Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
John Prezioso

Jury Consulted Bible During Sentencing Phase

Recommended Posts

quote:

The given passage IS in reference to taxes, true, but this and other passages clearly tell Christians that they have a MORAL obligation to uphold the laws they are bound to in society. Jesus was making an over-arching proclamation of His policy on civic duty. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, render unto God what is God's" tells us that as citizens we follow the rule of governments, but as people of God, we follow the rule of God.

No argument here, in man's moral obligation and civic duty; however, when CIVIC DUTY is in direct conflict with GOD LAW, then civic duty is no more a duty to one who is, INDEED: "CHRIST-LIKE".

Judging and sentencing people to DEATH? NOTHING "CHRIST-LIKE" there, I assure YOU!!

quote:

your posts are replete with hateful and antagonistic rhetoric intended to insult anyone who disagrees with you, supports Bush, and is pro-death penalty.

LOL, Is that the ONLY issues you have perceived, throughout my rants? I must NOT be doing my JOB.

There is a much deeper constant and overall polarity for that which I stand "AGAINST".

I cannot appear to be any other polarity, than that which you perceive....for we are definately of opposite SPIRIT. I am for intelligent resolve, rather than REVENGE filled determination.

(Use the word HATEFUL, if thats what you prefer; however, your only attempting to justify that which is brought to light concerning the invalidity or your stance)

The FACT is: The WHOLE conservative "CHRISTIAN" foundation, concerning: justification of a hypocritic ideology, is held within the INTERPRETATION of the Bible and its teachings.

Just as the INTERPRETATION of the Quran, is the hypocritic foundation of RADICAL muslim ideology.

In other words:

If the IDEOLOGICAL base foundation is perverted in its percieved interpretatiion; then ANY conclusion based on that view, is corrupt.

Beware the leven in the loaf...a little leven spoileth the whole loaf. the loaf, being the WORD of GOD.

The foundation IS the WORD, and YOURS is SPOILED!!!

quote:

Who are YOU to judge what we are? So Christians can't sit in judgement of a murderer because they defer to Biblical principals, but you can sit in judgement of Christians

First you have two decisively different precepts intermingled to achieve an incorrect conclusion.

I, as a Christian, am to KNOW them by their FRUIT.The "Them", are the children of God(people claiming to be Christian, and professing to correctly understand the spirit of His WORD)

A "REAL" Christian would be those who demonstrate the FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT.(longsuffering, compassion, forgiveness, meekness etc etc )

The FRUIT being that which is brought forth from their labor.

This is the JUDGEMENT, we are instructed to partake.....

THIS is the JUDGEMENT, you have brought upon yourselves. You, bush and the like, claim to be christian.

The FRUIT of your labor is manifest......"IN DEATH"

Death is the by-product of YOUR ideology and surrounds all accomplishments, with little or NO compassion, or understanding.(NO fruit there, I assure you)

How dare you mix perversions of the teachings of Christ, to justify an ideology which is horrendous enough to control and eliminate through military means...and by CHOICE, rather than by NECESSITY.

Christ NEVER disallowed self defense, but tried to demonstrate the futility in meeting evil for evil, when He told Peter to put down the sword, and re-attached the SOLDIERS ear.

An old testament "Eye for an Eye" was NOT promoted, but radically discouraged.

THIS is One of the things which Radical Islam also adhere.

Sure makes for a real problem finding a viable solution..and creates a DIRECTLY proportional escalation of anamosity from BOTH sides. There is NO viable Peace or solution when promoting such an ideology. (From EITHER side)

Sorry, I dont view GOD, to be so stupid, in his foundation. I dont pervert the teachings, but look at them in a practical and realistic fashion..and at FACE value; rather than bending them to justify my participation in a path of political and military superiority.

I say BOTH RADICAL ideological basis are EQUAL in their perversion.

Christ drew in the sand for a group of people ready to JUDGE...(remember?) And spoke concerning people who justified their perversive interpretations of scripture.

He said they were "As a whitened seplecure; full of dead men's bones"

That would be: "ROTTEN, DISGUSTING,...DEAD...SOULESS..FRUITLESS..need I go on?

You ask me about hate?..and Judgement...you need to go ask YOUR GOD! and NO, I do not mean BUSH!!

For,GOD hates with a PERFECT hate, and his Judgement is beyond reproach...and I am just as disgusted as HE is concerning the state of a man, or group of MEN, who feel they can PLAY GOD.

Especially a civilization of men, with free choice...who CHOOSE to be blind; because, they fear what they might see.

They might have to ADMIT...: That they are NOT justified and have NO foundation. they are NOT "OK'd by Christ, or God ...and will be held LIABLE for their participation...in some fashion.

kinda hard to admit your wrong, and BLOOD is on your hands. I understand that. that is what repentence is FOR.

oh no.....hard hearts cannot feel the guilt....I suppose this whole thing is futile....but I said it anyway!! so there!!

[ 07-19-2005, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: street ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Street, I'd like to thank you for posting at least some points of merit, and not clogging your ENTIRE post with self-important rhetoric. Of course, you could not make it all the way without baseless, antagonistic, and ultimatelly incorrect accusations of someone you don't know and have never met.

Unlike you, I always respect others with whom I am debating, and do not casually throw around terms like "You have blood on your hands" and "you have revenge in your heart" as you do (But I am the one who only CLAIMS to be Christian - funny, that...) I am glad you are a Christian, but your understanding of scripture is suspect, imo. I do not claim to speak for God, nor do I expect that God likes to see ANY war, be it in His name or not.

You are simply incapable of discussing ANY topic without letting your ridiculous, sad obsession with Bush/Conservative-bashing fly free from your fingertips.

Congratulations for Hijacking yet another thread with your blind single-mindedness on putting down people with opposing viewpoints. It is getting annoying, to say the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm going to try to re-evolve this topic to where it should have gone. The main question is: Did the Jury screw the pooch in this case?

(let's ignore the biblical aspect of it for a few posts but just concentrate on the purely extra-judicial authority sources)

Yes, they did. What am I basing this decision on? This:

quote:

Adams County District Judge John Vigil ruled Friday that HarlanÔÇÖs death sentence for the 1994 murder of Rhonda Maloney must be set aside because his jurors impermissibly consulted Bibles during the sentencing phase of his trial. More specifically, the judge applied the current legal standard in Colorado and found after an evidentiary hearing that there was a ÔÇ£reasonable possibility that extraneous information or influence affected the verdictÔÇØ against Harlan.

To support his ruling, Judge Vigil cited Colorado precedent reversing criminal convictions in a handful of cases where jurors used during deliberations a dictionary, an Internet search, a medical textbook and BlackÔÇÖs Law Dictionary -- despite judicial admonitions against such outside-the-court quest for knowledge.


Now if the members of the Jury wanted to use such sources (including anyones particular religious book) and requested from the Judge such use and the Judge granted thier request, I would have absolutely no problem with it at all. But this wasn't done in this case. Simple as that. IMHO, these jurors broke the law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, Lost. Finally, a topc-relevant question.

For me it would be difficult to separate the Bible from the argument because the real issue here is whether people who use the Bible (God's word) as a guide to their actions should be allowed to partake in civic duty. All too many people believe that Christians are incapable of being "fair" because of their 'fanatacism'. More importantly, the issue could be considered a matter of the Court being suspicious of people who don't necessarily consider the Court to be the highest authority.

To answer your question, admittedly without full knowledge of exactly what took place in the deliberation room, I would say the jury did NOT do anything illegal, nor did they do anything to "screw the pooch" . When deciding on something as profound as sentencing another man to death, what else would a religous person do EXCEPT consult the highest authority?

Consulting outside(and potentially biased) sources of information like the internet is in a different category than consulting a Bible in my opinion.

Let me ask you a question: Would you feel it wrong if the jury admitted that they prayed for God's guidance in their decision?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

Sheesh, Streets still here so much for intelligent debate. I might as well close the topic no good will come out of this discussion. unless of course your into fantasy, and flag burning. Oh well carry on for now I'll be watching for my opportunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

Let me ask you a question: Would you feel it wrong if the jury admitted that they prayed for God's guidance in their decision?

Ah, a nice meaty question. The answer to that would be Yes based on a purely judicial aspect. If I was a member of that Jury, I would damn well ask all that I can and cannot do in respects to my decision making and that includes asking the Judge if it would be permissable to pray for God's guidance in this matter. If the Judge said no, so be it. That is his ruling. I, to do as much service to the community as I possibly can with the only tool on hand (my brain), would follow his decision to the letter. That, IMO, is the essence of being a juror.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

quote:

I would damn well ask all that I can and cannot do in respects to my decision making and that includes asking the Judge if it would be permissable to pray for God's guidance in this matter. If the Judge said no, so be it.

To follow the law of the land is a smart choice unless of course it violates the law of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

quote:

I would damn well ask all that I can and cannot do in respects to my decision making and that includes asking the Judge if it would be permissable to pray for God's guidance in this matter. If the Judge said no, so be it.

To follow the law of the land is a smart choice unless of course it violates the law of God.


Hmmm, here we go again down that slippery slope.

According to the bible, God gave us ten laws to live by. Nowhere, is it mentioned how we are suppose to handle infractions to those laws. Are we suppose to take matters into our own hands then and hold judgements on the perps? Or are the perps to be left alone for only God's judgement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by street:

quote:

This kind of dichotomy is prevalent throughout the Bible. God decreed that a man could not take it upon himself to kill another man, and yet he helped the Israelites, the NATION of Israel, conquer their enemies through war.


All the more reason, RELIGEON has NO place in Government rule and law.

What you stand behind, by justifying the opposite of "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" cammandment would be ok, if you were GOD. As it is, you are taking upon yourself... a MAN... the JUDGEMENT of GOD.

That is as warped a view of the biblical teachings of Christ... as the radical muslums who tie bombs to their butt and kill in the name of "ALLAH"

BOTH views are TWISTED forms of logic applied to problems within our world societies, based on RELIGEOUS indoctrination.


Except that you are forgetting some VERY important Aspects. When God commanded the Isralites to go up against those occupying their lands, he didn't have them fight with Swords, Daggers and other deadly weapons, he COMMANDED them to fight with Spoons and other utensiles to ACCENTUATE the fact that is was Gods will that these people be defeated. When the Philistines brought Goliath to defeat ANY warrior in Isreal, God sent a boy, David to defeat him, not a seasoned warrior. He didn't fight with Swords and other superior weapons, but with a Slingshot.

So if these Muslims want to fight "In the name of Allah or god" as they say, when they Conquer us with Spoons, Utensiles and Slingshots, only then will they make a Believer out of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

quote:

Originally posted by Remo Williams:

quote:

I would damn well ask all that I can and cannot do in respects to my decision making and that includes asking the Judge if it would be permissable to pray for God's guidance in this matter. If the Judge said no, so be it.

To follow the law of the land is a smart choice unless of course it violates the law of God.


Hmmm, here we go again down that slippery slope.

According to the bible, God gave us ten laws to live by. Nowhere, is it mentioned how we are suppose to handle infractions to those laws.


Yes it does you just overlooked it perhaps, its there though all the same when you have the time look into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would someone kindly show me where the Bible tells us we cannot sit in righteous judgement of others?

Caution- It is NOT the passage about casting the first stone, nor is it the decree that we should "judge not, lest ye be judged."

I will answer the unspoken questions now.

When Jesus saw the men who were there to stone the prostitute to death, in His omnipitence he realized that those who there to punish her were the same ones who HELPED her commit the sins. Jesus' statement about casting the first stone was a condemnation of their hypocracy.

The passage about not judging lest ye be judged does not say "Do not sit in judgement." Notice, it only conveys the idea that if you are not righteous, then you have no business sitting in judgement of those like yourself. Being judged is not a bad thing - IF you are righteous. As humans, we are all imperfect, thus NO ONE is beyond failure, but through the grace of Jesus' suffering, we only need to acknowledge Him for salvation. There is a bit more too it, such as trying to be "Christ-like", but NO ONE is ever going to achieve that goal. One should still strive for it, however...

I apologize if I sound too preachy! This is MY understanding of relevant passages from what was taught to me in school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Remo Williams

quote:

The passage about not judging lest ye be judged does not say "Do not sit in judgement." Notice, it only conveys the idea that if you are not righteous, then you have no business sitting in judgement of those like yourself.

It also conveys to those that do judge others that the same method they use to judge will be used on them when it is their turn to account for their life before God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I don't quite understand what all the ballyhoo is about.

So what if they consulted the bible, our entire legal system is BASED upon it, just as MOST countries legal systems are based upon it.

Call it the bible, the Talmoud, or the Korahn, EACH of them has the old testament and the 10 commandments within it.

This country was indeed founded upon those principles as well, so to go to the bible for guidance on a case that was before them was a responsible thing to do.

NO case should be thrown out due to consulting a holy book for guidance, it is one of the few things that human beings can look at and feel that they are indeed doing the right and just thing.

The ACLU, and other antitheistic organizations have done this to our country, and it angers me NO END.

The republic can only stand as long as it's people are moral and upright citizens, once that morality is gone, the republic is lost.

This is just another sign, that the republic may not be salvageable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by Prez:

I apologize if I sound too preachy! This is MY understanding of relevant passages from what was taught to me in school.

It's cool, just don't preach to me...LOL

I am a Deist, but I will fight to the death if your freedom to worship as you choose was ever threatened.

As I said in another post, there is no neighbor that I would rather have then a true Christian believer. They are some of the most trustworthy, honest, and caring people that I have ever met...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No worries. I am a very introverted person when it comes spirituality and would never force my beliefs on someone else. Truth be told, I am usually quite timid about speaking out much on spiritual matters at all, since I am nowhere near the "ideal" Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

So what if they consulted the bible, our entire legal system is BASED upon it, just as MOST countries legal systems are based upon it.

That's really not the heart of the issue here. The fact that some of the jurors, if not all, consulted an extra-judicial (stemming from something outside of a court proceeding) source without the consent or permission from the Judge. Whether that be "a dictionary, an Internet search, a medical textbook and BlackÔÇÖs Law Dictionary" or a bible.

Just to give you a rough example. Suppose you were on trial for fraud, this will be a non-sequestered jury, and every time the proceedings end for the day the Judge intructs the jurors not to read the news paper, watch the news or talk about the case or expose themselves to any extraneous exposure that may influence their conculsions to the case etc... during the duration of their duty on your case.

Let's take one of the Judges intructions, reading the news paper, as the sample of disregarding the Judges orders. Let's suppose that all the Jurors read that evenings news paper and came across and article about the case that you've been accused many times before of fraud but never convicted. Suppose you are really innocent in all these cases and this one, those jurors will get it into their head there must be something to these acusations because it's happened to many times in the past. Well you get my point.

To me, these Jurors did a great disservice to what it means to be a Juror by not acting in good faith to the court and the community.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno really...both of you have very good points on that as well (Lost and Jaguar).

I do know it's the jury's right to check with any known laws that have been established as well too, but the Bible IS a sort of law reference, and it is a basis that many judicial systems have begun with as well.

Now, granted, yes, there are MANY interpretations to it, that is true, but it is it's essence that carries on through every version as well. I'm not saying their utilizing the Bible for a reference is right or wrong in their case either, but this CAN end up being a very touchy subject to debate over too. When it comes to a persons religion, it can become 'heated' if not careful in words that are said or typed as well.

If anything, if the jurors have agreed amongst themselves (as the 'peers') in that event though, that they should be able to refer to any 'law' that has been placed into print in any case, but keep in mind that they do follow the latest issued laws established at the same time.

Myself, I can understand why they did what the did, and as well to me, I also understand that they we're utilizing whatever sources availiable to them as well...it is a jurors right, as long as the law is followed, and the 'due process' is followed (all laws established, amended, ect.)....then when it comes to their decision, then it should be honored really, but it rests on the Judge though in the final decision there.

That's all I will say on it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

quote:

Originally posted by LostInSpace:

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

So what if they consulted the bible, our entire legal system is BASED upon it, just as MOST countries legal systems are based upon it.

That's really not the heart of the issue here. The fact that some of the jurors, if not all, consulted an extra-judicial (stemming from something outside of a court proceeding) source without the consent or permission from the Judge. Whether that be "a dictionary, an Internet search, a medical textbook and BlackÔÇÖs Law Dictionary" or a bible.

Just to give you a rough example. Suppose you were on trial for fraud, this will be a non-sequestered jury, and every time the proceedings end for the day the Judge intructs the jurors not to read the news paper, watch the news or talk about the case or expose themselves to any extraneous exposure that may influence their conculsions to the case etc... during the duration of their duty on your case.

Let's take one of the Judges intructions, reading the news paper, as the sample of disregarding the Judges orders. Let's suppose that all the Jurors read that evenings news paper and came across and article about the case that you've been accused many times before of fraud but never convicted. Suppose you are really innocent in all these cases and this one, those jurors will get it into their head there must be something to these acusations because it's happened to many times in the past. Well you get my point.

To me, these Jurors did a great disservice to what it means to be a Juror by not acting in good faith to the court and the community.


LIS, another thing that you seem to forget, a jury can IGNORE a judges instructions in ANY way they want.

A jurist is EQUAL to the judge in power when it comes to a decision in a courtroom.

THe judge just continues the proceedings and keeps them going, a Juror is the TRUE power within that courtroom.

A juror can ignore ANY instructions from a judge, and can reference ANYTHING that they like in order to make a decision.

This is a legal fact, no matter HOW guilty a person is, if a jurist feels that the law that the accused broke is immoral, a bad law, or just stupid, the jurist can, and has the responsibility

to find the accused NOT GUILTY.

That is the power of a jurist...

Sequestering a jury sometimes makes sense, but the legal fiction that a Jury has no power and can only do what the judge tells them they can do, is just that, FICTION.

A JURY has FAR more power then ANYONE in that courtroom, the Judge is nothing but the organizer, that is it, the Jury is the true judge.

Anyone that tells you otherwise is LYING, a jury has FAR more power then they are told they have, but like nice little sheeple, people don't study up on the rights and responsibilities of being a jurist, so much of the power has been lost, because the judges can get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for clearing that up. I wish more ppl understood that. If they did perhaps the honor and resposibility of being a jurist would induce more ppl to get involved rather than trying to figure out how to get out of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Jaguar:

LIS, another thing that you seem to forget, a jury can IGNORE a judges instructions in ANY way they want.LIS, another thing that you seem to forget, a jury can IGNORE a judges instructions in ANY way they want.

A jurist is EQUAL to the judge in power when it comes to a decision in a courtroom.

THe judge just continues the proceedings and keeps them going, a Juror is the TRUE power within that courtroom.

A juror can ignore ANY instructions from a judge, and can reference ANYTHING that they like in order to make a decision.

This is a legal fact, no matter HOW guilty a person is, if a jurist feels that the law that the accused broke is immoral, a bad law, or just stupid, the jurist can, and has the responsibility to find the accused NOT GUILTY.


Jaguar, you hit the nail on the head. Outstanding!

This exact point is made by the founding fathers in explaining how the proposed judicial system would work.

I have been hoping someone else would bring this up! The judges have NO POWER TO DO WHAT THEY DID!! What comes out of that deliberation room is as good as LAW!!!!!

So the real issue here, imo, is just another case of an out of control judiciary, once again unconstitutionally expanding its own powers.

It's time for some checks and balances, I would say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Threaten to close the thread, because I place my views on the table?

Prez,

just because I place my likes and dislikes out on the table with NO remorse, I am accused of attacking you?

Hey, if you smoke pot, and I said I detest pot smoking dopers...It's NOT my fault you get offended

Jaguar,

you would have been 100% correct,concerning the power of the jurers, and the place of the judge.. ...IF ALL the juries in the country were under the same rule of LAW,..... but they are NOT.

I have been involved in personal legal battles (mostly financial and moral support for friends or aquaintences) from one end of this country to the other, throughout the years..with EACH there are distict variations of power, between judges and jurys. What is deemed constitutional by the supreme court has little bearing on a community where no one has the finance or clout to get it through to the next level court.

And NO guys, I am NO CHRISTIAN. I would not degrade my self to the extent, that it would take, to align myself with such primitive understanding of the whole of the matter.

The one point YOU all are forgetting. The PROCESS, which determines the JURY, is inconsistant from city to county and from state to state. The Law is different concerning the placement, and power of the judges. This can be radically different from state to state, and even county to county...AND IS.

What you all deduce,...as far as POWER of a jury which is properly informed, CAN happen. And SHOULD be the case.... except, there are loopholes

present in the jury picking proceedings..(which is the case in a very LARGE number of these proceedures)

It would be GREAT, if you were accused, judged, tried and convicted by your PEERS...but what are you going to do, when those peers are members of some RADICAL christian cult.....and they are allowed that kind of power in its totallity, with NO seperatiion of religeon and state?

You know?... the kind you would allow them to have.

Sorry,I still say: Personal RELEGIOUS DOCTRINAL beliefs...have NO place, within our PRESENT DAY judicial system.

Hunky dory, when everyone shares the same beliefs...quite the opposite, when there is diversity within the society.

Jaquar,

In one aspect you refer to the acceptance of the christians as a means of its proliferation.

Which CHRISTIAN proliferation are you referring....Those killed for being lutheren or those killed for being catholic?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Poor Street.....

I am just sitting here shaking my head, I have nothing more to say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously hope someone locks this thread soon, cause that damn comment about Christians was the very VERY LAST STRAW!

quote:

I would not degrade my self to the extent, that it would take, to align myself with such primitive understanding of the whole of the matter.

So... I'm a primitive aren't I?

WHO THE HECK ARE YOU TO JUDGE CHRISTIANS'S AND CALL US PRIMITIVES?!

You just offended me to the highest point Street....

(Edit: You should consider yourself lucky I was able to control my anger, and not spew curse words in this freaking reply, you can thank Remo for that, for HE taught me that it isn't worth the effert to curse on this board)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

I am just sitting here shaking my head, I have nothing more to say...


It WAS only a sarcastic question, which showed the validity of that which I stated earlier: It is persecution of an ideology which creates its proliferation,,,NOT it's acceptance.

The Acceptance of that ONE christian ideology, also accepted persecution for for those outside that specific ideological base...thus, with each SPLIT, came persecution of those on each side of the split..and the percieved persecution was actively pursued from both sides ,as well.

Obvious compounded results, are observed throughout the history of the early christian church....CLEAR up to the END of the inquisitiion...a radical CHRISTIAN ideology which only ended, LESS than 150 years ago.

quote:

So... I'm a primitive aren't I?

WHO THE HECK ARE YOU TO JUDGE CHRISTIANS'S AND CALL US PRIMITIVES?!

You just offended me to the highest point Street....

Kalshion,

Why must you take it so personal?

NO ONE called YOU primitive. Quite the contrary.

It is NOT the individual who believes in the ideology that is primitive.

But to actively and intentionally ignore logic, in the face of RADICAL BELIEFS ...is(IN FACT) a primitive understanding of the teachings presented..Of course, IF you accept the logic: that its ok to stack rocks on someone untill their eys squish from their heads. And proclaim they are guilty if they die, and innocent if they live....THEN I would call you primitive.

NO?,that isnt a primitive understanding of the teachings? which have literally been the basis throughout history, as a justification for WAR, KILLING and MURDER of those with a different beliefs?

If someone thinks an ideological belief is based on primitive understandings...they have that right..And to speak their belief..Is that NOT also what this whole country was founded to PROTECT?

If it offends you, that I believe it to be very primitive.. to say lightning strikes, hurricanes, tornados and earth quakes come from a GOD, overlooking our enviroment, and actively invoking his displeasure...maybe you should re-evaluate what is primitive, misplaced and radical beliefs...and what is the ACTUAL TEACHINGS of the teacher which lies at the very base of the theosophical belief you present.

It is indeed a PRIMITIVE understanding of the whole philosophical ideal held within the CORE of EVERY RELIGEON on the planet.

To JUSTIFY any act of WAR, KILLING or injury upon the life of another human being....IS directly contrary to EVERYTHING Jesus Christ TAUGHT his immediate apostols...and it is in BLACK AND WHITE, with in any depicted scripture availiable today.

To mimmick the SADDUCEE and PHARASEE, in their political affluence and participation, with implimentation of DEATH sentences war murder bribery and deceit...... is not only PRIMITIVE, and CONTRARY to that which Jesus taught...It serves to be SELF DECIEVING..and just plain ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make absolutely NO SENSE

Speak in terms that people can understand why don't you? Not all of us have a Ph. D in backwards persussion

quote:

Why must you take it so personal?

Because I'm Christian and I don't like it when some idiot judge's me and my religion when they don't know either?

quote:

NO ONE called YOU primitive

You insulted my Religion, therefor, you insulted me...

quote:

To mimmick the SADDUCEE and PHARASEE, in their political affluence and participation, with implimentation of DEATH sentences war murder bribery and deceit...... is not only PRIMITIVE, and CONTRARY to that which Jesus taught...It serves to be SELF DECIEVING..and just plain ignorant.

There you go again, calling me and my religion primitive

Only you just took a new step

I'm a Christian, I believe in the death penalty, and I believe in defending my country from people who would otherwise give a shit and kill my fellow man on the spot, so that make's me primitive because it's MY belief? It's my belief that I wanted to defend my country?

God... talk about sad...

You better start making sense Street, cause I could barely make out what you just said (Maybe it's cause I'm still expecting an APOLOGY from you?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×