CE8

[Nepenthe]

From the Book of John


15:7
If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

15:8
Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.

15:9
As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

15:10
If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.

15:11
These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in you, and that your joy might be full.

15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

15:27
And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.




The greatest commandment of all

Matthew 22:37
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

And, whosoever will

John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

I am done with this disagreement.

[chrisfan]

NF, you've proven that you know how to look up and quote scripture. Unfortunately, you've done nothing to demonstrate than you know how to interpret or apply that scripture. So I can fully understand why you are done with this discussion.

[Nepenthe]

Excuse me Chris? You know what, you need to take that stick out of your selfrighteous ass.

I see it differently than you and you obviously aren't open to that. If it isn't your way its no way at all.

THIS is one of the very reasons people do not like to go to church, so you have proven my point quite well.

My mentor that I speak of would STRONGLY disagree with you on your view that someone can't be a christian unless they attend a church. He would also strongly disagree with you on the fact that you don't consider an individual and the Holy Spirit two gathered together in the name of GOD.

Hate to break it to you sweety, God is everywhere for EVERYONE that asks.

[chrisfan]

Do you read what people say to you, or do you just shoot your mouth off for the hell of it? I have never said that a person cannot be a Christian if he does not go to church. Given that I've not said that, and have told you several times that Ihave not said that, and yet your still insisting that I have ... well, I'm not really sure what good it does me to say anything to you. Obviously, you're having trouble reading. What I HAVE said is that you're not making your point clearly. You've merely posted a bunch of scripture, none of which says "The way to grow with me is on your own, not in fellowship"

I think that what you said is right. I think I'll leave it at this. There's just no sense in discussing things with you when you lack the skills to read and comprehend.

[Thorngrub]

"Thorn, here's a little thought for you to ponder. Perhaps one of the very large barriers keeping you from your quest for us to see eye to eye is that you don't understand where I'm coming from. Reading over your last post, I see all sorts of things that it appears you think that I believe, that in fact, I don't believe. Why not try just listning to what people you disagree with say. Rather than deciding why they think it, or assuming that if they think X than they must also think Y, just accept what is said for what it is. Don't fill in the blanks on your own. Ask the person you're trying to see eye to eye with to fill in the blanks.

Just one more thought on the topic -- I think another obstacle in achieving your goal is that you're trying to achieve it with people who don't share your same goal. As an example, I'd throw out for you the quesiton about overturning Roe that I asked Mary a couple of days ago. I asked a question to understand her perspective, and she explained it. My motivation was not to get her to see it my way. I would assume that her motivation in answering was not to get me to see it her way. It is ok, IMO, for people to NOT see eye to eye. There's not a thing wrong with it. So, if your goal here is for us to see eye to eye, and it requires BOTH of us to do that, you're not going to achieve your goal, because you've never convinced me that it's a goal worth working towards. " -chrisfan

That is a very thoughtful response chrisfan, and I appreciate it. I am trying to listen to what others say. Obviously we think differently, but that is the point of our discussions here . . .to see if there's a commonality possible between our disparate thinking. There may not be. That would be fine, too. But when you say that another obstacle in achieving my goal is that we don't share the goal, I have to disagree. Unless your goal is the perpetuation of the cycle of violence. Maybe I'm "reading too much into" your own beliefs when I say that, but, c'mon -- what I'm saying is that as different as our ideologies might happen to appear on the surface of things, don't you think that when it comes right down to it, most people just want the same thing, which is more or less peace and a modicum of tranquility or decency in our lives?

So you're saying I'll never convince you that achieving peace is a goal worth working towards then, huh.

My oh my.

And now I suppose you'll reply saying something like "but of course not", to which I'll reply "see-?", to which you'll say, what, exactly-? See chrisfan, what I'm saying is that we already see 'eye to eye', it's just...how do we go about acknowledging that we're the same.

No one wants continual bloodshed, not even stratman, even though I understand his "realist" stance. If he could move that gigantic middle finger out from in between us, maybe he could see more clearly where I'm coming from. Should I even waste my time trying to "see eye to eye" with the likes of him? Of course I should. Will I-? Who knows, that little brat makes it seem as if it truly isn't worth my time. He probably isn't. He obviously doesn't "get" where I'm coming from . . .to the point he must retaliate infuriatingly like that, citing all this ridiculous WWII analogies and shit. We're definitely on different tracks, I'm talkin to his ass-hole while he's screaming into mine; zero communication, there.


*moves gigantic middle finger out of the way for a sec* God bless you stratman. You go with yer bad self, m'kay? Rah rah rah.

All I can say Chrisfan is if you're correct in your assessment that we just don't "see eye to eye" about this, then I must assume you are content with the state of affairs and violence in the world.

Since I must also assume that this should obviously not be the case, then it must be that we DO see "eye to eye" on this. Yet you claim we don't, and that that is perfectly OK. Well I agree with that: that it is perfectly fine for people not to see eye to eye.
So it becomes apparant that while you're addressing one aspect of this issue, I am addressing another, and we cannot find a commonality in our attempts at communicating.
I think that what is going on here . . .the phenomenon between you & I, that is, as well as the phenomenon between stratman & I, is that you guys simply can't stand me. That you are prejudical towards what I represent to you. "Kumbaya" and all that horse-shit. To you I'm nothing but a fucking "tree hugger", and that's sad. And it is also fine, of course. I am beginning to not be able to tolerate stratman & your's inability to see where I'm coming from, which is also fine. Yet I keep trying to reach across to show you two what I mean, which is merely an attempt at trying to engender some good in the world.
What in the blazes would you prefer I say? How beautiful the sunsets in Iraq must be now that we've laced the atmosphere with plutonium by-products?

So what if I'm so impossibly idealistic that I try to spread a message that we might actually be able to change the world for the better? If that is so "bad" (as you seem to think it is - especially stratman there), then I definitely should not waste my time and energy on the likes of you two.
I want to know what the hell is so god damned bad about dreaming of a better world. Would that there were more dreamers than realists. A realist is someone who just gives up and bends over and takes it up the ass, as far as I'm concerned. And also allows themselves to give it to some other unfortunate who is bent over to take it up the ass from the realist.

So I guess that means that you two can just go fuck yourselves.
~thoRny out

[chrisfan]

When the topic of discussion is John Kerrys' means of practicing his faith, I"m not sure I see where we make the leap to violence in the world ...

[someone]

stratman19 said:

...now hopefully he'll get the death penalty, and the whole case will stand up upon appeal.

I knew that the death penalty would get mentioned once everyone learned of Scott Peterson, and I said to myself that I'd hold back on my feelings towards this practice, but I lied.

As a self proclaimed flag waver, stratman, I assume you believe in our country's constitution. I'm sure you're one of the first people to defend gun owner's rights by citing the 2nd amendment. And who diesn't like to cite the 1st amendment when it suits them?

I have to then question how anyone who can supoort our constitution can support something that so blatantly goes against it. The death penalty takes away due process of law. It also treads a very fine line of cruel and unusual punishment, which is also protected by our constitution.

I'm sure I'll get thrown questions about well what if this happened to your sister, mother, etc etc. Well, if Scott Peterson murdered my sister, and murder is such a sin, then why would I want to turn around and become something so vile, a murderer, in essence becoming Scott Peterson myself? Because it doesn't matter who you're murdering, someone evil or someone innocent, you're still a murderer.

And oh, what about the cost? It's so much cheaper to kill them that life imprisonment. Actually, that's not true. Read up on it, the appeal process for death row inmates costs just as much money as keeping them in life imprisonment, where they can actually suffer for their deeds, where they might actually have to face their demons, and yes, where, in the end, they might actually find some kind of redemption.

When did we take it upon ourselves to decide that murder is okay, as long as it is sanctioned by the soceity we live in? The death penalty is brutal, legalized murder. It's also not an effective deterent to crime, is socially, economically, racially and sexually predjudiced.

I could go on, but I'll save my breath. This post wasn't really directed at anyone in particular, the death penalty just happens to be a very sensitive subject for me, and I could go on for days about it. I'll spare you.

As for HMF, why do you people bother with her? Even when you're on her side, she's against you, because she's a tenuous wench. When you see her and Vibe, just laugh to yourself and say "Looook. Inbreeeders."

Thorny, don't bother arguing with these two. They'll scream that no one listens to their side and puts words in their mouths, while they do nothing short of the same. Save your breath, brother.

[chrisfan]

There certainly is an argument to be made that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment, even though the Supreme Court has upheld it. But I'm curious to know why you say that it does not adhere to due process -- especially since you even mentioned the appeal process.

[someone]

There have been multiple multiple instances when people's innocence have been proven AFTER they were executed. The appeals process is flawed, and due process allows for new evidence to be brought in to prove one's innocence. A lot of clear evidence to prove's ones innoncence might not come thru until well after one's convicted. By killing them, you don't allow them to even have the opportunity to bring this evidence forth, once it has been uncovered.

As a conservative, chrisfan, I'm sure you hate the aclu. Hell, even sometimes I hate them, and I'm a real bedwetting liberal. But here's an article, read it as you wish.

archive.aclu.org/library/case_against_death.html

[ModernDeathTrend]

Oh god, here we go. I think our death penalty is too leanient. I say this, if someone is proven to be guilty and sentenced to death, they should be killed in the same exact manner that they killed their victims. Lets say Scott Peterson, I say his ass should be anchored to the bottom of the bay just like his wife was. Fuck cruel and unusual punishment. If a person does such a devastating crime, the same brutality should be focused on them. I think of it as karma punishments.

This maybe rather difficult with serial killers, so I say take an average of the number of stab wounds, bullets, etc and use that as a base number for the sentencing.

[strat-0]

As long as you've got the right guy, Planet, as long as you've got the right guy. I'm ambivalent about the death penalty, mainly for this reason. (I think Peterson is guilty and deserves what he gets.) There are other reasons why I'm uncomfortable with it, but that one is pretty high on the list. While our system is designed to let many of the guilty go free in order to make sure the innocent are not punished, there are cases of innocent people getting the ultimate punishment, and that's a problem for me. Just place yourself in the hot seat for a minute. "It wasn't me - I'm innocent!"
"Yeah, that's what they all say." *bzzzzzztt!*

[Philemon]

I say bring back lynching for blacks
stoning for women and death by firing squads
for all the others ...

All those executions would be aired in prime time
and the tapes mandatory viewing in grade schools

Circus games for the rabble !

One hell of a reality show ...

[Nepenthe]

I do believe in the death penalty. It is a shame when someone is executed when they are innocent. I was just at the ACLU Website and I found 23 people that have been executed that were innocent. They aren't all dated, but the latest date I found was from 1984, the rest were not that recent.

How many of these cases was actually before the discovery of DNA evidence?

[JACkory]

The death penalty is a viable deterrent, but people like Scott Peterson need to get life in prison without the possibility of parole so the big guys behind bars will have some new booty to plow. Seems to me like a life spent behind bars and a developing reputation as "the guy in cell block D's bitch" would be reasonable punishment for this asshole.

Of course, he's liable to get used to it and actually begin to enjoy it, so maybe the death penalty IS the best thing for this heartless slob...

From the last board, I just have to say that though I have respect for Rick Warren, I completely disagree with his assertion that one cannot be a Christian without attending church services. What is Church but the universal Body of Christ? As a believing Christian I am in church 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Buildings and denominations are good things (well, maybe not denominations) but the minute you tell me that if I don't go to church on Sunday I am not a Christian I will accuse you of being a legalist. It's NOTHING that I do that makes me a Christian, other than believing and accepting Christ as Lord and Saviour of my life. What makes me a redeemed Christian is what JESUS did.
Yes, the Bible teaches that fellowship with other believers is edifying, but how do you automatically assume that "fellowship" must needs be mean "church attendance"?

[Philemon]

If the death penalty is such a "viable" deterrent
please try to explain this to me ...

SOUTH HAS HIGHEST MURDER RATE IN 2001

According to data released on October 28 as part of the FBI's Uniform Crime Report for 2001, the South again has the highest murder rate of the four regions in the United States. The South was also the only region above the national average. In 2001, almost 80% of executions in the country occurred in the South. The report noted that the Texas crime rate rose 4% in 2001, nearly five times the national average, and the state posted a 7.6% increase in homicides. At the same time, the total number of executions in Texas is more than three times that of any other state in the nation. The Northeast, the region with the lowest murder rate, had no executions in 2001. (See DPIC's Execution Statistics, Crime in the United States, 2001, New York Times and Houston Chronicle, October 29, 2002)

More on the subject ...

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=167