encore. life in prison does not absolutely guarantee that the murderer will never kill another inmate, guard, or innocent person when he escapes. in 2008, 19 people and a horse were murdered by escaped murderers, most doing life. that does not include the guards and other inmates killed and injured. why do you think that the lives of those 19 people, and horse, were not worthwhile? had the murderers been on death row, and executed, all of those would be alive today. can't get any simpler than that. i do not forget anything. i remember that jesus ordained the death penalty, not only for murderers, but thieves also. what can be more compassionate than ensuring that more innocent lives are not destroyed by a totally worthless individual?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 24, 2009 19:05:40 GMT
anytime that you try to bring in willingham, you totally destroy your credibility. there is not an iota of doubt that he murdered his kids. the imbecillic "innocent executed" lunatics try to claim that because it's been discovered that certain indicators which had once been thought to be present only in arson fires, can be present in normal fires. that doesn't even come close to creating any doubt of his guilt I don't have any credibility to destroy. I bow to your superior knowledge of the details of this case and vow to try to read up on them myself. Are the other examples on that site also lunatic assumptions? i don't know all the gibberish on that site, but, it would be a safe assumption given it's dearth of objectivity. in the first place, "could have", "might have" or any of the other specious assertions made on that type of site are irrelevant. anyone wanting to claim an innocent executed has to PROVE factual innocence. willingham is a classic example of the stupidity of the assertions. the ONLY thing that the fools have is the arson trip, which max nix while you're reading up, read up on rodger coleman. that is the classic example of the credibility of those kinds of sites
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 24, 2009 19:20:40 GMT
Jumbo, I'm with you insofar as a murderer deserves to be punished. I differ with you in that I feel that life imprisonment is a better choice. What I'm trying to understand is that you profess to be Christian yet you seem to conveniently forget that compassion is part of that faith. Or so I thought. Or, maybe you aren't exactly Christian, more Old Testament-ish? the point is that execution is the ONLY way to deter the murderer from performing an encore. life in prison does not absolutely guarantee that the murderer will never kill another inmate, guard, or innocent person when he escapes. in 2008, 19 people and a horse were murdered by escaped murderers, most doing life. that does not include the guards and other inmates killed and injured. why do you think that the lives of those 19 people, and horse, were not worthwhile? had the murderers been on death row, and executed, all of those would be alive today. can't get any simpler than that. i do not forget anything. i remember that jesus ordained the death penalty, not only for murderers, but thieves also. what can be more compassionate than ensuring that more innocent lives are not destroyed by a totally worthless individual? Pragmatic maybe, compassionate...er... prag·mat·ic (prg-mtk) adj. 1. Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical. 2. Philosophy Of or relating to pragmatism. 3. Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them.compassionate adjective sympathetic, kindly, understanding, tender, pitying, humanitarian, charitable, humane, indulgent, benevolent, lenient, merciful....
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 24, 2009 19:22:08 GMT
Everso, One can certainly be Christian and be a PRO DP supporter. It is the Christians who want to save one's eternal soul. The murderers who deliberately and intentionally murder are lost for this lifetime, no matter what. The best thing to do is put the POS murderer out of their misery so they can reincarnate to begin the many lives it will take them to step up bit by bit spiritually (lifetime by lifetime) IF and only IF each lifetime is lived better by doing unto others. __________________ Keeping murderers alive only prolomgs their potential progress as a soul, is a burden to the taxpayers, AND a slap in the face the the murder victim's family and loved ones. In addition, I believe the DP is a deterrant if it is used in sufficient time, NOT waiting 20 years. Of course, the DP should only be used on cases of absolute guilt. Are not christianity and reincarnation opposing theories?
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 24, 2009 19:28:11 GMT
I don't have any credibility to destroy. I bow to your superior knowledge of the details of this case and vow to try to read up on them myself. Are the other examples on that site also lunatic assumptions? i don't know all the gibberish on that site, but, it would be a safe assumption given it's dearth of objectivity. in the first place, "could have", "might have" or any of the other specious assertions made on that type of site are irrelevant. anyone wanting to claim an innocent executed has to PROVE factual innocence. willingham is a classic example of the stupidity of the assertions. the ONLY thing that the fools have is the arson trip, which max nix while you're reading up, read up on rodger coleman. that is the classic example of the credibility of those kinds of sites The site may be bogus, I don't know, it's just there. I'll see if I can watch the tv documentary/reports they quote on that site because it doesn't seem to be just them, it seems to be the press involved. I googled Roger. Why is that a "classic example of the credibility of these sites"?
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 24, 2009 21:16:16 GMT
i don't know all the gibberish on that site, but, it would be a safe assumption given it's dearth of objectivity. in the first place, "could have", "might have" or any of the other specious assertions made on that type of site are irrelevant. anyone wanting to claim an innocent executed has to PROVE factual innocence. willingham is a classic example of the stupidity of the assertions. the ONLY thing that the fools have is the arson trip, which max nix while you're reading up, read up on rodger coleman. that is the classic example of the credibility of those kinds of sites The site may be bogus, I don't know, it's just there. I'll see if I can watch the tv documentary/reports they quote on that site because it doesn't seem to be just them, it seems to be the press involved. I googled Roger. Why is that a "classic example of the credibility of these sites"? the innocent executed nutjobs were ecstatic with coleman. he was going to prove once and for all that an innocent had been executed. read some of the idiocy they were spouting. they put all their eggs in the coleman basket, and it was funnier than all hell when it was smeared all over their stupid faces. same same for the rest
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jan 24, 2009 21:23:59 GMT
the point is that execution is the ONLY way to deter the murderer from performing an encore. life in prison does not absolutely guarantee that the murderer will never kill another inmate, guard, or innocent person when he escapes. in 2008, 19 people and a horse were murdered by escaped murderers, most doing life. that does not include the guards and other inmates killed and injured. why do you think that the lives of those 19 people, and horse, were not worthwhile? had the murderers been on death row, and executed, all of those would be alive today. can't get any simpler than that. i do not forget anything. i remember that jesus ordained the death penalty, not only for murderers, but thieves also. what can be more compassionate than ensuring that more innocent lives are not destroyed by a totally worthless individual? Pragmatic maybe, compassionate...er... prag·mat·ic (prg-mtk) adj. 1. Dealing or concerned with facts or actual occurrences; practical. 2. Philosophy Of or relating to pragmatism. 3. Relating to or being the study of cause and effect in historical or political events with emphasis on the practical lessons to be learned from them.compassionate adjective sympathetic, kindly, understanding, tender, pitying, humanitarian, charitable, humane, indulgent, benevolent, lenient, merciful.... pretty much. the ONLY thing that ever counts is WHAT you do. why you do it is relevant to absolutely nothing whatsoever. nothing matters but the act and the result of the act. that is precisely why, if you go to rob the liquor store with a water pistol, and the clerk has a heart attack, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should be, executed. that is why, if you rob the store and a cop shows up and, shooting at you, hits the clerk and kills him, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should be, executed. in the real world, what you intend to do doesn't matter. NOTHING matters but what you do and the result of that act. facts and actual occurrences are the ONLY things that matter, period
|
|
|
Post by riotgrrl on Jan 25, 2009 0:00:20 GMT
Riotgirl, You understood correctly. IMO Angels do exist and are active in our world. They also are here to protect us. Humans cannot die and then become angels bc angels are a different phylum or species. Testiments to angels are the many miracles humans experience here on earth. I respect your right to hold whatever beliefs help you, but I think they're insane. I have seen no evidence of miracles here on earth. I have seen no evidence of angels, or any kind of divine intervention. We shall have to agree to disagree (and as Obama might say, without being disagreeable.)
|
|
|
Post by cammie on Jan 25, 2009 0:30:38 GMT
Trubble, Quote: "Christianity and Reincarnation opposing theories?" _______ Depends which branch of Christianity in which one partakes. Jesus rose from the dead to relive in heaven, so I don't know why any Christian would oppose reincarnation in that Jesus proved life eternal. Some may argue that eternl life is different from reincarnation, but that is a personal belief in which I partake. I don't want to hijack this thread into a spiritual nature, just know I believe the quicker a murderer's death, the quicker their opportunity of redemption. Besides, why on earth keep murderers alive? Never heard one good reason for that!
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Jan 25, 2009 11:56:23 GMT
Everso, One can certainly be Christian and be a PRO DP supporter. It is the Christians who want to save one's eternal soul. The murderers who deliberately and intentionally murder are lost for this lifetime, no matter what. The best thing to do is put the POS murderer out of their misery so they can reincarnate to begin the many lives it will take them to step up bit by bit spiritually (lifetime by lifetime) IF and only IF each lifetime is lived better by doing unto others. __________________ Keeping murderers alive only prolomgs their potential progress as a soul, is a burden to the taxpayers, AND a slap in the face the the murder victim's family and loved ones. In addition, I believe the DP is a deterrant if it is used in sufficient time, NOT waiting 20 years. Of course, the DP should only be used on cases of absolute guilt. Are not christianity and reincarnation opposing theories? In the 80's, I had a table on the computer with all the Scriptures that outright deny reincarnation. I wish if I'd kept that table! But, if you're interested in this subject, do an Internet search and you'll find a lot of good stuff about how Christianity and reincarnation DON'T match and the many Scriptures that deny it.
|
|
|
Post by pumpkinette on Jan 25, 2009 11:57:48 GMT
Riotgirl, You understood correctly. IMO Angels do exist and are active in our world. They also are here to protect us. Humans cannot die and then become angels bc angels are a different phylum or species. Testiments to angels are the many miracles humans experience here on earth. I respect your right to hold whatever beliefs help you, but I think they're insane. I have seen no evidence of miracles here on earth. I have seen no evidence of angels, or any kind of divine intervention. We shall have to agree to disagree (and as Obama might say, without being disagreeable.) Dear riotgrrl, if you don't mind my asking, have you sought out this info? There's many books about unexplained healings, sightings of angels, etc.
|
|
|
Post by trubble on Jan 25, 2009 13:36:26 GMT
And they are about as reliable as any book we might write ourselves because they are all subjective accounts. That's the problem with finding evidence for anything supernatural, from God to angels to palm reading, nothing is objective. For every account there is another that negates it. Cammie and you have proven that in the discussion of reincarnation - one says christianity denies it, another says it includes it. I have no reason to doubt either of you, I expect both of you have done research and, like Riotgrrl, I respect your right to your beliefs. But it is all about personal beliefs & personal interpretations and never about objective, examinable truths. Which is what ''evidence'' needs to be. I'm putting my money on reincarnation NOT being a christian belief btw because that's the christianity I was taught (which is, of course, the real version ).
|
|