This is topic The Death Penalty in forum Death Penalty at FHU Bulletin Board.
To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.fhu.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=29;t=000001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by jimh3768 (Member # 1) on 04-23-2003 08:43 PM :
Is eye for an eye a good enough reason?
Do you think that this is a justified act?
Or do you think that life imprisonment is a better punishment?
Let the comments roll.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 04-23-2003 09:50 PM :
Let's get this ball rolling. Why is it that countries without the death penalty have much lower murder rates than those that do? Why is it that states that don't have the death penalty have lower murder rates on average than those that do? The least we can conclude from this is that the death penalty is NOT a deterrent. Sorry deterrent fans, you do not pass go, you do not collect $200. Yes I can hear you saying "If only we killed the murders faster, and more often, then those murderers would finally get the message!" Ya sure. Because if you want to show people that killing is wrong, kill the people that kill, that'll work right!? Wrong. What ends up happening is that this weakens socially based inhibitions about using lethal force to settle disputes. If you want to lessen the taking of lives make the idea of taking a life UNTHINKABLE! Remember when road rage was settled by giving people the finger? What happened when the idea of shooting at the driver you were angry at became THINKABLE? This example is a microcosm of the dangers of making a bad idea thinkable. The best way to teach the value of life is to not take life.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Paul (Member # 208) on 04-23-2003 10:58 PM :
Jim,
You stirred up a hornet's nest so let me add some fuel to the fire. Here's what the Koran has to say on the matter (Sutra 5:32):
"That was why God laid it down for the Israelites that whoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy in the land, shall be regarded as having killed all mankind; and whoever saved a human life shall be regarded as having saved all mankind"
and Sutra 5:45:
"Unbelievers are those who do not judge according to God's revelations : Therein we decreed for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose...and a wound for a wound."
Glenn : I understand your comments, but if deterrence were the *only* reason for having the death penalty your argument about murder rates would be fine. But deterrence is not the *only* reason.
[ April 23, 2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Paul ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 04-23-2003 11:17 PM :
Paul, I know deterrence isn't the only issue in the death penalty, and the reason I focus on it is because so many people falsely believe the death penalty is a deterrent over life in prison. When those for the death penalty are asked if they'd still be for it if it was proven the death penalty was not a deterrent, a large portion of them say they would no longer be for it. That makes it a huge issue.
[ April 23, 2003, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Glenn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-23-2003 11:19 PM :
I made my point of view known literally just hours before the last forum on this subject was deleted. I’ve been asked to repost what I had said. Although I can not redo it word for word as it was spontaneously written and I did not copy it this is the jist of what my personal thoughts on this subject are.
It is true that a case for execution can be found in Mosaic Law as evidenced in Exodus 21, specifically Exodus 21:12 which states: "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death". Even so, I have given this subject much thought over the years and have decided that I personally would never wish to make such a judgment upon another human being. I know from where I have come and am sure that from God’s point of view I have probably deserved death on many occasions. When Jesus was asked directly about the subject by persons ready to execute a sinner He replied "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". Hearing this, all those eager to throw their stones instead dropped them and walked away in shame. Each knew in that moment, whether they wanted to or not, that none of them were clean enough to act in Justice’s name. I believe that God can, will and does smite anybody he deems fit and that the death penalty is the domain of a God or God-ordained authority and not the likes of me. I would never want to be such an authority...Now this is different of course from killing in defense of another human being. None of us would hesitate to kill a rabid dog or raging bear to save the life of a human being. When a human behaves as an animal toward another human and we are able to do something about it killing may be justified. I believe that Righteous Anger is in the moment and in defense of another however this is very different from the deliberate planning of an execution. It seems to me that that authority had better be nearly, if not fully, perfect. I say let him who is without sin inject the poison drug.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 04-24-2003 12:58 PM :
We go to war with a foreign aggressor and kill them.What is the difference when the aggressor is homegrown and speaks with an American accent instead of an Islamic one? Your aunt Mable is just as dead if she is mugged by Joe Blog round the corner as at the hands of some Islamic terrorist.Why do we suddenly think the homegrown killer is deserving of rights which we would correctly never dream of extending to the external foreign aggressor?
The deterrent argument has yet to be made as up to now we have been asked to accept the results of statitstics on trust by those who acknowledge that they are anti death penalty.I for one would not concede such an important issue like this on blind trust, without proper research,especially as those asking for it have proved to be somewhat dubious in character in their comments and lacking in judgement.
To deny the importance of deterrence is to argue against commonsense and everything we know about human nature. Deterrence has worked between nations regarding nuclear weapons: The mutually assured destruction principle.Soviet Union didnt start a war because we had the deterrent and they knew if they did they would get zapped.If the deterrence works with nations why not on an individual basis as nations are but a vast composite of individuals? Human nature doesnt change when individuals are multiplied into nations.
Furthermore the fact that the murderer will face a long protracted period of legal delay which can go on for decades has, as I have already stated, compromised and pretty much negated any deterrent factor to the death penalty.Another issue the antis have neatly sidestepped. The threat of a punnishment in 10 or 20 years time is not threat at all.The removal of such a delay has I understand tended to produce a deterrent effect according to some research.
In France the recidivist rate for criminals is much lower than the UK for a simple reason: French prisons are squalid horrible places and criminals do not go back for a second helping:Deterrence. So much for the argument that criminals are irrational and dont think things through before committing a crime.
If deterrence did not work anarchy would be everywhere and there would be no point in parents disciplining children since to ground them and deny them things would have no effect.Every parent knows that issuing ultimatums and applying deterrents works. Zero tolerance works.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-24-2003 01:14 PM :
Hello Nick, As you can see from my post I have not weighed in on the issue of deterence one way or another. I spoke to the act of killing as a punishment for a crime committed. But now that you have brought it up allow me to ask of you a question. Why is being deprived of the precious gift of liberty and freedom by being locked away like an animal until death occurs naturally not good enough?
[ April 24, 2003, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-24-2003 04:06 PM :
I would not like to make the decision of hwo is going to live and who is going to die, but Iwould like a jury to make it,not a judge lobell as in Louise ("giggles") Woodward... the killer made the decision, and now there are some families who are against the death penalty..I say if the family feels that way, they should bear weight in the decision making, i.e, the jury recommends death, but the victim statements do not want it..but if the death penalty is given to one, whom society and the family says has forfeited his/her right to live among us, because he/she may kill again, then I leave it up to them...my friend's granddaughter was killed at 6 yrs old because her dad was mad that her mom re-married, he wanted to hurt the mother , but she ran into the back room of the counseling center where they had to meet because of his "right" to see the child, but too violent to see her at home, when he couldn't find the mom, he went back to the waitng room , and as the child was writing "my daddy is not being very nise (sic) on the blackboard, shot her in the head , point blank, he got a hundered years and not the death penalty, becasue she was not a cop or he did not get h er while in the commission of another crime..and the insurance of the safe place gave only what "productivity" she had in recompense, what she might have done for aliving if she were alllowed to grow up was moot, a 6 yr old isn't valuable in insurance claims..the first year, on Mother's Day, he sent all the women a mother's day card from himself, they reportd it to the warden and he got his law library trips curtailed, but his lawyer was the one who mailed it for him..this family is divided, there are aunts of the little girl who want to see him rot in jail for a hundred years, there are others who wanted the death penalty, but could not get it..every so often he comes up for parole and they have to re-live the nightmare, and he gets another chance to hurt them..in God's eyes , he will have to face h is little girl again at Judgement Day, but we will have to support him and his trips to the mail box and parole board, and their pain, until he dies. I used to be totally for the death penalty, but now I say, leave it in the hands of those who were denied their loved one's right to live, and I will abide by their decision.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 04-24-2003 08:48 PM :
Nick, if you question the deterrence stats I've provided for you, do the research for yourself and prove me wrong or be quiet about it. The difference in taking the life with an aggressor nation during wartime is night and day. That is a matter of self defense. We don't kill the prisoner's of war do we? The death row inmate is not an immediate threat and therefore your analogy falls flat.
[ April 24, 2003, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Glenn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-25-2003 01:53 PM :
I believe those who remain in prison for many years and are truly repentent and change is visible, these should not be put to death.
Those who remain unrepentent and incorrigible should be executed and those who think otherwise should use their hard earned wages to feed, house and clothe them and continue feed the evil in them.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-25-2003 03:48 PM :
Louise, Just a simple question if I may. Do you not believe that if the Giver of Life deemed it proper that He wouldn't take away a life? If God choses to let an evil person live who are we to judge God? Even evil can serve a purpose for the Good until such time that God says "enough is enough". I for one do not wish to play God. Remember, "the standard by which you judge will be the standard by which you are judged".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-25-2003 04:38 PM :
"Louise, Just a simple question if I may. Do you not believe that if the Giver of Life deemed it proper that He wouldn't take away a life? If God choses to let an evil person live who are we to judge God? Even evil can serve a purpose for the Good until such time that God says "enough is enough". I for one do not wish to play God. Remember, "the standard by which you judge will be the standard by which you are judged".
....................................
HI Rick
First of all there is judging and righteous judgement.
Second of all, It is the giver of life who condemnes the evil doers with eternal death, so yes I do believe the giver of life believes in righteous judgement.
There are many places in scripture where God has sent out men to go to war to slay the evil doers.
I do not hesitate for one moment that Roy would not use his guns if intruders broke into his house and harmed his family.
I have guns, and I would not hesitate to use them if necessary,
but, I try to avoid that by having a security alarm to scare them off first.
Righteous judgement is not a sin Rick.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-25-2003 05:49 PM :
Dear Louise, I was not talking about righteous judgement but I do believe righteous anger is always in defense of another which can mean defense of the home country as well as defending a family member in the home as examples. I was responding to your statement that said "Those who remain unrepentent and incorrigible should be executed" Are you saying that an prisoner could not have find repentance at age 87 for example? How can we know when a change of heart might come to anyone? -Rick
[ April 25, 2003, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-25-2003 06:33 PM :
Rick
It depends on the crime, one who is completely possessed by evil and dismembers the body, has no conscience and there is no chance in hates such a person can be redeemed later in life.
Do you think someone like Dommer will repent at any age or Manson? Anyone who can dismember bodies and stuff them in a freezer has no conscience. I am not referring to people who kill in a moment of anger, I am speaking of those who are souless.
I believe in the death penalty in certain instances.
And so does Bush believe it in the war on Iraq even at the expense of innocent lives.
You may answer your question by asking yourself if Saddam could repent at 87. I say no way.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-25-2003 06:42 PM :
Rick
It depends on the crime, one who is completely possessed by evil and dismembers the body, has no conscience and there is no chance in hates such a person can be redeemed later in life.
Do you think someone like Dommer will repent at any age or Manson? Anyone who can dismember bodies and stuff them in a freezer has no conscience. I am not referring to people who kill in a moment of anger, I am speaking of those who are souless.
I believe in the death penalty in certain instances.
And so does Bush believe it in the war on Iraq even at the expense of innocent lives.
You may answer your question by asking yourself if Saddam could repent at 87. I say no way.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-25-2003 07:20 PM :
Dear Louise, Believe it or not but I have said for many years now that I believe Jeffrey Dahmer was truly sorry in the end. I watched his statement to the families live in the court room that day. I believe he knew he was out of control and possessed and truly glad he was stopped. I saw and heard his statement of contrition that day and believe he was sincerely sorry about the unspeakable horrors and severe pain his actions caused. But let me ask you this, do you believe people can be possessed by evil and made to do things they otherwise might not do? ...I would also point out to you that he died in prison but not at the hands of the State. He was killed by another inmate. I believe it is possible that God concluded that in Jeffrey's case he needed to forfeit his life and allowed his death to happen. This tends to prove my point that God is a Big Guy and does not need us to decide nor carry out a death sentence. In my view it is more than sufficent to deny such a killer his freedom and liberty forever and err on the side that a soul might be saved even if it takes 100 years. Louise, you are free to believe as you see fit and so am I. I choose to believe that no one is beyond God's Saving Grace. As far as a Saddam or Hitler or even a Judas is concerned, yes, I believe even they could be saved if they only repented. Again, What mere mortal can say that anyone is beyond God's Saving Grace and by what authority would they say it? -Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-25-2003 10:17 PM :
When someone takes another life, with malice aforethought, purposefully, the sin is no longer between him and God as other sins are, but there is a victime that will help God decide no matter what the rest of the choices are for the killer..we are not the ones who died, we cannot beging to know the loss of those who have to live without their loved one. Sure the killer has a cptive situation in which he becomes good as all other choices to the opposite are taken away if he /she want so have a gair existence..like the woman somebody Fay Tucker, she found God , she was doing angel of mercy work, bu tthat did not bring back those she killed, it is sad, she was a crazed druggie and probably would have died form that if not caught, but she killed innocent people with every right to live, hididn under the bed, she spotted that one and killed her too, and even had a sexual experinece while doing it..that has to be from the pit of hell and yes shelater said she was so sorry, but dead is dead, and more and more, as her time grew near and the protestors were out there, led by her oh so sorry husband, a cleric of some sort, whom she was also as sorry to leave as she was for the heinous act, she was not sorry for those who presently have no say in the matter, the victimis and will not until Judgement day when, yes it will be up to God, but up to them too, what happens to herimmortal soul...and yes deterrence is a big factor, not only that the perp doesn t do it again, but any other crazed druggie loooking for a high should look at that case as gee, there is someone who even found god and got zapped, maybe I should find Hime now and spare myself all the trouble.God bless the victims everywhere who get revictimized by the system when they seek, not revenge , but Justice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-25-2003 10:50 PM :
DoreenC, May I respectfully suggest that when typing you should slow down a bit and then double check your spelling before submitting your post. I would also suggest the use of periods between your thought sentences so that one can more easily follow your flow of thoughts.
Anyway, I would like to say this about the victims of which you speak. First of all, if they are good people they will have forgiven the "perp" already and would have asked God to forgive in the same way Jesus ask God to "forgive them father for they know not what they have done". And because of that forgiving attitude they will not have died at all but have gone on to live in a wonderful place. If the victim was not a good person, forgive me, but what was lost? DoreenC, I ask you directly, have you ever done anything you've later come to regret? Was it you that did it or was it sin that made a home in you? and again, What mere mortal can say that anyone is beyond God's Saving Grace and by what authority would they say it?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-26-2003 12:23 AM :
Rick as I told you before we all have a right to our own choices, I stated my understanding and do not care to debate the issue any further.
You have stated yours and you are welcome to it.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-26-2003 12:58 AM :
Thanks for the punctuation tips, Rick, I have bi focals.and sometimes I take them off and that is even worse, thank you for bearing with me..maybe you would have more tolerance and personal uprightness if you knew that I was teaching Grammar when you were a twinkle..but now you know what they say about "when I get old I shall wear purple and sit on the sidewalk and spit" ..as in do whatever I want
I came to this post because as the NY Times, for example, were too intellectual and caught up in their own effete egos..I came to this post to find like minded people ,not to struggle with arrogant intellectualism, I can do that,and I am good at it, and hopefully have overcome the need to show others how important I am at wordsmithing..and mindbending..and I would prefer not to rattle intellectual sabers, I came to this post more interested in finding people who were changed from that by hearing the truth in what Roy says, so far I have not found that many, most are intrigued by their own arguments..as Roy would say, the sound of their own voices, and surprise of surprises, most of these are men on this post that seem to want to let us kn ow they are right and we are wrong, including Roy..I am not above a healthy discusion, but I am not going to argue for it's own sake or so any or listen to any "devil's advocate" thing..
I have friends who are victims,and I have nearly been a victim and in past circumstances of being battered, and the circumstance Iam now in, I could easily be killed and there would be nothing to pay for it..yes, I am a sinner spared by God's saving grace, and nobody has the right to take or give life except God, we would be making ourselves God to spare one who has chosen to make his / her own rules..if as a Bible scholar, you would like to read the book of Esdras, you will see that there is more than matt ,mark, luke and john, sorry for the lack of caps. and that there will be a place of accountability for us all, and the people who died for absolutely no other reason that that others wanted them out of their way , will stand in judgement of those who killed them , even it seems politically incorrect at this time,we have a right to life, as well as liberty and the pursuit of happines,but the others are moot without life, Vengeance is mine says the lord, I will repay, hmmm, let's see, how can we sugar coat that and rehabilitate God for our own purposes? Anyone who has made a mistake that has harmed their life would take it back in a minute if they could, we cannot take back the bad marriage, the wrong move into the wrong neighborhood, the abortion , whatever, we have to live with the error of our ways of wrongs done TO OuRSELVES ...and pay for them now and possibly later..but when we kill another human being,that is beyond our realm of justifiacation.. that is for God AND the one who was murdered to decide ,and all we write here, will not change the irrefutable fact that they will pay for murder like no other sin , because it is a crime against not only one person, but the killing of all the genrations that would have been allowed to come forth from that person had they not been wiped off the face of the earth by another's preference of them ceasing to exist. Ask Roy what he thinks, as I think this is still an FYU board and not an NYTimes one...I am not kidding..I dare you to ask him where the blood of the victim has a chance to cry out, hey that hurt me, like forever and my family and kids and future grandkids after me..not on this earth, not in these activist courtrooms..it worked for Louise Woodward, too bad it didn't for little Matthew Eappen, but whatever, she is going to be a lawyer and change the world, as if she hadn't rearranged their lives enoughth..it is not cold callous or unforgiving to think about those no longer with us to their murders..uh yah, I have made mistakes..murder is not a mistake..it is the wiping off the carrier of the spirit of God off the universe forever. but maybe this is a conversion board, maybe we are meant to go from Roy's ways of giving us back to ourselves, to a maharishi or other form of "peace" where murderers repent, get married, victims stay dead, and all is happy ever after...just so long as we talk about rights, let's include those who cannot have any any more, what about the victim? Doesn't HE /SGE desreve a second chance, Justice is the only second chance they get a shot at, we are the only ones who can speak for those who have been silenced and not able to speak for themselves, ..compassion is a 2 way street...and for those who are worried that some Jr. High schoold student may skip algerbra class one day in the future and found they had the wrong man, many people die wrong, the victim, did, heroes on the battle fireld do, and if there was one chance that the wrong person got executed over the many chances that real murderers may not get executed, I think that I would rather stand before God, and the Jesus who said I came not to bring peace into the world, but a sword, in the NEW Testament..stand before them in my self righteous and totally innocent of the crime state, , than be standing ther as a murderer who killed , then was not repentant enough to face Justice and who whined his way Home. Yes, people make mistakes, they rob banks, take drugs, and do whatever they can think of to take the comfort way out and end up being very uncomfortable, but when other people have to go one and try to live their lives when they don't knowhow or why, because a very important part of that life was taken by someone who is now truly sorry..then all the victim has going for him is the death penalty to even things up on this earth and probably go lighter for the PERP before Godand the victim in the life to come, where Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father and of that KIngdom there will be no end, and those who don't want us in that Kingdom will be living somewhere else, where the thermostat is always too high ..and they will be saying as they did to Abraham in the bible, why didn't you tell us it was going to be this bad? As he said ,even if Moses came down to Hell and you did not believe him, why would you believe me?Jesus got angry many times, and mostly over the government taking thigs into their own hands and going all churchy about it, eventually He got murdered too, by the ones who chose who was going to live and who was gooing to die, when they said give us Barabbas, is what they now say to the victim. MInds and hearts change when they are the victim, not the PERP.
[ April 25, 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: DoreenC ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-26-2003 08:23 AM :
DorrenC: My apologies if you were offended by my humble suggestions regarding your quick typing. I see that you took my suggestions none the less. I found your response much more easy to read this time. Thank you.
You have brought up several points I could debate but I can see that you are rather fixed in your beliefs and it is probably pointless to exhange points of view on this particular subject with you much more than we have already done. You are, of course, free to hold your beliefs but please allow me to point out what I see as your over riding theme: Your approach to this issue is mainly all Judgement with little to no Mercy. A rather unbalanced and may I say, resentment based and unforgiving attitude. Its the kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out attitude. It is an "old testamant" way of thinking that completely ignores the message of mercy brought by Jesus. Did He not say "Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy"? and "For with the measure you use,
it will be measured to you"?. But then again, you're free to think however you wish...There is one other point I would make before we agree to disagree and leave the issue alone between us. You said in your last response that it is "the wiping off the carrier of the spirit of God off the universe forever" that deserves death. Which is more important, the Spirit, or the carrier of that Spirit? I would remind you DorrenC, that the spirit of a good person can never be "wiped offed" as you say but is destined to live forever. The body dies but the good spirit is actually liberated to live anywhere in and beyond the universe forever.
And one final point in closing. You might be interested to know that I do not have a high school diploma. Sincerely, -Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-26-2003 01:31 PM :
My "wearing purple comment" was just an ttempt to lighten things up..I will have to look up the original poem of that to make it more clear...No offense, Rick, I saw it, the rrror of my writing, when I wrote "forever" but was already on my first editing, you won't believe this but I usually do edit, just a magoo- type - lousy typist.. because you are right, the Spritit of that person goes back to God, it was and is always just His way of getting human among flesh..that is why I am against abortion, it stops the spirit of God from dwelling among us.."fixed in my beliefs" would surprise you, I have come a long way in my original beliefs , and am quite liberal to where I used to be more of a "kill em all" , now I just mean pre-meditated murder..there are circumstances where a person gets so angy and carried away, and that could be in the Scott/Laci situation, but then his cover up would be added to the original crime and make it more heinous, so that he just prolonged the agony for all when he went to help look for her ..IF he is the guilty one..In my own recent court experiences, I have not seen that 'Justice is tempered with Mercy', nor have I seen Peace and Mercy kiss" nor have I even been able to walk humbly with my God and love Mercy, as in Micah....I have only found what most citizens found during the OJ case, that he with the most money wins Justice and there is no mercy to it , not even a "sorry 'bout that"....that OJ case was so unfair to his wife and to Ron , only an errand boy in that case,a nd above all, unfair to all the people who had to live without them. I don't feel Andrea Yates should get the death penalty or even life imprisonmnet, one look at her and we can see that she was very sick, she was in a religious cult and where were they when she needed them, sorry to get off track, just trying to show that no I am not for killing them all...as I said in an earlier post, I am now for leaving it in the hands of the people who have to learn to live without their loved ones, they need some kind of closure and I believe being a participant in the say of what happens to their loved one helps them heal, but the main person, the one who is no longer with us, will see the killer on Judgement Day and have a say in it for themselves..many are divided on this death penalty subject, and it is sad that we have so many killings that we even have to have cases to cite ..I do not feel theseconvicted people are incorrigible, and cannot repent, I don't know if they can be forgiven by God while living on this earth as there is the third party victim to bring into it..sometimes the reason the perpetrator is brought into th e light is that he is a captive audience and has no choice but to repent, this is also at the victim's expense, he gets to mend his ways at the life of another..guess I was just trying to give another viewpoint than the current"get of jail free" crowd..I respect your comments as I do others of this board, Rick,, they are well thought out and intelligent, I just cannot agree with you on this one, I am a poet too, this is not an easy position to take especially when seeing Karla Faye Tucker night after night, but I think her cleric husband used her in trying to make his agenda work and only gave her false hope, I believe she truly repented and that along with her getting her life taken away for the crime will have more merit with God than , for example ,OJ. when he gets there..I am not the one being judgemental or doing the judging andy more than you could say the jury is "judgemental" , this is a topic we are all weighing in on, and even to say the killer should live, is a judgement. I believe the movies and Sister Susan Sarandon and college kids should not have the final say, I believe the victim should be spoken for , thanks for listening to another point of view..and do a google search on "when I get old, I shall wear purple" it is sust doggerel , only meant to lighten an otherwise heavy subject, Take care, Doreen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-26-2003 03:04 PM :
DoreenC, Thank you for your kind post. I think I see better now where you are coming from. I understand your concern for the victims, they are truly the most agrieved of all in such crimes. But in order for them to get beyond the horror visited upon them they must learn to forgive, and I do not mean by that that we should let a person who has committed such a horrible crime free. They, the criminal, must pay, of course, perhaps by losing thier liberty and freedom forever, and yes, perhaps even thier life if God sees fit. But whether or not such a criminal is put to death alone does not and can not bring closure to the victim. Only forgivenss can impart a healing peace in a conscience. I am a witness to this fact. Do you know who Ted Olson is? He is the Solicitor General of United States whose wife Barbara was killed on the terrorist piloted plane that flew into the Pentagon. He was actually speaking with her on a cell phone until her end. It was only days later that he was being interviewed about it on TV. I could not belive my eyes or ears, as a matter of fact I couldn't see through my eyes at all because of the tears that would not stop. What a moment, what a man, what grace and dignity, what an example of a man who was going through unspeakable loss and pain before my eyes yet so thoroughly lacked hatred, resentment or any claim to revenge for what happened to him or his wife. I thank God for the privilege of witnessing such a moment and will never ever forget it. And make no mistake about it, he was rock solid in his conviction that the scourge of terrorism must be fought and defeated and to this day does his part in that war. There just was no room in his heart for anything negative and it was plain as day. This was a living example of a man who would, as Roy likes to say, become better for the experience, not bitter. As I like to tell my Jewish girlfriend, there were many in Hitlers concentration camps who were subject to and witness to endless unbelievable and unspeakable horrors yet emerged from years of such captivity better human beings for the experience. They somehow knew the secret. I suppose that is really all I am trying to say. Sincerely, -Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-26-2003 03:49 PM :
Yes there were many survivors from that awful holcaust, a book by Dr. Viktor Frankl, the name escapes me, shows how his feeling of his own right to life, right to exist, got him through it, I think it is a book I will not only recommend but read again, Yes, Ted Olson was really something, I too saw that interview and i think it was jsut after they had celbrated their anniversary that the tragedy happened, I too marvelled at him, ..I felt I knew Barbara and she was a real hero on that flight too as she had called Ted,to warn the Governmment, I remember the many times she stood up for th Right herself on the various Crossfire and other sows, sometimes she was a voice in the wilderness against the liberals of the Clinton era, Hilary, Shalala.... when I saw him speak he was resigned as if it were God's will and "this is the way walk ye in it"..if you can recall the amazing job he did just prior to that ..the amazing job of lawyering he did to the Supreme court in Bush vs Gore, he really won that case for the president, along with other good lawyers including the wonderful Barbara,but he was right on..I know you are trying to see it as in take the hate or sting out of it, and then let the people who killed live, but somehow this has to be done without disregarding the victim,and then when the victim is called to mind, the lawyer for the defense doesn't stand a chance , so it is a catch 22 in remebering the victim as a person..do you think there should be then degrees of capital punishment, as for the bombers of the world trade center, or should they repent , like the Massoui character who missed the flight..he has pleaded guilty and has said he would do it again,do you think there should be a forgiveness of the penalty for repentance, or just no capitol punishment at all?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-26-2003 04:16 PM :
DoreenC, I will try to sum it up as simply as I can. I have sinned horribly in my life and am convinced that God would have been more that justified to slay me 10 times over by now. Yet he has let me live. I also know that God can slay anyone at anytime He chooses and does so when He sees fit. I also belive that God allows some very bad people to live for purposes I can not presume to know. It is my personal feeling that unless and until I am perfect I have no right to condemn another imperfect human. Such a final condemnation as death is better left in God's more than capable hands in my opinion. I believe just as strongly in Justice and the need to punish crime but I can not seem to forget Jesus words when he said "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone". I hope that helps to clarify my view. Thanks for asking. -Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-26-2003 06:42 PM :
But God can take us back if we are the worst sinners or the most repentant ones..as repentant ones, our names are written in the Book of Life..I don't see Him as some avenger or entity with a whim to destroy those who have been bad..I am grateful tha t as a sinner saved by Grace I can look to the blood of Jesus and cry out Abba..I just do not see in our social structure on this earth where we have to tolerate murderers among us, destroying God's plan so that theirs are more efficient..I respect your opinion Rick as well as those of the others here, who truly believe in what they defend.. for the most part, though , the political activists who suddenly give a damn about killers and not victims, only show their need for the gift that keeps on giving..fat, recurring defense checks they would not receive with the death penalty. Thank you for your point of view and points well taken..remeber how Paul held the coats of those who stoned Stephen, and Stephen let those first stones be cast,heck of a way to die, also an innocnet person, I wonder if he would have had (Paul) the Road to Damascus experience BEFORE the stoning what he would have done about such murderers..hope I get the chance to ask him
[ April 26, 2003, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: DoreenC ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-26-2003 07:45 PM :
And I respect your opinion as well DoreenC. Do you watch Touched by an Angel? I love that show, I can never watch it without tearing up. The message is so powerful. I love that they are always bearers of Love, Hope and Redemption. I love whoever writes those stories for they surely know what mercy means. I love that the Angels bring the message that God loves and forgives those you ask with an honest intent, even those dying of some horrible self induced disease or facing the chair or lethal injection. I love that the message is that there is hope until the last moment even for the vilest creature on the face of the earth. I love that they go where no one else would dare to go. Call me a fool if you'd like but I would choose to be like those angels, to be a bearer of the message of God's mercy any day. I would love to share in God's unbounded joy when a lost sheep has been found rather than share in His deep sadness that one had to put down. Someone else can do that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-26-2003 09:08 PM :
I love that show too, but I hear it is going off..at least we have all the re runs, I love the show about Miracles too with Richard Thomas..my best friend's boyfriend loves Touched By An Angel too, and he also cries/tears up at the shows! I was and still am surprised, call me sexist, that men are touched by Touched By An Angel too!
I don't want to be part of a jury that says who is going to live and who is going to die, in fact since Judge Lobell over rode the jury in the Louise Woodward case, I have recused myself from jury duty, it is a nasty job, and I give credit to any who can do it, I would not like to see all the horrible pictures, go to the death scene, etc. and after all that, come to a painful consensus, only to have a Judge over rule it....plus they carry on the various stages too long, a boy of 17 kills someone, and when he is 35, they execute him, that has made him suffer too long, I think for example that something like that is cruel and unusual punishment, and that too long a time has passsed for Justice for anyone in that case, all the parties have had to wait too long, it should be swift, certain and completely fair, if it is going to happen, for all concerned..and now they are putting children on death row for wrestling type murders, it is getting way out of hand, a kid of 10 or 11 in with hardened crimals for 20 years awaiting the death sentence..the system does have to be revamped..a kid should not have to get the death penalty..I watched Court tv where a grownup consistently left her nephew, her brother's boy, with her 2 year old boy and he killed him out of exasperation, he daily gave up his childhood and had to babysit this child.. and at his trial, she said I hope you rot in jail, because he did not get the death penalty..I felt badly for her,but worse for the little 12 year old boy, as bad as I felt for the baby that got killed, as I thought she could have gotten a different babysitter and actually should have been on trial herself for child neglect..oh well , we will not solve these problems this rainy night in CT, can only pray that some souls check their anger and watch touched by an angel instead of wrestling..and basically just have good dads and moms to begin with as a prevention that their futures do not have to be resolved by mere mortals....Take care, Doreen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-26-2003 09:40 PM :
You take care too DorrenC. I've no doubt we shall be talking again soon about some meaningful subject. Perhaps I will even run into you on one of my business shopping trips to Putnam. I love all those antiques store in the old downtown area. Its rainy here in Rockport tonight too. The sound of the stormy ocean is a nice sound to fall asleep by. Pleasant dreams. -Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-26-2003 10:23 PM :
Don't go to Front St, I got ripped off there by a guy I let rent my front window, he told me to hang in there till the winter was over, then went to the landlord with a better offer..he is Dave of JB "Antiques", but really cleanouts..right across from the Bradley theater..otherwise there are great deals in town,,Jerry Cohen's The Marketplace and of course, Greg Renshaw's marvelous oddities out on the sidewalk,the antique dealers in this town rebuilt a faded ,fifties-flooded out town into something special..also the name of the pizza place across the street! Unfortunately many of the other "dealers" like Dave can be seen at tag sales on weekends, but I am sure you are discriminating..it is a fun business..I have the name of a great restorer if you ever need one, he seemed to be a meditator at first, now I see him as a libertarian, too bad because he went from antique furniture restoration to politi and government stuff, dropped everything and went to college for THAT..but he is still a kind and gentle man, he is anti war, anti death penalty and anti abortion, so that shows you he is not all bad! Do call when you are in town..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 04-27-2003 10:50 AM :
Wherever it is that we come across evil - any evil - the inescapable truth invariably seems to be that such evil had a lie at its very origin; a lie that was preceded by yet another lie ... the lie that someone at some point told himself.
Thorough research into the causes of such lies always shows that each of these lies came about as a product of an ill-adjusted mind that inadquately translated a traumatic event into a perception that became an unaccepted reality or, if you like, a buried truth ... a phenomenon of ignorance that embraced within one circumference all prerequisites for (inferiority) complexes and reduced self-esteem; conditions that festered to eventually become the cause for evil.
Ignorance begets ignorance. Evil begets evil.
Is it righteous to punish an "evil-doer" for an act which, at a much earlier stage in some form or other, has also victimised that very same "evil-doer"?
Is it righteous to punish an "evil-doer" for an act that this "evil-doer" has committed because the traumatic damage done to that "evil-doer" at a much earlier stage has been such that he or she can no longer distinguish "right" from "wrong"?
Is it right that a State - an administration of officials who have been appointed in our names - then seeks retribution and eventually commits an act which is as heinous as the act committed by the "evil-doer"?
Is it not so that there is no "evil-doer", but that there is the combination of a fellow human being on the one hand and an evil act on the other?
Is it not so that killing a human being will only create more grief (for the often innocent loved ones of the "evil-doer" and as a karmic experience for those who - as not infrequently is the case - convict and execute an innocent human being)?
Is it not so that - in order to protect society -merely the act should be addressed and that the behaviour should be corrected whilst the "evil-doer" himself is being kept away from society for as long as such behaviour has not been corrected?
Man's wisdom is a folly in God's eyes. Capital punishment ... a simple solution for a complex problem and yet another symptom of a history of which each milestone has been marked by widespread misery and bloodshed.
When will we finally break the eternal chain of ignorance/incertainty-fear-hatred-agression-ignorance/incertainty-fear-hatred-agression-etc.?
Ignorance begets ignorance. Evil begets evil.
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-27-2003 11:26 AM :
Seeing that you are coming from a State called "Love Conquers All" the only argument would be for you or anyone else to walk a mile in the victim's shoes, certainly not that i wish any one to go through what they have, but I don't think any of this can be anymore than intellectual observations unless we have been there..how's the weather in Amor, Lonelyguide,still moonbeams and rainbows it is still rainy but with sun shing through in the armpit of the Universe, Putnam,CT a/k/a Ignoramus Semper /Tyrannusa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 04-27-2003 12:03 PM :
Hi Doreen,
We've all experienced our version(s) of traumatic events. As I'm sure that you would not wish to have had to experience mine, I also have no wish to try out yours. Like you probably do too, I prefer to focus on constructive things.
You and I, like so many others, have both ostensibly had those experiences and the manner in which we deal with those experiences is clearly illustrated by the manner in which we live in the present and thus by the manner in which we will live in our future.
Some elect to hold on to those experiences and thus permit those experiences to colour their present and ... through their present ... also their future. It is all part of a learning process and your words are merely indicative of the stage that you have reached in that learning process.
Wisdom is the fruit of the tree called pain. Wisdom or, if you like, enlightenment enables us not to make a monument out off our pain and prevents us from enduring the consequences of that pain for much longer than is necessary.
The word resentment says it all ... re-sentment ... you're making yourself sense/feel or experience the whole traumatic experience all over again. As if once was not enough, you, Doreen, are turning yourself into a victim a second time. How often have you already done this to yourself, Doreen?
Feel your pain, experience it and then gently release it. Forgive what you must forgive, bless those who have trespassed against you and give yourself the gift to move on and to start living again.
Always do remember that the extent to which a human being is capable of perceiving, accepting and embracing reality and its changing faces is the very same extent to which that human being is psychologically healthy and ... happy!
Your present and your future are your choice, Doreen. You can colour them any way you like. You can entrench yourself in pain and resentment whilst focusing on elements of disintegration, or you can opt to give yourself a different life. It is entirely your choice.
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-27-2003 12:25 PM :
This is a little off the subject of the death penalty but since you offered the advice this is my response...Actually, I am not living in pain and resentment, I am just in a quagmire I am trying to save enough money to get out of..the way I see it, how others feel about me, is their problem not mine, I have a life to live and I am jsut trying to do that, I am just not allowed to do it here..but thanks for the advice, I am not re feeling anything, I am just going through simialar events with a different cast of characters doing the abusing this time, and I am just rying to get out of it the best and most responsible way I know how, unfortunately I did that before, when you have to cooperate with those who are not playing fairly ,it is a slower process, thanks again,Doreen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-27-2003 12:33 PM :
And I did look up the Viktor Frankl book , Man's Search for Meaning,yesterday, he was a holocaust survivor, and lived because he felt he had a right to..he also helped work on the theory of existentialism which puts people basically into inner and outer directed realms, so say if you are an inner directed person, it is not easy to get through any difficulties with outer, more material, live for the moment , directed people..people just odn't know how to differentiate living for the moment and IN the moment and sometimes I am verymisunderstood by them, but I do not care, because I have a right to live, like Dr. Viktor Frankl did , in his holocaust, I have to go through this as I have searched every way around and over it, and I just have to go through it, with the grace of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-27-2003 01:13 PM :
Hello lonelyguide, welcome!
You seem to be coming from a place of love that is unrealistic. Were you also against a just war and call it unjust for killing innocent civilians ? do you like many not take into consideration the many who will live in peace and safety of a new government because we cared enough to risk our own young men to kill a tyrant?
As far as the death penalty goes, God even sends sinners to eternal death who are not repentent.
People have a choice no matter what their backgrounds are.
I do not believe in the death sentence for one who kills in a moment of heat, but one who continues to murder, torture and dismember their victims without conscience.
Thank you for sharing.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 04-27-2003 01:30 PM :
Hi Doreen,
The Chinese language has one character which in one sentence can have the meaning "crisis" or "chaos" and in yet another sentence can mean "new opportunity".
One human being can look around him- or herself and perceive chaos or, if you like, a guagmire, whereas another person in the very same situation will perceive order and opportunities for growth. It all depends what your focus is and how you are prepared to translate what you are seeing.
Whatever you accept into your mind has reality for you. It is your acceptance of it that makes it real. Release your mind, and you will look upon a world released. (from A course in miracles).
Perhaps I should add, Doreen, that people have very strange ideas about miracles. They believe that miracles hardly ever occur and that miracles do all sorts of things. Well, reality is different. Divine orchestration is everywhere to an extent that is beyond your wildest imagenings, miracles happen all the time and, rather than do things, they undo things.
The traumatic events that you have experienced constituted merely the ringing of an alarm-clock that told you that you were overlooking something essential in your life. They took place because you had overlooked those essential element too long. They interrupted your usual life and gave you time away from that usual life to contemplate your life and the future that was meant to be yours.
Most of us, Doreen, are introduced to our God and to the enticements of our society long before we have met ourselves, and our decisions during our lives often get us into lives that weren't meant to be ours. More often than not what we initially perceive as a traumatic event or a problem, much later turns out to have been the solution for a much bigger problem.
Even if you fail to perceive the truth of these words at this juncture in time, Doreen, there will come a day when all will be clear to you. For the time being you are merely in a period of self-confrontation and the advantage of that is that you are becoming as intensely re-acquainted with yourself as you need to be re-acquainted with yourself. In other words ... you have been brought back on the path to yourself.
Why is this so important?
You, Doreen, are as unique a your genetic architecture. Never before you was there a Doreen like you and never after you will there be a Doreen quite like you. You are here for a purpose and that purpose is to be Doreen. Nobody is as well equipped for that task as you are. You, Doreen, are here for the specific purpose of playing your - Doreen's - part in enabling the Divine purpose to unfold and thus it is up to you to make sure that you become the Doreen who you were meant to be. If one day you will come to the gate of Heaven, no Angel will greet you with the words "why haven't you become another Marie Curie" or "why haven't you become another Michelle Pfeiffer" or "why haven't you become another Mother Teresa", but the Angel will say "why haven't you become the Doreen that you were meant to become"?
Take your time to contemplate these words and their meaning, Doreen, and remember that man finds his greatest treasure when he is doing what suits him best. If you find yourself and, rather than what society may wish you to be, are who you were mean to be, you will find your greatest treasure and right then and there you will find God standing right next to you:).
Take your time and ask yourself these three questions:
Who was I once?
Who am I now?
Who am I to be?
Take your time...
Then ask yourself these three questions:
Who was I once in the eyes of my God?
Who am I now in the eyes of my God?
Who, my God, would you have me be?
Take your time...
Then ask yourself the first three questions once more...
Take your time...
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 04-27-2003 01:48 PM :
Hello Louise,
Thank you for your welcome to this other place:).
My realism or, if you like, truth (truth is just another word for reality or ... for God) is that only Love is realistic, and that violence and war constitute ignorance.
Even though each of us carries a seed of God inside him or herself, I believe that it is not our place to discuss or evaluate which actions God takes. God gives and God takes, but that doesn't mean that we can start doing exactly the same. Perhaps when we can walk on water or when we can state that our actions are based on Divine wisdom and a pure heart without fear of contradiction by God, can we decide to do some of the things that God does, but until then I believe that indeed very few are fit to throw the first stone.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-27-2003 01:49 PM :
Thanks LG that was avery nice post, what has happened to me is in trying to fight it,(see video voyeurism) I have become , as in "beholding we become changed" so I knew this, percieve d it, and tried to let go, then got wishy washy, as in Que Cera Cera..and now after umpteen days in courtand more to come, Ijust have to concentrate on getting back to or I should say being in the moment, not worry about getting back or going forward..I have focussed to much on the problem of knowing that I mam watched..I odn't know how people in prison do it, if there are poor souls any out there,I wish they could tell me, when you know you are being watched, you are sharing you life, it is not the same as being free..I try to put i aside and just move on as I would otherwise, but it is a nagging thing..but thanks so much for your kindness, I will push "save" on it now, as I understand and know it intellectually, but reeally have to experience it, Love to you, too, Doreen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 04-27-2003 02:18 PM :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-27-2003 03:31 PM :
Dear LG
Remember words are cheap, we are at opposite spectrums on the subject and we have both expressed our sides so no further talk will make a difference.
I am not into debating.
Remember what you said about the Larry King show where all of the spiritual leaders had different views except one. I agreed with the one. I believe the masses all think alike so what's the point of debating on a subject where resolve is futile?
Please read the old testament with an open mind.
See ya later aligator.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 04-27-2003 05:09 PM :
Dear Louise,
It is true that on capital punishment and war you and I do indeed appear to represent different sides of the spectre. As they say ... we agree to disagree.
As far as debating is concerned, however, we seem to concur. Debating has the need to convince at its origin; a need that is more often than not caused by the inability to embrace the reality that others may be different. I neither experience that need or that inability. I merely voice my opinions and let them go.
If your reference to the Old Testament is intended to conjure up images of a God who is not opposed to war, Louise, I can only repeat the words of my previous post. As to recent events in the Middle East, I haven't hitherto heard anyone claim that mr. Bush had a mandate from God for what he did. His mandate was merely based on his marginal victory over mr. Gore, and if by "open mind" you are not referring to a hole in my head, I do believe that you know me to have a fairly open mind .
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-27-2003 05:27 PM :
Lonleyguide,
Okay! we agree to disagree, I will let you have the last word. I will bow out gracefully.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Al Fulchino (Member # 88) on 04-27-2003 06:57 PM :
LG (and Lousie)
LG wrote - As far as debating is concerned, however, we seem to concur. Debating has the need to convince at its origin; a need that is more often than not caused by the inability to embrace the reality that others may be different. I neither experience that need or that inability. I merely voice my opinions and let them go
Al's comments: Hey theree LG nice to meet you...here is the problem as I see it with letting them go too easily....it provides the opponent with just what they want, you leave and they gain the floor..sharing your view and letting go is not appropriate more often than not...I can share several analogies that you likely can relate to, let us say you are a football coach and you decide on a defense that allows the run because yoru strength is pass coverage...well you have made a statement...guess what they run...and run...and run..so LG you must adapt...you must recognize the enemy for what its tactics are and compete...have you ever seen something that was not right, and in a group such as school or maybe as a coach you have seen this. So you say your piece..you get a bunch of glazed looks and then they still go ahead and do what you clearly see is not right? Have you ever seen that? I have. The first time I was stunned when I saw this...but what to do? Let them go? Wrong kind of answer all it gives you is a piece of no true peace...(read the delphi technique). You must persevere, Louise once asked me what I won by being perseverant..I know the two good reasons that I won..one is that I followed through with what I believed and the second is that I find my true frineds such as Rick Hurst here....no pushover is he...
continuing on with what to do when opnions are spoken....letting go is *just* what the enemy wants...and if you think you are not surrounded by many many enemies you are dead wrong...further what kind of example is "letting them go" to your children? You see, I can take that simple phrase and write a book..."letting them go" is filled with content....so I hope you take my post with the intent I have written it...I do not know you and if the post was written by Louise or Rick I would say the same thing, it is not personal.
Back when i was coaching my kids...i, a no nothing baseball father got sucked in to coaching not for baseball knowledge but because i saw coaches freaking out over the ineptitude of inexperienced children...now do not get me wrong..competition *does* have its righful place....and there were two groups I was up against...a New Yorker who was powerful at persuasion and his "gang" and then a middle group who were moral drifters..some who had the same greed and others who had some *life* in them but little backbone or know how of how to stand up....LG *IF* I had let them go after stating my opinion, then my children would have had to participate in an environemnt not fully suitable for their fragile souls and brains....now if you wish to just *let'em go* it is no skin off my back...but every time I see people letting em go or dropping debates as if they are aloof from the rest of us and somehow morally superior in their so called state of peace....then all I see is more people that i would NOT want in the foxhole with me....I am going out gunz blazin..i do not fully understand where this atitude will take me but it is going to be an interesting ride.....please please please God do not ever let me be guided into complacency...please please please God give me the strength to demonstrate to my children backbone and courage provided and created by you and only loved by me, so that they may find You partly through the actions of myself and others who decided to not "let them go"
Small issues and large are important...no death by a thousand cuts. Beware those that preach to you about not taking on the enemy and beware those that are willing to let slide the cut and run tactics of what i call posting terrorists...agitators and the like....beware those who are not willing to fight with words when they still can...beware those who will not be with you when the battle enters your homeland
regards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-27-2003 08:22 PM :
Some good points, though Al, on another post there is a meditator who seems jsust agitated and going on with the person , I feel is muddying the waters of the original intent of the post..
and in the case of the death penalty argument, we have gone all over it , so isn't jsut a knowing of each other's pont of view enough as there is really notheng we can say or do to make it different as it goes in some states and not in others, after awhile when do we stop, and I don't mean in believing in a cause, I jsut mean argument for the sake of winning or as you are saying standing up for your view, after all points are taken and weighed, isn't there such a thing of seeming to beat a dead horse? Again, I am saying in the sake of discussion about a topic, not a belief system, such as Joan of Arc sent to the stake over her beliefs and did not stop in the middle and say oh well,that fire looks hot and I may not have heard those voices after all... and such as I am going through going to trial by jury for taking a picture in my yard of a dog peeing in my yard and getting jailed for it,"stalking" and "breach of peace"... where I am considering taking the one time offer of Acccelerated Rehab, not to get them off my back, just because they are powerful people who have abused their position once already by jailing me for 3 hours for said "offense", and a lawyer told me if they have gone this far, they can also lie under oath without compunction, and I can be further punished harshly, so I may jsut end up being further watched for 3 months sos I will ahve no police record, it is against my core belief to do that, on the other hand I am on "their turf" and they will do what they want to do, and have,and are......sorry to ramble on, my point being, isn't there some point in time, where, not that we give up, not that we give in, just that there is a time for everything, a season for everything, and there is a time to speak and be silent? As in the other post, I just saw that the discussion seemed to be agitating to the the poster and I had already said all there was to say, and he jsut keop getting more agitated.. and I just moved on..maybe this is a "girl" thing, but at what point can we reach a settlement that this is one way, maybe, not exactly right,and this is another way, maybe not exacttly right, yet each believe they are right, in chess, it is called a checkmate, in other realms, a stalemate, just a point where it seems that horns are locked (in the animal kingdom rams die this way ) and no one will be able to move if someone doesn't say enough, or "agree to disagree"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-27-2003 09:57 PM :
LG: I really enjoyed your arguments against the death penalty and many other points you have made. I do believe many of your points are well reasoned and show a high degree of enlightened. I also love that you write with an English accent :-) I would argue against one point though. You said "I haven't hitherto heard anyone claim that mr. Bush had a mandate from God for what he did. His mandate was merely based on his marginal victory over mr. Gore" I would disagree with this point. I personally witnessed the hand of God in the election of this President. I do not know why I was able to see it but I did and have many witnesses to having said so as it was happening. As I like to say, God Himself voted in that election. I didn't know why until 9-11 when I was made to realize that God knew what was coming and wanted the best possible team in place to represent Him in this lead up to the final battle. You would have to agree would you not that if there is to be a final battle between evil and Good then surely there must be a home team so to speak. I personally know this to be true and would have to die rather than recant it but I certainly wouldn't expect you to agree with me if you yourself didn't see it.
Now back to the death penalty. Tonight I had a realization that has its basis in Jesus's words that said to the effect "it will be better to have had a millstone tied around the neck and thrown into the ocean then to have caused hurt to any of His little children" Because the spirit of the human is so much more important than the body, I think that anyone who has caused the death or disfigurement of the spirit in any child, or other human being for that matter, through the use of anger, resentment, impatience or any other form of violence should be considered guilty in the exact same manner as those you kill the body" What do you think?
[ April 27, 2003, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-27-2003 10:34 PM :
Lg lives in Holland and is abed at this hour.
But I would like to say one thing concerning your scripture. Not all are Gods children. Perhaps that can be settled by Roy.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Al Fulchino (Member # 88) on 04-27-2003 10:43 PM :
Doreen...one moves on when they see that nothing else can be accomplished, for instanceI do not debate Louise or a few others here...(but if I see something I cannot agree with , I say my peace to them, no debate just commentary and she among others would rather I did not expose them on a few things)....if it was a case of winning, then one could make a 1000 posts refuting countless assertions by flame throwers here and in the real world...one could spend countless hours lterally picking apart posts here. As of the moment...you yourself are debating whether to continue standing your ground at your home or not...that decision is your personal battle and it is *yours* to decide upon, you reason with yourselfm with them etc and YOU have to decide if anything can be won. Who will know better than you? So as in any debate...valuations must be made. For me here, when I see something I do not agree with, I speak up. I get one of three reactions.
a) my comments get ignored which is very telling in and of itself....so I give another chance...if it gets ignored I note it in a post, some detest me for doing that by the ratings and some messages I have gotten.
My kids get the same treatment, as does my wife. Issues get noted and commented upon..if one in my family sees something and it is right...tehre is no debate....my daughter commented one time six yrs ago that I was letting me ego get in the way of something...GFod Bless her...do not think I diodn't want to say something..I felt the urge...but if teh words ever came out I would not be what she needed..she shot me down when it was appropriate...no debate..what was there to win in debating? nothing only a loss...I had to keep silent and instead say yes you are right...best lump of pride I swallowed that year.
b)my comments bring about an answer, a hostile one or some irrational behavior as that of godsotherson..or a response that tails off into tangents like that of Joe's....another would have been nick's..calling people names and not answering logical points
c) comments get a positive response...they are like gold nuggets placered out of a thousand panning attempts in a creek bed
It does not matter whether it is here or in real life...life is full of conflict...conflict a side chooser/maker...if you want to read about daisies you buy a flower book...if you want to talk about the Book of Life then one is foolish to not acknowledge conflict/ and debate is a mild form of that...all of these conflicts result in something though and in its extreme it would be war...I am constantly amazed that people would think that they can debate with everyone, that is a fallacy...the reason for debate existing is "conflicting" ideas and to learn...what the hopeful want is to do just that learn...from debate...but beneath the debate is human nature and that is what we usually forget. Underneath the debates often times are hidden motives, and certainly egos. You see...at some point we who debate must decide, do we walk off and enjoy a cup of coffee? Do we go and vote upon the debate? Or do we at its extreme do thinsg like wage war, murder kill etc and not in a particular order.
BUT and it is a big big BUT....you, I and everyone else must be very watchful about what we leave on the table as far as room for a mind that harbors ill will or false ideas. The histroy books are filled with those who did not understand an enemy (Hitler). The world is full of people who literally allowed and let a Bill Clinton get elected ..why? SIMPLE they did not want conflict, they did not want to be bothered, they had other things to do...they simply offered their views and then "let it go" to paraphrase a poster here...you see I feel that "letting it go" has helped, it has assisted!!!!!!! in bringing us to the mess we are in today with terrorists..many warned us about terrorists, many have warned us about the evils of excessive taxation, many have warned us over and over again on the happy talking head shows Repubs and Dems, Libs and Conservatives..they all leave arm in arm and we march down a dangerous path at a terrible peril if we are not careful.
So debate? Value, some, yes...but in the end I cannot believe Jesus and God will debate our actions on earth..they will for the right reasons say yea or nay...debate? what a laugh! No they will say what is needed to be said. So while we talk platitudes about debate and get very highminded about the value of debate we must also acknowledge that each of us are capable of seeing Truth and some of us oppose Truth..so be careful what credibility and even footing you give to yoru debating opponent....you do not debate a gun pointing at you, you take action and on the other side...if you see manipulations, by a husband, a wife, a child a boss, a friend an employer, you bring it up...you raise the issue...and you have to at some point take some form of action....in the very end...the prospect of "letting it go" is and can very often be very impotent except to the practioner who views it as maturity, responsibility, class etc.
Best Regards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-27-2003 11:26 PM :
Hi Louise, Assuming you were correct about God not being the Father of all children, which I would disagree with, how could we tell who's who. -Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-28-2003 01:20 AM :
Hi,
I think it is best if you pose that question to Roy.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 04-28-2003 08:42 AM :
Hi Al,
Nice to meet you too. Wow, you are a productive poster, my friend, and you do bring up a lot. All right, let's start with your view on debating:
For starters I should say that what you say is rather reminscent of how I used to feel in days that are not too distant. I too used feel strong about and used to defend and stand up for my truths to the very bitter end. If I no longer do any of that or if I do that less and less, it is because of a number of reasons.
To begin with I enjoy God's creation as he has intended it to be. I like the idea that not everybody is like me and that I have been given the possibility to experience so many different versions of myself. Our Heavenly Father created a wonderfully enriching, diversely textured and beautifully coloured playround for us and I simply love it that way. I like the enormous wealth that I have been given by being allowed to experience a Doreen, a Louise, an Al and so many others, and - in experiencing them - that I have been offered yet another chance to discover who I myself am.
So, to begin with I embrace the diversity, the fact that others differ from me, the fact that others live differently from me and the fact that others have different opinions than I do. The thing is that I am very much aware of it how little each of us really knows and that all of those different opinions are often based on experiences, all of which consequently can teach me something and can help me become a better me. I mean ... just ask a scientist to tell you about his particular discipline and he will probably start off by saying "there is still way more that we don't know than what we do know" and I, Al, believe that with us and with life it is very much the same. And since the experiences of our friends and of those who are like us are probably very similar to ours, I am consequently much more interested in the experiences and opinions of my opposites or - if you like - "enemies" because it is those experiences and opinions where I will probably be able to learn most.
Secondly I come from a place of Love and I try to let the two laws that supersede any law to be the blueprint of my life. With those two laws, incidentally, I mean "And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these Mark 12:30,31. With this as a basis it is much easier for me to make a bridge between me and those who are unlike me and that bridge helps me to perceive, accept and embrace the validity of opinions that are different from mine. In other words: I can accept and love others and their opinions even if there is little similarity with me and my opinions.
Then there is yet another argument and that is that when you really love people, you will allow them to make their own mistakes, rather than try and remove their power to make mistakes.
The thing is that there are two ways of learning. There is the kind of learning that we all know and there is the kind of learning that we call unlearning; a much more potent kind of learning that usually comes about when someone has so often made the same mistake that he eventually runs into the brick wall that we call self-confrontation. Some of life's best lessons are learnt that way.
If you try to teach someone something that doesn't sit well with him because you simply don't have precisely the right arguments, chances are that he may resent your lesson (and you) and do precisely the oppostite or, if he is fed up with you telling him what to do or to believe all the time, he may even wish to prove you wrong by trying out what you have told him not to do. At any rate you are influencing a process that doesn't need to be influenced, for everything has already been arranged precisely as it should have been arranged.
I will give you a poor example that nonetheless shows a bit what I mean: you can tell a child not to stick his hand in the fire and such a lesson may have the desired effect, but the best lesson will no doubt be experienced when the child does stick his hand in the fire. There is no better lesson than that. In life, Al, it is very much the same. Allowing (empowering?) others to make their mistakes will teach them the best lessons through unlearning. Anyway, the best way to teach others is not by telling them things, but by living by example.
Finally, I also have some experience with coaching people. I have run a multi-national publishing group with thirteen companies in eleven countries for many years and thus I have had the opportunity to learn how to motivate and stimulate others. If you say something once it can be taken as advice and the wise will take that advice and prosper. If you say something twice or repeatedly, many people will stop listening, because you yourself will have cheapened your words by turning quality into quantity. Thus I try never to say things more than once. It is the choice of others whether or not they wish to listen and learn.
And besides, I'm not so insecure that I cannot allow others to disagree with my opinions. I know the validity and veracity of what I know even if others think differently.
Here, let me, in ending this post, quote this:
All under heaven see beauty as beauty
only because they also see ugliness.
All announce that good is good
only because they also denounce what is bad.
Therefore, something and nothing give birth to one another
Difficult and easy complete one another.
Long and short fashion one another.
High and low arise from one another.
Notes and tones harmonize with one another.
Front and back follow one another.
Thus, the True Person acts without striving
and teaches without words.
Deny nothing to the ten thousand things.
Nourish them without claiming authority,
Benefit them without demanding gratitude,
Do the work, then move on.
And, the fruits of your labor will last forever.
(the second Tao)
Love,
LG
PS:
Since you've meanwhile read that I've run rather large companies most of my life, you may have gathered that these are not the words of - what you termed - a "pushover", but rather the words of a realist who has been rather the opposite of a pushover all of his life . The thing is .... Who is the greater fool: a fool or the fool that tries to turn a fool into a wise man?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 04-28-2003 09:12 AM :
Hi Rick,
Here is what Doreen Virtue of the Angel Therapy web-site writes in her last year's December newsletter with regard to what you say as to mr. Bush (Doreen, as you may know, "channels" Angels):
Two years before the Presidential primary election (not the presidential election itself), the angels told me that George W. Bush would be the next president. Even more, they said that he MUST be the next president. They said that he would be a war-monger, and that he would behave in ways that many people would consider outrageous. They said that George W. Bush was bred to think and act this way. They said, though, that he truly had a sacred and important purpose: To shake people out of apathetic and passive behavior, and have them pay more attention to the government. To get more involved. The angels say, "Through his actions, people will begin to demand integrity and accountability in their government, as well as other bureaucracies." So, Bush is here to upset us, so that we'll get more involved. In this respect, Bush is doing a wonderful job at his purpose, wouldn't you say?(Doreen Virtue)
My opinion?
It all sounds spot-on to me. Mr. Bush is making all of us very much aware how things should not be done. Consequently even his ignorance and his acts of ignorance contribute to awareness. It is all good and we are all in God's Hands.
As to the final battle and the "right" and the "wrong" team ... no doubt the huge self-confrontation for many that will precede the moment of embracing their "enemies" will be the ultimate if not final battle for most of us . From that moment on it will all be fair weather and "easy sailing".
And yes, Rick, I whole-heartedly concur with what you state as to physical and psychological pain. Some of us have experienced first-hand that the latter can be the most painful.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 04-28-2003 09:35 AM :
LG , I reeally love a lot of what you , say , quote and have experienced, but i think President Bush is here to show and make a difference, to the youth and to all men and women, to stand up for what is right and show how that has not been done by leaders of this country for while, he is cleaning house with that principle of accountability,and he begins within himself. When people have a chance to recover from the most humane effort, that had to be surgically removing a dictator, that will only be one example of his worth to our country and our history, even the Iraqu POW's are hailing him as a decent man.. when the comparisons are made, it will show that he won by shining a l ight back on , for truth, justice and theAmerican way, only comic book heroes could do that before In the grand scheme of things, it may be a losing battle as our country was left to unclean hands for so long and there have always been other countires , older that we, who want to take us over, but when the good angels sing, it will be to the praises of a great man who showed, and MADE the difference between going along to get along, and fighting for peace and liberating an oppressed people and being an excellent role model to men and who heretofore, had to keep apologizing for the right in themselves, compared to the ways of Clinton and Gore....Love, Doreen ( another angel )h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 04-28-2003 09:54 AM :
Hi Doreen,
For the general good I do very much hope that your opinion of mr. Bush is closer to the truth than mine. Right now all I can say is that he doesn't have my confidence and that I doubt that he ever will. As they say .... time will tell .
Love,
LG
[ April 28, 2003, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: Lonelyguide ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-28-2003 10:17 AM :
Hello LG,
Thank you for your response. And thanks too for the Angel Lady info. I will investigate her site later on. Let us leave Mr Bush to one side for now and allow me to ask question. Do you believe or not believe that a final showdown between the forces of good and the forces of evil with Jesus (the Home Team) in the lead and defeating evil on earth once and for all is in the cards? Or am I to understand from your reply that you believe this final showdown is strictly an internal personal affair. You said "no doubt the huge self-confrontation for many that will precede the moment of embracing their "enemies" will be the ultimate if not final battle for most of us". Also could you expand upon "embracing thier enemies" a wee bit, you've got me curious.
And one other thing if I may, you say in your reply to AL that "If you say something once it can be taken as advice and the wise will take that advice and prosper. If you say something twice or repeatedly, many people will stop listening, because you yourself will have cheapened your words by turning quality into quantity. Thus I try never to say things more than once. It is the choice of others whether or not they wish to listen and learn" ...Now I think I know the answer already but I wonder if you could explain how this applies to the reposting of already previously posted remarks of which we both have done. I suspect there is a difference when one speaks to an individual directly and when one speaks to a new audience in which the previous hearer may or may not be a part. Is this correct?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 04-28-2003 11:17 AM :
Hello Rick,
Just one last post for today and then it is back to work for me.
Hmmmm .... good question !
I believe that the material and the immaterial universe are both the result of what God did "in the beginning": He projected Himself...
Consequently God - for me - is (in) everything, from the smallest speck of dust to the largest star and from the smallest creature to the very largest. Both materially speaking and immaterially (spiritually) speaking God is everything and everywhere. He is both universes: the material and the spiritual or, if you like, the universe of pure consciousness. On a quantum level, material and immaterial are merely different phases of vibration (energy) anyway.
I believe that we are human beings and that we are soul. One is the caterpillar-like vehicle for this material life, the learning experiences of which are to prepare us for the next phase and are to enable God to experience Himself, and the other is the seed of God. The fact that we are man and soul creates the phenomenon that we call creature; a creature that is a balance of paradoxes and it is these paradoxes that are the ingredients that bring about the learning experience.
This learning experience, incidentally, is crucial. Or did you think that a spiritual leader such as Jesus was referring to yeast, flower and our stomachs when he spoke of "our daily bread" and suggested that we pray for it daily ? He was referring to spiritual growth, Rick. Spiritual growth is what Jesus was about. Love was His vehicle and Love (Christ) is what He was, but His message was spiritual growth. Many people in His days, however, missed that message. The Love that emanated from Jesus the Christ was so blinding that many missed the rest.
But to come back to your question: I believe that our material aspect - the body - creates a false self (a product of our mind) and that our true self is the soul; the only part of us which is eternal. I believe that we can experience a phase in our lives where our accumulated wisdom enables us to "hear" the silent voice of our soul; a phase where we surrender mind and ego, where our identity shifts more and more from mind to soul and where we more and more live our lives attuned to the silent voice of our soul ... a time when we are (increasingly) at One with God whilst still on this planet and whilst still in our human form. It is a phase during which everything around us is recognised as orchestration and synchronicity; a phase where the Hand of God is visible in everything.
I believe that scripture often refers to the aspect of spirituality that is our soul or, if you like, the universe within. I believe that scripture also often refers to events in the material universe that surrounds us and I also believe that scripture often refers to both simultaneously.
What I said in my previous post refers to the group of human beings whose robes (souls) - as scripture says - will be white and whose lamps will be filled with oil (souls filled with Holy Spirit) when Christ returns to claim his bride. Those will be the ones who will have fought the final battle of self-confrontation, will have truly embraced their enemies and will thus be spared the tribulations.
Does this answer your question ?
Love,
LG
PS:
I re-posted because, as you well know, in many communities such as these every thread has a bit its own "inhabitants" and because re-posting was merely a mouse-click away.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 04-28-2003 12:01 PM :
Hello LG:
Thank you for your response: I can hardly argue with a single thing you said in the above post. I agree that the battle truly is in both realms. I know this inspite of being a relative new "internal" warrior. Its just that I wasn't sure if you were saying the preparations and drawing of the battle lines seen all around us were insignificant.
You will be glad to know that I thank God for my "daily" bread, both material and immaterial. I look forward to my morning "suckle" of meditation most of all.
Embracing ones enemies in the final conflict? Still a bit lost here. Are you referring to the transmutation or release of the resentment based identities within us through forgiveness? (Not to worry, I can wait for the answer till another day)
Thanks too for the reposting post script. I asked not so much for me.
Thanks again for a most pleasant exchange. Until next time. -Rick
[ April 28, 2003, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 04-28-2003 01:01 PM :
Hi Doreen.
I agree whole with your response concerning Bush. Lonleyguide and I have been through that before to no avail. We perceive what we perceive and there is no way on God's green earth that we can convince others to change their perspective.
Iv'e said this to LG before , "we can lead a horse to water, but we can't make them drink it."
LG is a wonderful person, but we definitley have different perception when it comes to seeing the spirit and pure motives of Pres. Bush.
Some are given to see before the results of his plans for Iraq and the world and some see later and hopefully learn that way.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-02-2003 09:40 AM :
The Death Penalty and the Bible
Introduction
The capital punishment is a criminal-policy, philosophical,(1) humanistic and social issue. These different aspects have already been dealt with in different ways. But the death penalty is also a religious issue. It is natural that the death penalty has religious points of attachment since it is dealing with morality, "sin", life and death. It touches existential questions and falls within what in technical terms is called the natural law ideology, contrary to the positivistic legal (rather closed) ideology.
Two world religions emanate from the Bible. Judaism emanates from the Old Testament, and Christianity emanates from both the Old and the New Testament of the Bible. However one views the Bible, it makes up an important cultural document that has influenced and still influences a great part of the world.
Every time and every culture has had its way to view crime and punishment. During a time the authority may consider theft of small insignificant things such an evil that it deserves death. During another time the authority may feel that a serial murderer that has tortured people to death has to be treated with care and concern. It is not wise to claim that specifically our culture is the most enlightened, humane and final. In fifty years there may be totally different values ruling and one may blush when thinking of the liberal view held by Western Europe today..
For those who, by faith, embrace a religion built on Holy Scriptures there are other prerequisites. To them the Holy Scriptures come – if respected and followed – to form a foundation that lasts despite the capricious shifts of the age.
Christianity is a religion built on scriptures.(2) It is founded on the Old and New Testament scriptures of the Bible. To the Christians who wish to take the Bible seriously – which is the classical standpoint – it does not become difficult to see the Bible’s message concerning the death penalty.(3) Here is a short exposé of what the Bible has to say concerning this topic.
THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE DEATH PENALTY
As an introduction it should be mentioned that the Old Testament was the only Holy Scripture for Jesus, the apostles and the first Christians. It was the Old Testament they read, studied, sang from and believed in. The Christian Church has never abandoned the Old Testament. Much of the Old Testament isn’t relevant for the Christian Church today (Col 2:16-17, Hebr 9-10), but the church has always taught that everywhere in the Old Testament there are divine principles with an eternal relevant character. We will always be able to find God’s being, his thoughts and plans also in the Old Testament. Christ himself has eternally sanctioned the Old Testament by saying that he is written about everywhere in the Old Testament, Luke 24:44-45.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth…" (Exodus 21:23-25)
This is one of many Biblical expressions and quotes that are still living today. Since the words are often misused today it is important to know what the words meant in their original context in the Bible.
This is not a quote from a personal vendetta. It is not for individuals to do the works of revenge. The quote is found in a legal situation where a judge is at work. (Ex 21).
Sometimes the expression was interpreted literally, Lev 24:20f, but sometimes fines were imposed when somebody had caused bodily injuries, Ex 21:18-19, 27.
The "eye for an eye" principle can be seen as a legal application of "the golden rule" (Matt 7:12): "Do to others what you would have them do to you". Both principles assume that we humans are equal and should treat each other in an equal and fair manner. If we harm another fellow human we at the same time admit that – according to the spirit of these principles – that others (i.e. the state governed by law) can do the same to us.
"An eye for an eye" also means a protection for the guilty party, who should not have to worry about suffering more than the suffering he himself has caused. "An eye for an eye" thereby limits the extent of the retribution. The principle means that the punishing consequence should be equal to what the victim has suffered. It is about that a fair compensation, sanction, should be imposed. In other words, in the days of the Bible one said "an eye for an eye" just as we today say the same thing about justice or retribution. And retribution is a principle that runs through the Bible as a red thread. We find it in the Old Testament, for instance in the expression "an eye for an eye", in the New Testament (Rom 13:4, Acts 25:11), and in heaven (Rev. 6:10, 19:2).
"For the Lord is a God of retribution; he will repay in full." Jer 51:56
The principle found in the words "an eye for an eye" has always been more or less found in every legal system of every country in the world. The Biblical principle of "eye for eye" lays the foundation for the death penalty. The fundamental rule is that a life has to be paid for with a life. The Biblical expression "life for life" (Ex 21:23) often meant a death penalty, but not always (Numb 35:22-25).
Crimes that deserved the death in the Old Testament
According to Numb 35:31 there are criminals which "deserves to die". In the Old Testament the following crimes deserved the death penalty:
1. Murder (Gen 9:6, Ex 21:12, Numb 35:16-21).
2. Abuse of father or mother (Ex 21:15).
3. Speaking a curse over parents (Ex 21:17).
4. Blasphemy against God (Lev 24:14-16,23).
5. Breaking the Sabbath (Ex 31:14, Numb 15:32-36).
6. Practicing magic (Ex 22:18).
7. Fortune telling and practicing sorcery (Lev 20:27).
8. Religious people who mislead others to fall away (Deut 13:1-5, 18:20).
9. Adultery and fornication (Lev 20:10-12, Deut 22:22).
10. If a woman has intercourse before marriage (Deut 22:20-21).
11. If two people have intercourse when one of them is engaged. (Deut 22:23-24).
12. The daughter of a priest practicing prostitution (Lev 21:9).
13. Rape of someone who is engaged (Deut 22:25).
14. Having intercourse with animals (Ex 22:19).
15. Worshipping idols (Ex 22:20, Lev 20:1-5, Deut 17:2-7).
16. Incest (Lev 20:11-12, 14, 19-21).
17. Homosexuality (Lev 20:13).
18. Kidnapping (Ex 21:16).
19. To bear false testimony at a trial (Deut 19:16, 19).
20. Contempt of court (Deut 17:8-13).
The manner of execution in the Old Testament could be stoning, burning, using a sword, spear or arrow (Lev 20:27, 21:9, Ex 19:13, 32:27, Numb 25:7-8).
Of course there is no one who claims that every age and every country has to introduce the death penalty for exactly the crimes that are described in these Biblical books written more than 3000 years ago. The most important and conclusive fact is that the Bible as a principle accepts the capital punishment as a legitimate form of punishment. The Bible gives "the divine sanctification" to the death penalty.
Common notes to these edicts
That God commands the death penalty is an expression of God’s holiness and righteousness. God has set certain orders. When the created man breaks these, God imposes punishment. That God uses the death penalty for crimes such as murder, assault, cursing and sexual sins, shows, not that God is mean and vicious, but that God values mankind and the eternal moral principles very highly. When a person violates or hurts a fellow man by words or acts this is something very serious to the Creator. Such things must sometimes be punished by death.
These divine orders give safety and dignity to mankind. It shows us that God cares for us ordinary people, that He wants to protect us and that He wants us all well. Without order and without punishment we would only be creatures lacking responsibility that could do whatever we wanted to each other without being held responsible for anything. We would then live in a world that did not have any morals or ethics. Our value and our dignity would be nonexistent. We would be like animals. It is the order of things and the punishments that proves to us that God values us humans as something. If we were nothing God would not have to care for us. But now God so loves mankind and therefore the capital punishment exists as a defence, as a confirmation, as recognition of the high dignity and value of mankind. The death penalty, more than anything else, confirms that we are moral beings and as a consequence of that we can be held responsible for our actions.
Cain
Cain is somewhat of an exception in the Bible (Gen 4:1-16). Cain is not sentenced to death even though he murdered his brother Abel. But there are several circumstances, which makes this event unsuitable as a basis for the subject of the death penalty.
1) The situation at the time of the murder is unclear. Was Cain provoked or threatened? Was it manslaughter or murder? 2) In the Bible we can not find if there was anything written that forbade murder at this time. 3) The first spoken ban against murder came after ‘the flood’ (Gen 9:6), after the time of Cain and Abel. 4) We can not read in the Bible if there was any authority at this time that had the right to impose death sentences. 5) Cain was "cursed" by God for his act (v.11). This probably indicates that if there had been a direct decree against murder and a legal authority, Cain would have been executed.
We can also see that Cain is afraid that "whoever finds me will kill me." This shows that Cain seems to understand that he deserves death. But God gives Cain a "mark" so that no one who found Cain would kill him. God so wished to protect Cain from people who wished to take the law into their own hands. God did not want to see the "law of the jungle" rule, and therefore Cain was allowed to live even though "cursed" by God.(4)
Cities of refuge
We should mention that during the Old Testament times there was a legal practice using "refuge cities". These were cities where one who unintentionally had killed someone could run. By running to such a city one could avoid the death penalty (Numb 35:6, 22-25, Deut 19:1-10).
Short summary of important scriptures in the Old Testament:
Genesis 9:6
"Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man."
These words are spoken by God. The verse does not only express an permission, but it is a command. It is the first commandment of the Bible that has a common legal character. We find in this verse a "law" draped in a poetic costume that is the basis for all coming laws concerning the capital punishment. It is a foundational principle. And it is interesting to see that the first edict of a legal character is concerning the death penalty. God wants the death penalty for murderers and the reason is clearly declared: "for in the image of God has God made man."(5) One who murders destroys the "image of God" in a fellow man and thereby commits an indirect attack on God himself.
The historical context of the verse is that humankind has been filled with violence. "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them." (Gen 6:11-13). God therefore punishes the world with a global death sentence, that which we call the flood. Violence is thereby punished with "violence". Unjust violence is met by a just "violence".
When the water had dried up, Noah and his sons are given this edict in Genesis 9:6 concerning death penalty for one who sheds blood. This means that God now somewhat delegates his punishing authority to people, so that they themselves can be judges and meet the evil violence with the sword of righteousness. Gen 9:6 therefore makes up the embryo to the coming state that is given a divine authority to practice the role of the punisher.
These verses can be seen as the foundational explaining why the Bible sets forth the capital punishment as an edict, namely that man is unique and has a value that surpasses everything else in creation. To the Christian faith the death penalty is first and foremost a concern for the human value. God has created the death penalty as a sign, a proof, of the high and divine value of mankind, and that value is based on God’s love for mankind.
According to the Christian faith there are many commandments in the Old Testament that are invalid today, for instance different commandments concerning sacrifice, food, days, times of celebration and the circumcision. These commandments were meant for Israel and were for a specific timeframe. But the commandment found in Gen 9:6 is generally applicable to its character, in the same way as the Ten Commandments are. It is an eternal principle that is brought forth. It is not that God during a certain time thought man to be "in the image of God" but then no longer had that thought. God will always consider murder a horrible act, and God’s attitude towards this will not be changed over the course of time. This commandment made by God which is found in Gen 9:6 can only lose its validity if God’s attitude towards murder changes and if man no longer is "in the image of God". In other words the commandment has an eternal character.
But are not the violent criminal and the murderer also "in the image of God"?
- In one sense, yes, but at the same time God’s image in such a person was distorted and darkened when the crime was committed that he more came to reflect the "image of the devil". According to Col 3:9-10 Christians have to strive for the good in order for them to become an "image of its Creator." It is in other words our lives, our deeds, that show how much of the image of God that we reflect. A violent criminal or murderer does not reflect God in their deeds.
That man is "created in the image of God" also means that we have part of the same reaction as God concerning violent criminal acts. God is angry when murder is committed. We are too. God desires to punish the murderer. We do too. This reaction is sound, healthy and normal, a reflection of the divine spark that is placed in mankind. In other words, the natural sense of right that we people have finds its source in Gen 9:6.
If we paraphrased and brought Gen 9:6 into our secularized society it could look something like this: "One who takes another person’s life, has forfeit his own right to life, because man has an inviolable value."
The previous verse, Gen 9:5, says: "And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each man, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of his fellow man."
Here God gives another reason for the death penalty, namely "accounting", in this context it means retribution. God "demands" death for one who sheds blood and, according to the following verse "mankind" is supposed to fulfil this demand. It is the high value of mankind, created in the image of God, which motivated the retribution. To be created in the image of God means that mankind is the object of God’s concern. Accounting and retribution from the one who has killed has its source in God’s beating heart that cares for the victims of crime. A society without the capital punishment denies this love.
Numbers 35:31
"Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die. He must surely be put to death."
In other words, no one should be able to buy himself free from the death penalty. Money should not be able to save the life of a murderer. An important principle is grounded here. The principle means that everyone is equal before the law. There is no difference between the poor and the rich. No matter the wealth – a murderer shall be punished by death.
Numbers 35:33
"Do not pollute the land where you are. Bloodshed pollutes the land, and atonement cannot be made for the land on which blood has been shed, except by the blood of the one who shed it."
Every bloody violent crime that takes place shakes the heavens and the universe. It is not cold and quiet out there in the universe at that time.
There is no reason to limit this Bible verse to Israel during a certain, limited time. God is the God of all the earth, and what ever happens in a country arouses God’s reaction. In every country where murder is committed the land is "polluted"; in other words it becomes defiled before God. The text says that "atonement" can only be brought through the death penalty. In the Biblical use of language this means that God’s wrath can only be quenched and turned away when the authority of a country does its duty and executes the one who has shed blood. The perpetrator then becomes a sort of "sacrifice" whose blood pays for the evil deed. If the authority refused to use the capital punishment the wrath of God will not only be aimed at the murderer but also at the State and indirectly towards the people as a whole.
Someone may object and say that the atonement of Christ included the crimes of the violent criminals and murderers, and there is therefore no reason to have the death penalty. It is in part correct. The atonement of Christ includes the murderer. But the "atonement" of the death penalty is of another kind. When, for instance, a thief or a rapist is sentenced to prison this is a form of "atonement" for the victim of the crime and for the society, and the Christian may include – to God. The meaning is that the victim, the society and God once again have a good attitude towards the perpetrator after the punishment – an "atonement" has taken place; first there is hostility and anger towards the criminal, then the punishment, and thereafter everything is harmonious again. This is also a sort of "atonement." And – from a Christian perspective – this "atonement" is possible because of the atonement of Christ.
The one who still wishes to claim that the atonement of Christ excludes the death penalty must then also be consistent and deny all sorts of punishment, including such things as prison and fines. If Christ has taken the place of every criminal there is no longer, in a legal sense, the need to "atone" their crimes, and then no one can be sentenced to any sort of punishment since it would deny the atonement of Christ.
But there is nothing in the Bible that indicates that the atonement of Christ would invalidate the laws of punishment that exist in every judicial system in the world today and that have been seen as obvious throughout history. Not even Jesus suggested such a thing.
Exodus 20:13
"You shall not murder."
Laymen and those not initiated sometimes get ahead of themselves and carelessly believe that the Bible forbids the death penalty because of this commandment. But this is a great mistake.(6) It is patently absurd that God who himself often in the Bible commands death penalty and who gave Moses the commandments in such a drastic way would contradict himself. It would mean that a confused god first everywhere in the Old Testament commands the death penalty for a multitude of crimes and then suddenly changes his mind and says: "Sorry, I did not mean it that way, I meant the opposite – you shall not have the death penalty."
Throughout Christian history the fifth commandment has never been considered as aimed at the courts or the judicial system. Neither has it been considered aimed at any nation’s defensive forces. This commandment, like the others, is aimed at man as a regular citizen of the society. And the simple meaning of the fifth commandment is that no man is allowed to take the life of another man. Other verses of the Bible say that if this happens, the man who has taken the life of another must be punished by death.
Because of the existence of the fifth commandment we are, only a few verses down, met by the following commandment: "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death." Ex 21:12
The conclusion is that he who breaks the fifth commandment and kills; he "shall surely be put to death."
(See also below, the comments on Mathew 5:21-22, where Jesus quotes the fifth commandment.)
Ezekiel 18:23, 32
Well-meaning priests sometimes try to refer to these verses in order to try to squeeze something out of the Old Testament that could be understood as a dissociation of the death penalty. But this must be rejected when examining the text. The following words are often quoted, grasped from their context,: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? … I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord."
What do these words mean? Chapter 18 of Ezekiel is about the personal responsibility: One who lives godlessly will die because of sin. One who lives righteously will live. God wants everyone to live righteously and in that way escape death – this is God’s highest desire. At the same time God wants death for the one who lives godlessly: "Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood … Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head." Ez 18:10-13.
So we see that even in this context there is the threat of the death penalty. It is true that God does not wish anyone’s death. Therefore God encourages to repentance in chapter 18. For those who do not repent but become violent criminals and murderers God demands death.
In Ez 33:11 the meaning is approximately the same. Ezekiel brings a message to the exiled people of Israel concerning personal responsibility. The sin and apostasy of the people of Judah was so great that God allowed his people to be sent into captivity in Babylon. There the people realized their apostasy and confessed their sins at the same time as they despaired and only saw death ahead. (v. 10) At that time God brought the message that he did not "take pleasure in the death of the wicked", meaning the death and destruction of his people in their exile. God therefore encourages each and everyone to turn back to God in order to live. Many did this. After about 70 years in Babylon a number of Jews returned to Jerusalem. They had chosen life.
It is thus only a lack of elementary Bible knowledge that causes some religious abolitionists to use these Bible verses negatively concerning the capital punishment.
The New Testament and the Death Penalty
It was a death penalty that became the instrument God used to reconcile the world (the execution of Christ) to himself. And it was a death penalty that led a converted criminal to the paradise (the thief on the cross, Luke 23:32f). This tells us that God can use everything in this existence, evil as well as good, for his purpose. In the first case an innocent man was executed, but this did not stop God’s plan. On the contrary. It was all a part of God’s plan. In the other case it was a guilty man who was executed, but this did not hinder God’s plan either.
John 7:52-8:12 (7)
Christian enemies of the death penalty often refer to this scripture about the woman who committed adultery that some wanted to stone to death, but whom Jesus set free. But that Jesus did not here attack the capital punishment as such is obvious by many reasons:
First, it was not an unconditional freedom that Jesus gave the adulteress. The event – whether it happened or not – ends with the words: "Go now and leave your life of sin." There is a serious warning implied here, a threat even: Do not do that again!
Secondly: Jesus’ mission on earth was not that of a judge. Jesus would have committed a mistake if he had sentenced the woman to death. In John 3:17 it says: "For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world." Compare with John 12:47.
Thirdly: It is mainly through the governing authorities that God imposes the death penalty. And it is not the authorities that Jesus is representing at this time. It is only himself as the forgiving Saviour. Therefore the event is not an example of how a legal state is supposed to act. Jesus himself never put on the robes of the authority and he never walked around and sentenced people to different punishments. If he had dressed in the judge’s robe right there and then he would have had to, in the name of justice, also sentence the others to death. But to sentence sinners to death was not part of Jesus’ mission on earth.
Forth: If Jesus had imposed the death penalty it would have been, in the eyes of the Roman authority, equal to a rebellion since Rome only allowed the capital punishment to be carried out within their own judicial system. The Jews did not have the right to pronounce the death penalty. In other words, the scribes and the Pharisees tried to set Jesus up. If Jesus had said "stone her", he would have been arrested by the Romans.
Fifth: It is not possible to use the principle "If any of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone" (v.7) within the judicial system. Since neither judge nor juror is without guilt, trials in themselves would become impossible and no sentences could be imposed. The principle is a good rule to live by, but Jesus did not intend for his words in this context to be included in the judicial system.
In other words, the answer given by Jesus does not have any legal character or application. It concerns everyday morality between people. And this is often the case in the gospels. Jesus’ teaching and message is, as a rule, aimed at people and their everyday lives, not an establishing or denouncing of judicial legal systems. And when someone, as here, tries to force Jesus to make a statement concerning a certain legal question, Jesus refuses to answer and instead quietly writes in the sand and then he gives a moral sermon to the Pharisees and the woman.
Besides, the Christian teaching has always been that it is not until the final day that Christ will judge the people. On that day, according to the Bible, all adulterers and other "sinners" will receive their just punishment, 1 Cor 6:9-10. Here on earth the courts are the ones who give the verdicts. On the day of judgement God and Jesus will be the ones who brings the verdict. That role, that mission, was not the one Jesus had when he walked on the earth and therefore he said: "Neither do I condemn you" (8:11). If he had sentenced the woman he would have anticipated the final judgement. But the approximately three years that Jesus publicly worked here on earth was a time of mercy and love, not a time of judgement. The Christian faith would have been shaken to its core if Jesus publicly had legally judged that woman. But Jesus did not let himself get caught by the temptation to judge – the woman was let go. But one day she will also stand before Jesus.
All of this means that we can not refer to this text if we wish to have an answer concerning Jesus’ attitude towards the issue of the death penalty.
And here, finally, is a quote from the nun Helen Prejean. She is a well known abolitionist, but despite that she has courage and insight enough to write in this way about this Bible passage:
"It is abundantly clear that the Bible depicts murder as a capital
crime for which death is considered the appropriate punishment, and one
is hard pressed to find a biblical ‘proof text’ in either the Hebrew
Testament or the New Testament which unequivocally refutes this. Even
Jesus’ admonition ‘Let him without sin cast the first stone,’ when He
was asked the appropriate punishment for an adulteress (John 8:7) - the
Mosaic Law prescribed death - should be read in its proper context. This
passage is an ‘entrapment’ story, which sought to show Jesus’ wisdom in
besting His adversaries. It is not an ethical pronouncement about
capital punishment." From the book Dead Man Walking.
Concerning Christ’s message of love and the State governed by law
There are many scriptures in the New Testament concerning love and forgiveness. Do they say anything concerning the death penalty?
To the state governed by law – no. To the Christian Church – yes. All words by Jesus concerning love, mercy and forgiveness makes it impossible for the death penalty to be practiced within the framework of the Christian Church. To a Christian, from his everyday life, the capital punishment totally goes against Christ’s message of love. It also goes against the prison sentencing and the fines. It goes against the whole state governed by law with its judges and jurors who sentence their fellow men.
But, and it is incredibly important to see and understand this, Christ’s message of love concerning turning the other cheek, forgiving your fellow man, etc. is not an issue concerning the state governed by law but us as individuals in our everyday lives. No verse in the Bible concerning love and forgiveness and not passing judgement was, by Jesus, meant for the "authority", the punishing authority, the judicial system.
Each and everyone who feels that the thief, the robber, the drunk driver, the rapist or the murderer should receive mercy and forgiveness according to Jesus’ teaching of love and therefore in no way have any form of punishment – such a person revokes Law and Order, that which constitutes the democratic civilized society.
In the theocracy of Israel during the time of the Old Testament they did not start out from God’s forgiveness in the courts. On the contrary, there ruled an irrepressible Law, despite the fact that the message of love is also found in the Old Testament (e.g. Lev 19:18).
And when the New Testament was written – a few decades after Jesus’ death and resurrection – we find nothing in any letter of the New Testament that says that Law and Order must be abandoned or revised by the authorities because of the atonement’s message of love. The authority, with the right to punish, was completely accepted in the NT as a divine ordinance (Rom 13:1-7, 1 Pet 2:13-14). Both Paul and Peter accepted the authority’s punishing function and role, despite the fact that they lived in a time where the punishments were many and severe and that the death penalty was very common.
We repeat: Christian ethics teach that in God’s Church mercy goes before right. A Christian is called to have as the ideal to live in reconciliation, forgiveness and love with their fellow men, even their enemies. According to Christian ethics judgement, revenge and retaliation is not allowed between people in everyday life.
But the rules are different for the authority. The heavenly ideal that the Christian Church is to strive for is not decided by God to be placed in earthly nations codes of law in order for violent criminals and murderers to receive mercy and avoid just punishment. If this happened, it would be suicide of the state governed by law.
In a functioning and civilized state governed by law mercy must not come before right. A functioning and civilized state governed by law has the right and obligation to leave out of account Jesus’ words concerning not judging a fellow man. The same goes for words concerning love and forgiveness. The authority is called by God to judge, and sometimes pass severe judgements.
Jesus’ message of love is therefore not aimed at the judging authorities. There is nothing implied in the gospels of the Bible that Jesus had any concern for the state governed by law in his teaching of love. If it had been so, that Christ’s teaching included the judicial system, every state governed by law that has ever existed throughout history would fall under the judgement, including all the "Christian" nations that ever existed. But there is no country in the world that during the course of history has interpreted Jesus’ teaching of love to also include the courts and trials and that Christ’s teaching of forgiveness and love should be written in the law concerning criminals. A sound awareness has been that this would be the end of the state governed by law and in the long run it would cause lawlessness and an increased spread of evil in the society. The foundation of the civilized society would fall apart.
The great teachers of the Bible could separate where Love belonged and where Right belonged. To them reality did not exclude either of these two great things. Here are three examples:
Moses could, in the midst of a legal context, declare: "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." (Lev 19:18). But in the next chapter there are several types of death penalties decreed.
Jesus encouraged love and forgiveness between people, but at the same time accepted the punishing authority (Matt 15:3-4, 26:52, John 19:10-11).
In Rom 12:17-21 Paul speaks of the relationship between people. The text says that we must not avenge each other but give the revenge to God. Only a few verses later (Rom 13:1-6) Paul speaks of the authority, the judging authority, which on the other hand is "an agent of wrath". (v 4)
The great personalities of the Bible can both join and keep apart the Law and the Love without creating any discrepancies.
As described above the Christian Church has believed and taught throughout all times. It was not until the middle of the 20th century that new sounds from parts of Christianity began to be heard, i.e. through different documents where one, using Jesus’ message of love as a foundation, disassociates from the death penalty. As a consequence one disqualifies the authority’s right to judge and punish. This would have catastrophic consequences to, among other things, justice, human value, goodness and the moral order in society if this new, naive, and Bible foreign view were followed.
Concerning the dreamers
There will always be dreamers who yearn for a society that is based on the Biblical principles such as "turning the other cheek" and "pay evil with good". These dreamers have a good heart. But if they are to be consistent they can not only use these words by Jesus in only one reference – concerning the capital punishment. They must then allow these principles to run through the entire judicial system. All criminals must then be met by only goodness and no one may even whisper the word "punishment." Such a utopian society is neither realistic nor desired here on this earth. Besides, the above quoted words belong to the same category as Jesus’ words "Do not judge, or you too will be judged" (Matt 7:1). If this also was aimed at the judicial system it would mean that all courts of law and all trials that have ever taken place and that take place now are in defiance of Jesus.
Let us, without mercy, speak ironically about where the attitude of the dreamers could lead us: At a trial the judge calls the abused and raped woman to come forth at the same time as the criminal. After that the judge asks the man, with the woman’s consent and according to the principle of "turning the other cheek", to once again attack the woman. When the woman is once again laying there bloody and crying and shaking with fear the judge says to the man: "Go, and sin no more!" And according to the principle of "paying evil with good" the criminal walks away with a smile and a bundle of cash to his freedom, and the judge gives him a warm hug of forgiveness. Outside stands the people and they are furious, not because of the woman’s fate, but because the man even had to go to trial and they now chanting the words of Jesus "Do not judge, or you too will be judged!"
A more crazy and evil world is hard to imagine. We may have beautiful dreams about the perfect love if we want to, but in a complicated and many times cruel and crazy world those dreams are seldom made real, especially not in the legal texts.
Every time someone refers to the words of Jesus concerning forgiving and not punishing when the death penalty is discussed it is a serious and dangerous attack against that which maintains a normal, functioning righteous society. The pious, unsuspecting people, sometimes priests, who makes these statements are often unaware of the consequences of their reasoning and should therefore not be accused. Their unreflecting faith on the other hand must be condemned.
Short summary of important scriptures in the New Testament
Matt 5:21-22
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ´Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.´ But I tell you … anyone who says, `You fool!´ will be in danger of the fire of hell."
Here Jesus quotes the fifth commandment and claims that he who breaks it is guilty and must be punished. Everyone was familiar with the Old Testament and knew that this meant the death penalty without Jesus having to say it. If Jesus had had another opinion concerning the form of punishment he would have had to clarify it in order for the people to understand that.
Jesus then gives a teaching about the meaning of this commandment with a deeper analysis. He does not revoke the literal meaning of the commandment (he defends its validity also in Matt 19:18) but here he brings forth the spirit of the commandment. Even a hateful and evil word – such things that usually precede a murder – aimed at a fellow man will bring a person to hell (Gehenna). If a harsh word to a fellowman means Gehenna according to Jesus, it is easy to realize that Jesus also agreed to the Old Testament’s edict of death for murder.
It should be observed that this scripture is found in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.
Matt 15:3-4
"Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ´Honor your father and mother´ and ´Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death´."
Here Jesus quotes the word about the death penalty from the Old Testament (Ex 21:17), and uses it as proof against the scribes. Thus Jesus confirms the validity of the scripture and shows that the words are not only linked to the time of the Old Testament. In this situation Jesus strikes hard at the scribes whom he claims are revoking the commandments of God in order to hold their own laws and statutes. He says to them: "You nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition" (v 6). And "the word of God" in the example that Jesus uses also includes the words concerning the death penalty (v 4). Jesus thereby accuses the scribes for not holding on to the simple and clear commandments about honoring the father and mother and about the capital punishment but instead soften these by making their own laws. This word is therefore a strong and clear acknowledgement by Jesus concerning the justification and validity of the death penalty.
It is obvious that if Jesus had been against the death penalty he would not have quoted this scripture and used a commandment for the death penalty as a foundation for his criticism of the scribes.
This scripture then confirms that over the Old Testament’s commandment of the capital punishment rests also the spirit of Christ.
Matt 18:6
"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
Here Jesus says that it would be good for one who causes a Christian to sin, be punished to death by drowning. According to Jesus such a person does not deserve to live. Jesus is not exaggerating here; drowning was not an unusual punishment in the Greek and Roman society. One can say that Jesus here accepts such a death sentence.
This scripture also shows that Jesus can speak with the same spirit of harshness as the Old Testament sometimes does.
Matt 26:52
"Put your sword back in its place, Jesus said to him, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword."
Here Jesus reproaches the disciple Peter who took the sword in order to defend Jesus against those who came to arrest him. But Jesus is against the use of the sword against innocent people and therefore he reproaches Peter and encourages him to put the sword back into the sheath.
There are several interpretations here. But a reasonable interpretation of the words: "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword" is that it is an indirect acknowledgement of the death penalty, maybe even a direct edict. Jesus then gives his acceptance to the legal practice of the capital punishment by the use of the sword as was practiced at the time. In other words, the scripture means that if someone draws his sword and kills an innocent person, the one who drew the sword deserves to be executed by the sword himself. The commandment "will die by the sword" then becomes a reference to the state governed by law, the authority, who has the power and right to kill. This would be a direct parallel to the words by Paul found in Rom 13:4 where he speaks about the authorities who "does not bear the sword for nothing" (see the comments later on in the chapter).
If Jesus, based on this interpretation, would have used our words it may have sounded something like this: One who uses a gun and kills another person shall be executed by a firing squad!
Luke 12:42-48
"The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him … He will cut him to pieces."
In this context Jesus starts from a time-typical situation that was familiar to everyone. Jesus takes the example from the everyday life where "a master" lets an administrator take care of the servants and to feed them at the right time while he himself goes away for some time. But if the administrator acts badly by hitting the servants and getting drunk, then he will be punished by death when "the master" comes home again. And neglectful servants shall be beaten, i.e. flogged. (Concerning flogging, see also Deut 25:2.)
This earthly picture Jesus uses as an example in order to teach about his future coming. Even if it does not describe an ordinary legal situation it is worth noticing that Jesus here speaks of both the death penalty and the flogging (common punishments of this time). He willingly uses these forms of punishments in his teaching in order to speak of the seriousness of his own future coming.
Jesus would hardly have done this if he had had a negative opinion of the death penalty.
Luke 19:27
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me."
This is the last verse of "Jesus’ parable of the ten pounds", a parable that mainly allude at the day of judgement. Since it is a parable one has to be careful not to use definitive interpretations. But the verse is very interesting. If Jesus had been opposed to the capital punishment it would have been very difficult to understand how Jesus could have ended the parable in this way. The final verse (v 27) is about the men who did not want to have a certain man as king (v 14). These men are then faced with the death penalty, a punishment that is carried out before the king. Such collective capital punishments were not unusual at that time.
That Jesus could be hard and righteous is accordingly brought out also here. And it can be compared with the final time when certain people will suffer the fires of hell (Rev 14:9-10) before the eyes of "the Lamb", Jesus.
Luke 20:14-16
"But when the tenants saw him, they talked the matter over. ´This is the heir,´ they said. ´Let´s kill him, and the inheritance will be ours.´ So they threw him out of the vineyard and killed him. What then will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and kill those tenants and give the vineyards to others."
Here we meet "Jesus’ parable of the tenants". A murder is committed, and those who commit this murder are killed. It seems as though the text speaks of revenge, i.e. that it is the "master of the vineyard" who commits the killing. But it may also be so that the words of Jesus indicate that the master of the vineyard makes sure that the murderers are legally tried and sentenced to death. Or one may also view the "master of the vineyard" as the authority that has the right to execute. The people are horrified over what happens in the parable, probably both over the murder and over the deeper meaning of the parable. Once again the descriptive style that Jesus uses is interesting. If Jesus had been opposed to the death penalty he would not have spoken in that way.
Luke 23:41
"We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong."
These words were spoken by one of the criminals who were hanging on a cross next to Jesus. The scripture clearly testifies of the legal conscience that people during all times have had. A death-sentenced criminal confesses that the flogging and the death sentence that was imposed on him were "just". And not only that, he himself felt that he "deserved" death.
John 19:10-11
"Do you refuse to speak to me? Pilate said. Don’t you realize I have power either to free you or to crucify you? Jesus answered, You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above."
Jesus indirectly confesses here the authority’s right to be a punishing authority and that that power comes from God. And in this case the power to sentence death by crucifixion. Even though Jesus was innocently convicted he does not question the capital punishment itself. It is not an acknowledgement either, but it comes close. It is worth noticing that Jesus does not, in any time of the gospels, criticize the diligent usage of the death penalty in his time. Not even when he stands before the power personified – Pontius Pilate.(8)
Acts 5:1-11
This story of Ananias and Saphira is unique in its character. It is the first and only time in the New Testament that there is such a clear description of a sort of "death penalty" within the framework of the church. God sentenced the two church members Ananias and Saphira to death because they had knowingly lied to God and to the people. Behind the lie there was greed. In this story Peter serves as the "prosecutor" and the "judge" of the church. Peter is in other words "the authority" and God’s punishment is carried out by the words of Peter. The invisible sword is lifted and Ananias and Saphira receive their death penalty.
In the New Testament there is nothing that indicates that this situation is supposed to serve as any kind of example. But it shows us two things. First, it shows that the Holy God is the same in the new covenant as he was in the old. Secondly, it shows that God also during the "age of mercy" (the time between the death of Christ and his return) sometimes can let a death penalty be imposed on greedy liars and pious hypocrites.
Acts 25:11
"If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die."
Here the apostle Paul answers to a governor and is being threatened by the capital punishment. The interesting thing is that Paul does not take the opportunity to speak up against the "barbaric death penalty." On the contrary, Paul acknowledges Rome’s right to use the death penalty and also he is allowed to serve as an example of the universal legal consciousness that has existed throughout all times. Paul is really saying that each and everyone who "deserves" a death sentence should have it imposed on them, even if it would mean himself.
A similar attitude is found in Rom 1:32, where Paul writes about people who "know God´s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death." Paul is referring to the transgressions mentioned in Rom 1:26-31 and "death" is most likely referring to the physical and eternal death. But one can not exclude the fact that there is a connection to the Old Testament and Lev 20:13 where God commands the death penalty for the same crimes. A consequence of this is that Paul thereby acknowledges the law of the Old Testament and the continuance between the Old and the New Testament is kept. Paul’s words show, in any way, that God – even the New Testament God – feels that some people "deserve death", and that the death would reveal "God’s righteous decree".
Part Two continues after the footnotes ...
Footnotes:
Footnote 1. Among others the philosophers Hugo Grotius [1583-1645], Thomas Hobbes [1588-1679], John Locke [1632-1704], Jean Jacques Rousseau [1712-78], Denis Diderot [1713-84], Montesquieu [1689-1755], Friedrich Hegel [1770-1831], John Stuart Mill [1806-1873], and Immanuel Kant [1724-1804] argued in the support of the death penalty. Click here to read a defence of the death penalty by Immanuel Kant. Norberto Bobbio (abolitionist), professor of Political Philosophy and Jurisprudence: "Along the whole course of philosophical history, the general opinion among philosophers was favourable to the death penalty, starting with Plato ... If we were to base our argument on the great authorities, the abolitionists would be defeated." From the book The Age of Rights (1996), page 144. Back.
Footnote 2. Islam is also a religion based on Scriptures; it proceeds from the Koran. Here we do not describe the Islamic view of the capital punishment, but one should know what Roger Hood writes: "Nearly all the countries of the Middle East and North Africa, for example, are adamant that the retention of the death penalty is the clear commandment of Islam." The Death Penalty, 1996, page 213. Back.
Footnote 3. When the classic attitude towards the Bible is abandoned it is much easier to abandon the defence of the death penalty, "Only when biblical literalism has been modified by modern critical methods does a different reading result, one that can bring new insights and understanding … The recent change of stance in Catholic evaluation of the death penalty may reasonably be seen as merely one of the many benefits stemming from the advent and acceptance of modern historical-critical studies." The Death Penalty – A Historical and Theological Survey, Megivern, 1997, page 14. And Harry Potter writes: "In the United States, as in England, the fact that the majority of the champions of abolition were also biblical liberals…and some were atheists such as Bentham and Shelley, put them in bad odor with the more orthodox Calvinist and Anglican clergy … Between the two sides a great gulf was fixed. Their respective approaches were irreconcilable, and their understanding of the ways of God as revealed in the Bible were unintelligible to each other." Hanging in Judgment, 1993, page 62-63. Back.
Footnote 4. Lemek had also killed, Numb 4:23, but the poetic words in this verse can be interpreted to mean that it was not out of hate but self-defence. Moses killed the Egyptian, Ex 2:11-14, but it was from self-defence when he came to the rescue of a fellow countryman. Ehud killed, Judges 3, but it was in a war situation. It was also at war when Jael killed someone, Judges 4. David did not kill Uriah himself, 2 Sam 11:15 but he planned Uriah’s death. Thereby we have examples of Israelites killing without being sentenced to death. Sometimes there are legitimate explanations to why this isn’t the case. But sometimes not. But those cases only show that not even Israel always used the legal practices as the laws and God’s commandments commanded. Back.
Footnote 5. Some try to avoid this commandment by claiming that the verse only gives a tragic foretelling of how man will act, and thereby deny that it would be a divine commandment. This is naturally untenable since the sentence "for in the image of God has God made man" then becomes impossible to explain. The word "for" means that an explanation of the commandment is coming. Back.
Footnote 6. Bible scholars are united in interpretation that the commandment has nothing to do with the capital punishment. To give two examples: The catholic commentary The New Jerome Biblical Commentary 1993, writes as a comment on this verse: "Only illegal killing is prohibited; Israel had the death penalty." (See also the commentary’s interpretation of Deut 5:17) The protestant Study Bible New Geneva Study Bible, 1995, writes: "The verb here is never applied to Israel at war, and capital punishment was already authorized. (Gen. 9:6, Lev. 24:17, Num. 35:30-34)."
When Norberto Bobbio (abolitionist), professor of Political Philosophy and Jurisprudence, once were given a lecture for Amnesty International about the death penalty and went through a number of more or less defective arguments against the death penalty he said at the end: "Let us try to give a reason for our repugnance for the death penalty. There is just one reason: the commandment not to kill. I can see no other reason. Apart from this last reason, all the other reasons are worth little or nothing, and can be rebutted with other arguments which have more or less the same persuasive force." From the book The Age of Rights (1996), page 141. And as we have seen above, not even this commandment can help Bobbio. On the contrary, precisely this commandment constitute a sort of a foundation for the death penalty to be proclaim in the Bible. Back.
Footnote 7. Before one reads this text one should be aware of the fact that this part of Jesus and the adulteress was not part of the gospel of John from the beginning. Almost all translators, bible scholars and theologians agree on this. Therefore Bible translations often put this part within parenthesis or give a note that states this. It is a fact that the text is missing in the earliest hand-written manuscripts of John. Yet the text has a strong and old tradition that gives the text a place in the gospel. But the text should not be given the same authority as other texts in the Bible. Back.
Footnote 8. On the cross Jesus says: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." (Luke 23:34). But this was not aimed at the death penalty as a form of punishment, but at the fact that he was innocent and that he was the Son of God. The Roman authority knew nothing of this. In this verse Jesus asks that they be forgiven since they are unaware of the incredible in crucifying God’s innocent Son, the Saviour. Back.
Part Two
Menu
© David Anderson 1998, 2002
[ May 03, 2003, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: nick ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-02-2003 01:40 PM :
Dear Nick, That was quite the post. I will not respond to each and every point but only the few main ones that I think important to address. I do not know for sure but I might be persuaded to bet that this was written by a lawyer for lawyers and lawyerly types to help stiffle thier consciences.
The bold is from the text you submitted above below which is my response.
God is angry when murder is committed. We are too. God desires to punish the murderer. We do too.
Are we not told that anger is a sin. It IS a perogative of a God but humans have no heavenly right to act out of anger.
Each and everyone who feels that the thief, the robber, the drunk driver, the rapist or the murderer should receive mercy and forgiveness according to Jesus’ teaching of love and therefore in no way have any form of punishment – such a person revokes Law and Order, that which constitutes the democratic civilized society.
No one here has advocated that anyone guilty of any crime should not receive just punishment. The issue is not should one be punished or not. On the contrary I have suggested that denying someone thier liberty and freedom for thier natural lives might be a just alternative to death. The issue here is are we mortal sinners capable of dispensing fair and just punishment when it is said that the wages of sin are death and we have all sinned and deserved such death ourselves. Has not mercy given us a chance to come to repentance for the sins we are/were guilty of recieving death for too.
Jesus’ message of love is therefore not aimed at the judging authorities.
Really?
The great teachers of the Bible could separate where Love belonged and where Right belonged.
I once heard Roy say that the bar exam is designed to weed out those with common sense. To be a lawyer you have to think in terms of legal and illegal instead of what is truly right and wrong or just and fair.
There will always be dreamers who yearn for a society that is based on the Biblical principles such as "turning the other cheek" and "pay evil with good". These dreamers have a good heart. But if they are to be consistent they can not only use these words by Jesus in only one reference – concerning the capital punishment. They must then allow these principles to run through the entire judicial system. All criminals must then be met by only goodness and no one may even whisper the word "punishment."
Thats crap! No real God fearing soul would advocate such a thing. There must be Justice with Mercy and Mercy with Justice. Forgiveness and mercy do not exclude the need to expiate, to pay back, to make right, to amend or otherwise pay a penalty for an offense. The difference between my view and the opposition is at the very extreme end of delivering justice. The death penalty by man to man.
Let us, without mercy, speak ironically about where the attitude of the dreamers could lead us: At a trial the judge calls the abused and raped woman to come forth at the same time as the criminal. After that the judge asks the man, with the woman’s consent and according to the principle of "turning the other cheek", to once again attack the woman. When the woman is once again laying there bloody and crying and shaking with fear the judge says to the man: "Go, and sin no more!" And according to the principle of "paying evil with good" the criminal walks away with a smile and a bundle of cash to his freedom, and the judge gives him a warm hug of forgiveness.
Again, Just plain old crap! Nobody in thier right mind would advocate something like this.
"You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ´Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.´ But I tell you … anyone who says, `You fool!´ will be in danger of the fire of hell."
Yes, Rhonda will remember me citing this same verse. It points out once again that each and everyone of us has been deserving of death at one time or another in our lives. None of us were born perfect and all were born into sin. The wages of sin are death. Although deserving of death ourselves we were granted, through God's mercy, the time to come to repentance. As Roy said once "Love waited for us" as long as it took. I simply advocate that we give the same benefit to another.
Jesus then gives a teaching about the meaning of this commandment with a deeper analysis. He does not revoke the literal meaning of the commandment (he defends its validity also in Matt 19:18) but here he brings forth the spirit of the commandment. Even a hateful and evil word – such things that usually precede a murder – aimed at a fellow man will bring a person to hell (Gehenna). If a harsh word to a fellowman means Gehenna according to Jesus, it is easy to realize that Jesus also agreed to the Old Testament’s edict of death for murder.
This argument agrees with part of my point and completely misses the other. The part where it says Jesus is equating the harm of the angry or harsh word to the act of physical killing is where we are in agreement. But I believe that the underlaying point Jesus is making is that except for God's mercy we all should/would have to be put to death. I do not agree that this points to Jesus's agreement with the death penalty administered by men, whether in China, the USA or any country for that matter. And I challenge anyone to show otherwise.
"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."
Here Jesus says that it would be good for one who causes a Christian to sin, be punished to death by drowning. According to Jesus such a person does not deserve to live. Jesus is not exaggerating here; drowning was not an unusual punishment in the Greek and Roman society. One can say that Jesus here accepts such a death sentence.
Again, this simply points out that all sinners deserve death and would receive it but for a time of mercy allowed us that we might come to repentance. Otherwise, we would have to put to death any parent who said a cruel or unkind word to thier child, or for that matter anyone saying a cruel or unkind word to anyone.
Jesus would hardly have done this if he had had a negative opinion of the death penalty.
I believe Jesus absolutely believes in a death penalty and further that the parables cited in this argument refer to the the use of the death penalty by God Himself in administering Justice and not men. Jesus always used parables to refer to the Kingdom of God. The cited verse Luke 19:27 "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them – bring them here and kill them in front of me." is about the future judgement by Jesus Himself, as King and Judge upon those you oppose Him.
Acts 5:1-11 This story of Ananias and Saphira is unique in its character. It is the first and only time in the New Testament that there is such a clear description of a sort of "death penalty" within the framework of the church. God sentenced the two church members Ananias and Saphira to death because they had knowingly lied to God and to the people.
Read the whole story folks. Not a single human raised a hand in the execution of these two. It demonstrates my contention that God can impose the death penalty at anytime he deems fit and just and doesn't need our help to do it.
"If, however, I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I do not refuse to die." Here the apostle Paul answers to a governor and is being threatened by the capital punishment. The interesting thing is that Paul does not take the opportunity to speak up against the "barbaric death penalty."...Paul is really saying that each and everyone who "deserves" a death sentence should have it imposed on them, even if it would mean himself.
The fuller quote should be "Then said Paul, I stand at Caesar's judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest. For if I be an offender, or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die: but if there be none of these things whereof these accuse me, no man may deliver me unto them. I appeal unto Caesar.
Paul is simply saying I am a Roman citizen and as such if I am guilty of a crime against Rome then I accept to punishment but I am not. Neither can you hand me over to the Jewish authorities directly, by Roman law I can and do appeal to Caesar.
There is nothing in this argument that shows that Paul is in agreement with a death penalty. He is simply agreeing that under that current law he is punishable by death. If he were under Hitler Germany's rule of law he might say the same thing.
In closing I will post here part of what I posted in another section.
I do not doubt what I am given to know. The death penalty as a punishment for a crime given by humans to a human is the same as the unjust giving punishment to the unjust, or by the blind to the blind. This is particularly so given that the judges, juries and executioners are almost always Godless, unenlightnened and unrepentant creatures who are filled with thier own horrible secret sins. I would have no problem with the whole process if it could be ensured that either God Himself, the Perfect Judge or someone clearly acting in His name was doing the switch pulling. Until then, I will always remain against this punishment. Further, I believe that many a criminal, if not all, was a little boy or girl who came into this world with all the potential to be as fine a shining example of a human being as possible and that someone put out thier light and in essence killed thier spirit before they had a chance to grow up. And such persons remain dead until awoken, even at age 87 and in prison for killing thier horrible cruel father at age 23. "Luke 15:11... For this son of mine was dead, but now he is alive; he was lost, but now he has been found." If not awoken before physical death they are dead in spirit as well as body. All persons who contributed to that death, the Light killers, are guilty of killing as surely as if they slit a throat"
Again, thank God for the mercy of time in allowing us to come to repentance. If repentance is good enough for we sinners who kill the spirit through our resentments why isn't good enough for those who kill a body which is only the shell that temporarily holds that spirit
[ May 02, 2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Al Fulchino (Member # 88) on 05-02-2003 05:19 PM :
Rick, that was simply beautifully said. Parts of it put me in a meditative state. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-02-2003 07:16 PM :
Hi Al,
Thank you. You know the funny thing is that in all my 46 years I've never really verbalized any of my thoughts about this issue to anyone. Its amazing how this site has pulled things out of me on this subject and others as well. One of the things I've admired about the Morman church is that each and every member, from teenagers to the elderly are encouraged to stand in turn before the congregation on a rotating basis and speak out about whatever they feel led to speak out about. Its a very nice idea that teaches one very early that thier individual ideas and thoughts about things are important and count. That each has something to contribute. This board serves a similar function. Thanks for your encouragement Al and thanks again to the FHU for making this board possible. -Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-04-2003 04:45 PM :
The Death Penalty and the Bible
Introduction
The capital punishment is a criminal-policy, philosophical,(1) humanistic and social issue. These different aspects have already been dealt with in different ways. But the death penalty is also a religious issue. It is natural that the death penalty has religious points of attachment since it is dealing with morality, "sin", life and death. It touches existential questions and falls within what in technical terms is called the natural law ideology, contrary to the positivistic legal (rather closed) ideology.>>
Nick, That was brilliantly done. What book or text did you get that from?
Thanks,
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-04-2003 05:09 PM :
Rick to Doreen:
You are, of course, free to hold your beliefs but please allow me to point out what I see as your over riding theme: Your approach to this issue is mainly all Judgement with little to no Mercy. A rather unbalanced and may I say, resentment based and unforgiving attitude. Its the kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out attitude.>>
Rick, you are obvioously too blind to see how full of judgement you constantly are. You've judged me unfairly. You and Al have both judged Louise in a belittling manner numerous times. And now Doreen. You give me the creeps. It's hard for me to believe you have even heard of Roy Masters much less ever actually listened to him. Sigh! I can see why he gets discouraged at times not only about the average emotion-driven ego-maniac out there but also about people who think they understand, respect and even love him but don't have a clue about where he is coming from.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-04-2003 06:35 PM :
Rhonda, Would you like someone as you described me to be judging whether you lived or died? Thats what I am talking about and thats what the system offers. I truly hope you never have to experience the system first hand.
As far as Lousie is concerned, only once did I point out a little game she played. Arguing one point until proved wrong and then arguing another point altogether so as to camouflage being wrong in the first one. It was not numerous times as you allege.
As far as Doreen is concerned, ask her yourself if I have belittled her.
I wonder Rhonda just how impartial you could be if you were judging whether I lived or died. I think you would crucify me without pity.
[ May 04, 2003, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-05-2003 06:14 AM :
Paul, I know deterrence isn't the only issue in the death penalty, and the reason I focus on it is because so many people falsely believe the death penalty is a deterrent over life in prison. When those for the death penalty are asked if they'd still be for it if it was proven the death penalty was not a deterrent, a large portion of them say they would no longer be for it. That makes it a huge issue.>>
Glenn, I know that the death penalty is a deterrant to murder. I have always known that is the case but now there are statistics that show that it does make a difference when only the rate of executions are factored in. If you want to see a graph I have that clearly shows the difference I will be happy to send it to you but you will have to e-mail me.
We have a lot of violence of all kinds in this country and it is mainly due to the huge illegitimacy rate in the inner cities and the fact that so many boys are being raised in homes without a father. 80% of the men in prison for violent crime grew up without a father in the home. This is the main cause of violence in our culture. When there's no father in the home to show boys how to be a man, boys often try to prove their masculinity in destructive ways. That's why the murder rate is so high.
Also, like I've pointed out before, states that rarely actually carry out the death penalty provide no deterrant for murder. It's only when it is carried out that there's a deterrant.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-05-2003 06:35 AM :
Rhonda, Would you like someone as you described me to be judging whether you lived or died? Thats what I am talking about and thats what the system offers. I truly hope you never have to experience the system first hand.
As far as Lousie is concerned, only once did I point out a little game she played. Arguing one point until proved wrong and then arguing another point altogether so as to camouflage being wrong in the first one. It was not numerous times as you allege.
As far as Doreen is concerned, ask her yourself if I have belittled her.
I wonder Rhonda just how impartial you could be if you were judging whether I lived or died. I think you would crucify me without pity.>>
Rick,
As unbelievable as it may seem, I don't think you deserve to die. I would love to respond further but feel I can't go on with you until you realized you misjudged me in the past. Then I can respond to your current misjudgment.
Sincerely,
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-05-2003 08:53 AM :
Ric sent me a private email and I responded.I have decided to post both here as I do not believe any private discourse between us will yield any understanding so rather than waste effort on such a dialogue it might as well go in the public domain where someone may benefit from it.Here is Rics comments then below it my response.First he quotes my: If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck - it is a duck.
Nick, You know nothing about me except that I am opposed to imperfect men carrying out the death penalty on man. You do not know my politics nor whom I vote for or why. You have never even asked. You have yet to answer any of my questions directly man to man as is your right. You have hid behind tirades and other mans words. At least I have spoken my point of view from my heart. Except for some emotional outbursts about the subject you offer nothing to show me the errors of my way. -Rick
Nicks Reply:
You have me at a disadvantage.I truly do not understand the psychopathology of the anti death penalty brigade and sometimes I Flounder around with duck billed plattitudes in lieu of a rational analysis. But then how can you rationalise the irrational? I mostly hear from them bluster, pious cant and evasion.No expression of concern whatsoever for the victims of the psychos behaviour.Just a concern for the souls of the killers.Forgive me if I dont care about Bin ladens soul, or Mansons and his sucessors. No doubt it is a defficiency on my part.
I have made many points in arguments for the death penalty but the antis naturally enough have chosen to ignore them,yourself included.That is your prerogative.You should not demand of others what you have proven to be incapable or unwilling to provide yourself.
What I do detect in the antis is an attempt at moral equivalency whereby the enforcers of law and order,the criminals and the victims of the lawless are all lumped in together in an amoral blur, all are sinners with the upshot that the killers get away with it.The same argument is used in war: if you kill you are no better than the other side.This leads to paralysis, a culture of moral greyness, with the corollary of the triumph of evil,ie what we have now.
[ May 05, 2003, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: nick ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-05-2003 09:13 AM :
Rhonda, for a reasoned defence of the death penalty go to: www.yesdeathpenalty.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-05-2003 10:05 AM :
Nick, Thanks for responding directly.
There seems to be an entrenched thought among some of the vocal proponets of death on this board that insists that those who favor life are somehow favoring and advocating no punishment at all for criminals. That is simply hogwash. Please show where that sentiment is articulated and by whom or never repeat that rumor again. I have said until I'm blue in the face that the only disagreement I have with you pro-death folks is just that, death. I am absolutely for the punishment of the criminal and have said so in no uncertain terms numerous times on this and the other death penalty post.
You may be interested to know that I was in Law Enforcement for 8 years of my life and dealt with all manner of ugly persons. I have made arrests and assisted in the prosecution of many a bad guy and would do it all again. I am also a US Military veteran and would fight for my country anytime anywhere if my family and homeland and her inhabitants were in danger from any foe. I have been on the front lines and seen much horror and yet I am against the ultimate punishment. Why? Because in my heart I know it can not be fairly applied by the current worldly system of men. I know that too many powers that be are rotten to the core. I've seen it first hand. I believe in the power of repentance with responsibility and I believe in mercy with expiation but I do not believe blindly in the system of men that it can fairly deal with the issues of life and death. That I prefer to leave to God.
[ May 05, 2003, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-05-2003 11:58 AM :
Rhonda, for a reasoned defence of the death penalty go to: www.yesdeathpenalty.com>>
Nick, thanks so much. I will definitely look it over.
But how did you cut and paste that link to this message board? I tried to cut and paste my link showing a correlation between actual executions and murder rates going down but couldn't figure out how to do it. But then I'm electronically challenged.
I offered to mail anyone my link who was interested in seeing the correlation but not one person has asked to see it. You would think if the saving of innocent lives is really what they are concerned about that they would want to know if a death penalty that is actually carried out would save innocent lives. But not!
By the way do you happen to know what the other language your link is in besides English? Just curious.
Thanks,
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 05-05-2003 12:21 PM :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rhonda:
Rhonda, for a reasoned defence of the death penalty go to: www.yesdeathpenalty.com>>
I offered to mail anyone my link who was interested in seeing the correlation but not one person has asked to see it. You would think if the saving of innocent lives is really what they are concerned about that they would want to know if a death penalty that is actually carried out would save innocent lives. But not!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda, You've got to be kidding me. You post at 3 in the morning and at 8 in that same morning you're complaining that nobody is interested in your data? Have a sense of fairness about debating or don't debate at all. By the way, I sent you an email asking for your data as soon as I read about your offer.
[ May 05, 2003, 09:24 AM: Message edited by: Glenn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Jonn (Member # 309) on 05-05-2003 12:41 PM :
Rhonda, when you post a message you can see below the buttons 'Add reply' and 'Preview Post' a series of buttons vertically aligned.
One of them is 'URL'. Click on this one, and you will get the opportunity to add a link (URL) to your post.
Glenn, "Have a sense of fairness about debating or don't debate at all" ---> B/W, ON/OFF, self reflection perhaps?
[ May 05, 2003, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Jonn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-05-2003 11:50 PM :
Two years before the Presidential primary election (not the presidential election itself), the angels told me that George W. Bush would be the next president. Even more, they said that he MUST be the next president. They said that he would be a war-monger, and that he would behave in ways that many people would consider outrageous. They said that George W. Bush was bred to think and act this way. They said, though, that he truly had a sacred and important purpose: To shake people out of apathetic and passive behavior, and have them pay more attention to the government. To get more involved. The angels say, "Through his actions, people will begin to demand integrity and accountability in their government, as well as other bureaucracies." So, Bush is here to upset us, so that we'll get more involved. In this respect, Bush is doing a wonderful job at his purpose, wouldn't you say?(Doreen Virtue)>>
Lonely,
I couldn't disagree with Doreen Virtue more. I thank God that Bush was elected by the skin of his teeth and the electoral college. He has handled everything since 911 brilliantly, courageously and wisely. He doesn't upset me at all nor is he upsetting to most Americans. If he is, people have a funny way of showing it by giving him approval ratings in the 70s. He's a simple, straight-forward, Godly man. I am very proud of both him and our brave troups. Even some liberal relatives of mine are very grateful that Bush was in the White House instead of Gore when 911 happened. If a liberal can see something it must be clear enough for all with eyes to see. Meow! Doreen Virtue has her head--well, let's just say in the clouds. She needs to come down to earth and get real.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Sophie (Member # 195) on 05-06-2003 12:28 AM :
Hmmm....where were Doreen's Angels on Clinton, selling our nuke secrets to China??? People didn't need to "demand" anything of their government back then such as loyalty???
Donot believe Doreen Virtue will be taking her head out of the ethers anytime soon as her livelihood comes from espouses such New Age ideas...everyone is a "beautiful being" in that philosophy. But wait maybe everyone BUT conservatives...they are only useful to shake things up??? "I'm OK, You're OK doesn't apply here! My how interesting the non-judgemental become so judgemental about a conservative President
Sophie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-06-2003 08:01 AM :
Hi Sophie,
I am aware of it that many who believe in God do, for some reason, not believe in Angels even if scripture is filled with references to Angels. For me ... I do believe in Angels. I have, in fact, some pretty good reasons to do so .
I don't know the person Doreen Virtue (I have been told that this seems to be her real name indicentally and not a stage name) but I do know that she (and other mediums like her) "channel" Angels. I know of one other such medium who has said and done things with - according to her - the help of Archangel Michael, which I couldn't possibly explain in other ways than the manner in which she explains them and I can add that large parts of the spiritually oriented community seems to concur as far as that is concerned.
Consequently, we should perhaps not disregard the possibility that what Doreen Virtue passes on does indeed come from a realm of authority and that her words therefore do but constitute an observation or, if you like, a discernment rather than a judgement. Far be it from me to view my opinions as more relevant than those of others, but it would seem to me that passing judgements on the words that Doreen passes on may very well constitute judgement of quite another Source.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 05-06-2003 02:30 PM :
http://members.aol.com/sgil46/culpable.htm (just click here for those who wish to see the chart)
Rhonda, I saw the chart that you sent me that attempted to show that as executions in America went up, homicides went down and vice-versa. At first I thought how interesting, but then I took a closer look. The problem is when I looked carefully at the graph that you provided, I saw lots of significant peaks and valleys in homicide rates that didn't correspond to executions. For example. Starting from the left in early 1950's the blue line shows executions skyrocketing past 2600, but homicides stay the same. Then in the early 1950's there's a huge dip in executions, but homicide rates stay the same. This already is putting serious doubt into your cause/effect argument. Continuing on, the rest of the 1950's show significant peaks and valleys in execution rates while homicide rates stay basically the same. In the turbulent 1960's we see executions drop sharply then hit zero as homicides go up significantly and level off around 1975 where executions are still at zero. Then from 1975-1977 there's a dip in homicides, but executions are still at zero, hmmmm, this is casting serious doubt on your cause/effect claim here. Then from that time until the early 80's we see peaks and valleys in homicides while the executions are basically at zero. So we can conclude that something other than executions is causing these peaks and valleys since we're seeing rising and falling of homicide rates in spite of no change in executions. Now in the 1980's the homicide rates are ALREADY falling BEFORE executions start to go up. That is very significant because you wanted to show a cause/effect relationship but how can you when the effect is happening before the alleged cause? Now in 1985-86 we see executions around 19, which is close to the highest they've been for some time, while homicides climb! The cause/effect claim is getting ridiculous. Then in the mid eighties to the nineties we see a steady climb in homicides while executions are sharply up and down in a zig zag pattern. Then in 1994 till the late 1990's we see executions rise very sharply with the exception of a dip in 1995 but then back way up, but homicides only minutely dip then stabilize in that same time period. The correlation argument is a bust! If this is supposed to be a mirror it's a fun house mirror.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rhonda:
Also, like I've pointed out before, states that rarely actually carry out the death penalty provide no deterrant for murder. It's only when it is carried out that there's a deterrant.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with that statement Rhonda is this: If states that don't carry the death penalty have no deterrent for murder then why are their murder rates not high? Not only are they not high, they're lower than death penalty states. When states that don't have the death penalty have lower homicide rates, you have to scratch your wooden head as Uncle Roy likes to say. Here are some facts for you to consider.
In California, between 1952 and 1967 there was an average of one execution every two months. From 1968 until 1991 there were no executions. The homicide rate of California was twice as high in the earlier period than it was in the latter.
In New York, between 1907 and 1964, 692 executions were carried out. On average, over this 57 year period, one or more executions in a given month added a net increase of two homicides to the total committed in the next month.
If your execution theory was right, I couldn't be posting these facts for you Rhonda.
And finally, consider this:
Governments that have enacted the death penalty continue to have higher civilian murder rates than those that do not.
The five countries with the highest homicide rates that do not impose the death penalty average 21.6 murders per every 100,000 people, whereas the five countries with the highest homicide rate that do impose the death penalty average 41.6 murders every 100,000 people.
The average murder rate per 100,000 people in U.S. states with capital punishment is about 8, while it is only 4.4 in abolitionist states.
If you still think the death penalty is a deterrent I have some swamp land I want to sell you.
[ May 06, 2003, 04:06 PM: Message edited by: Glenn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-06-2003 03:38 PM :
Stick to second-hand cars.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 05-06-2003 04:06 PM :
When you cannot attack the argument, attack the man eh Nick?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 05-06-2003 04:40 PM :
Here's an an informative site: It's The Death Penalty Information Center. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
[ May 06, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Glenn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-06-2003 05:01 PM :
I've always felt that a State should be a father to its citizens and that its functioning should be an example to those citizens. It is also my opinion that a State which, rather than being caring enough to make an effort to correct their comportment, takes the lives of its own citizens, sets the worst example that is possible.
It is generally thought that any entity which abuses other entities, be it physically, verbally or in any other manner, suffers from low self-esteem and that the extent to which such an entity disrespects other entitites does, in fact, equal the exact same extent to which it disrespects itself and believes to have reasons to do so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-06-2003 06:46 PM :
On the subject of the Angel messages that Doreen Virtue has been channeling and the preferences of 70% of the US population:
Benjamin Franklin once remarked "there are lies, there are damned lies and there are statistics" and I myself happen to know about quite a few people who drowned in rivers that were on average only two feet deep!
Ask yourselves: in a general non-political sense not related to the subject of mr. Bush: would you say that from many perspectives you are part of the majority (comparable to the 70% of mr. Bush's rating) of the US population or that - in terms of education, income, assets, belief, etc. - it is much more likely that you are part of a large minority (comparable to e.g. a 30% context)?
Since you possess a PC, are at a discussion forum and are formulating thoughts that require a certain level of education, I presume that in many cases you will come to realise that it is much more likely that you are part of a 30% group (or, in fact, of a much smaller group) than of a 70% group, you will also see the relevance or, if you like, irrelevance of the fact that 70% of a population would give their approval or, for that matter, vote to someone. In other words ... the 70% approval rating doesn't necessarily say something about you.
Besides ... it is not said that someone is right simply because seven people out off ten say that he is right. It could very well be that he is dead wrong and that the three people out off ten who say that he is wrong are right. In that context you should perhaps also take into consideration that 83% of Europe, your #1 ally in many respects, is - to put it very mildly - not very taken with mr. Bush and his performance and that both the economical and political relations with that ally have seriously deteriorated since mr. Bush is your president. In fact, in the eyes of many Europeans mr. Bush has turned himself into a pariah in the international political arena.
I'm only mentioning these things, because I believe that it is not important what a majority believes. If that were important we would all have to speak Chinese, ride a bicycle and have to be Buddhists right now! After all, if the majority were to decide to jump off the Chrysler Building, you wouldn't do it either, would you? In all things you do, dare to be yourself, dare to have your own opinions and dare to stand up for them even if the majority tells you otherwise. Meanwhile I have attentitively read all your posts, but haven't yet heard arguments that invalidate what Doreen Virtue has been channeling.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 05-06-2003 07:46 PM :
hi LG, Presidnet Bush is not as popular as the prior Prez aa he is not carrying moneybags of appeasement around everywhere he goes..this makes those who are used to that very disgruntled..and his new tax proposal is to give the money back to our people,he always wanted to do that, so that eliminates a lot of backslapping from those in this country and abroad who get their paychecks from Programs to keep our people down, broke and uneducated and sick,the people who make the money are getting to keep it, and not wave it all over the world so others will like us. We have shed blood recently when other countries would not step forward to help a dictator leave,no greater love tha n that, but the people of the world would rather have the money than freedom, they d o not care who has died to give them that freedom, they want new Starbucks' and MacDonalds' and everything American but Democracy, so they can continue to line their pockets at the expense of their own people and ours who die for their free enterprise.
Proud to have a real man for a President, a so called cowboy by of all thankless clods,"where's the accordion" France, I loved it when our President wore a cowboy hat the day after that speech was broadcast! God Bless President Bush! Doreen
[ May 06, 2003, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: DoreenC ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Sophie (Member # 195) on 05-06-2003 07:58 PM :
Hello LG,
I found a question you addressed to me on Doreen Virtue. Yes, I was being a bit sacrastic yesterday....change of mood ;-) I am aware of Doreen to some degree, have heard her speak, read one of her books, visited her website in the past...yes, that is her real name according to her. I donot believe blindly accepting Doreen's claims of channelling Angels and what these Angel say...thus my comment. I question her comments about Bush? Can we agree that the message is only as clear as the messenger? And that ones own "proclivity" may taint the message? Doreen supports PETA which on the surface looks like a good thing but PETA is runned by crazed individuals whose reality is skewed. Long ago I did donate to PETA until I learned more about them which ties into underlying world agenda and their gestapo tactics surrounding that agenda.
We are told to "test the Spirit" in the Bible.
As a Catholic I believe in Angels and the Blessed Mother. The Saints and Prophets are those who have lived a life devoted to God and are emissaries for Heaven. In fact I just order the book called "Saint Bernadette of Soubirous" which I am REALLY eager to read.
That most of Europe feels the way they do about Bush is not surprising. Most Europeans are living a sensual life, abandoned the moral code and Religion, and influenced by Socialist/communist influences including some of the the New Age movement. Same applies to the major social changes here in the US. Roy has discussed these factors though I haven't heard him say anything about the New Age movement, its wiccah etc. Effecting change on a large social scale is underway and has been for a very long time. Seeing this we understand a massive movement underway using brain-washing and change-agents. Many donot understand the forces shaping their thinking and will. The stage of the world is the setting for the drama of men's souls for good or evil.
Cheers,
Sophie
[ May 06, 2003, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Sophie ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-06-2003 08:21 PM :
Hello LG my friend,
I wasn't sure when this subject might arise between us but knew it would eventually. In the short time I've known you I've come to respect you a great deal. But I can not understand your view of George Bush. I think you under-estimate the love many have for this President. His words and actions resonate with far more people and more deeply than you realize and not just in America. I am starting to believe that most of the world have no idea what America is all about or her role in God's grand scheme. Nor am I surprised that the defender of God's people Israel would be hated as much as Israel herself. Neither again am I surprised that most of the world, as you suggest, despise our President. I believe it was someone we both know who said that the love of the world makes one an enemy of God. I would also be willing to bet that if you asked anyone who loves George Bush they will tell you that they also loved Ronald Reagan as well. The image of the American Cowboy, the John Wayne type, the man who does what he knows is right in his heart come hell or high water and let the chips fall where they may, the man who rides into town unreservedly risking his own life to shoot it out with the bad guys to save the woman, children, old folk and even the cowardly men, resonates deeply with many. There is something about standing tall and having peace-through-strength, physically and spiritually, but with love, compassion and understanding to match it that many find appealling. Ronald Reagan was such a man. George Bush is such a man and is beloved here by many many folks who are good-hearted God-fearing and decent folk much like you find on this board. It is somewhat telling that along with Ireland America is one of the most church going countries in the world. There are people here and the world over who love what America stands for at the core, her basic principles of life, liberty, freedom of worship, freedom of association etc. America at her best is a light, is that shining city on a hill and the last best hope of mankind as was once said. George Bush knows this and is determined to preserve all that is good in her and we support and love him for it. Now you may call us hypnotized fools if you wish but there is something about we Americans who love George Bush that knows instinctively that there is a direct yet unspoken and unmistakeable link between him and the divinely inspired founders of this great land. That is why he is so loved and paradoxically why he is so hated.
[ May 07, 2003, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Sophie (Member # 195) on 05-06-2003 08:58 PM :
Rick,
Beautifully expressed America was created as a be a shining light to the world. If only we had more countries as such examples. On Bush.. he is a Good Man to those who have "eyes" to see and "ears" to hear. Leftist also hated Regan.
Sophie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-06-2003 09:19 PM :
Thanks for the kind words Sophie. You may like what is below :-)
LG: You posted from the Doreen Virtue website. Allow me post from another. PS: I do believe in Angels and wouldn't be surpised if there were a few on this board :-)
A Crown of Kingship
The Courtroom Vision of George W. Bush & Al Gore
by Bonnie Franklin 11-21-00
In the Spirit I heard a voice from Heaven cry out, "Who is this that has raised their sword against the one anointed of God and chosen by the people?" And I looked up and saw the High Court of God was in session. And the Spirit of the Lord said, "The eyes of the world and of this nation are upon the Supreme Court of Florida this day awaiting their decision, but the High Court of God will decide this case."
Standing before the Lord was Al Gore on his left and George W. on his right. And the Lord did begin to ask each man questions concerning how he would lead should he be granted the crown. And the Lord did ask Al, "How would you treat the unborn?" and Al answered; then the Lord asked George W. "How would you treat the unborn?" and George answered. And the Lord God continued asking the men questioning concerning how they would treat the elderly, how would they treat the children's education, how would they treat the Christians and so on. And I saw an angel standing behind Al Gore and he shook his head at the answers that Al gave because he wasn't telling the truth. After each man gave his answer the Lord made markings on his slate which was divided into two columns with Al's name on the left and George W.'s name on the right. And I saw that there were no points given in the Gore's column.
And then the Lord God asked the men, "Do you have anything to declare before the Lord this day?" And George W. answered, "Yes, my Lord," and he pulled out of his pocket a list of his sins he had committed down through the years and he read them off one by one asking the Lord to be merciful and to grant his forgiveness."
Then the Lord turned and asked Al, "What do you have to declare?" And Al answered, "Why nothing. I have done nothing wrong." And the Lord motioned with his hand and the back doors to the courtroom were opened and in came two Angels carrying a trunk wrapped in chains that was locked with a large lock. Below the lock was written, "Do not open until 2008." And the Lord said, "I am not bound by the hands of time. Open the trunk."
And Al said, "I can't; it's not mine; I've never seen it before." And the Angel standing behind him reached inside Al's back pocket pulling out a key and gave it to the Lord. And the Lord God said, "Will you open it or must I?" And Al did insert the key within the lock, which turned and unlocked the lock. And the Lord then did say, "Open it." But Al sat upon the trunk and said, "God, I cannot; it is the trunk of my sins." And the Lord God said, "Do you not know that you can hide nothing from Me? " And the Lord said to the Angels, "Open it." and the trunk was opened revealing Al's sins, and Al hung his head in disgrace.
And the Lord God did say, "Men of earth, approach the Bench of God for I have made my decision. And the Lord God did say, "Al, son of Gore, you who would steal that which was not yours, you who would hide away your sins and declare to the Lord that you do not lie, your sins have found you out. This day are you to be dressed in rags and in chains and never again may you hold a seat of high office in the governing of this land." And I saw the Angels dress Al in a ragged tunic, wrapping chains around his shoulders, hands and feet and he was led out of the Courtroom of God.
And then the Lord God turned to George W. and spoke saying, "George, my son, kneel before your Lord and George did so kneel. Then the Lord God spoke saying, "You did not try to hide your sins from the Nation or from Me. But you did confess your sins, most of which were forgiven and forgotten a long time ago. Receive forgiveness and a pardon from the Lord. And then the Lord did hold a crown above the head of George and He spoke saying, "Do you solemnly promise to be a king who will lead by example this Nation into days of prayer and fasting?" And George W. answered, "Yes, my Lord."
And the Lord asked a second question, "Do you solemnly promise to be chaste and faithful to your wife as was vowed to Me years ago, for the children of this Nation must not see immorality in their king again." And George W. answered, "Yes, oh yes, my Lord."
And the Lord God did ask of him a third and final question, "Do you solemnly swear to stand and defend my people Israel?" And George W. answered, "Yes, my God and King; your people will be my people." And the crown of kingship was placed upon George W.'s head and he was given a red kingly robe to wear, for the Lord God had chosen.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments: It is clear from this vision that George W. has been chosen and anointed by the Lord to govern and to rule this land. The Lord has lain upon our hearts at the Prophetic Roundtable to become George W.'s intercessors and for the next four years we are to pray for him and especially to begin praying now for the election of 2004. We would ask that others join us in this prayer as well.
Read comments about this vision...
Other words concerning America
Prophetic Roundtable Ministries
Home | Prophecy | Intercessory Prayer | Visions & Dreams | Poems & Parables | America | Songs of the Lord | Harp&Bowl | Carpenters Intercessors | Prophetic Art | Mailroom | Rings | Recommend | Donations | Email List | Links | Contact | Index
The contents of this page Copyright © 1998-2003 by Prophetic Roundtable Ministries with Don & Bonnie Franklin.
All rights reserved. Last edited on Thursday, June 20, 2002.
[ May 06, 2003, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-07-2003 01:24 AM :
Rhonda, You've got to be kidding me. You post at 3 in the morning and at 8 in that same morning you're complaining that nobody is interested in your data? Have a sense of fairness about debating or don't debate at all. By the way, I sent you an email asking for your data as soon as I read about your offer.>>
Glenn, the 3 a.m. comment isn't the first time I had made the offer to send that link to anyone that wanted it. Geeze, I'm not that impatient. I had made the offer the first time several days previously. And by the way, you are still the only one that has asked for it. And a "sense of fairness" is very important to me whether you can see it or not.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-07-2003 02:40 AM :
http://members.aol.com/sgil46/culpable.htm (just click here for those who wish to see the chart)
Rhonda, I saw the chart that you sent me that attempted to show that as executions in America went up, homicides went down and vice-versa. At first I thought how interesting, but then I took a closer look. The problem is when I looked carefully at the graph that you provided, I saw lots of significant peaks and valleys in homicide rates that didn't correspond to executions.>>
Glenn, It's hard to believe you were looking at the same chart I did. It clearly shows that executions started going down in the 50's and continued to go down until the mid 60's. Homocides started going up in the late 50s, slowly at first then escalating as executions continued to go down.
For heaven' sake Glenn, people aren't reactionary puppets. The change in policy isn't going to have an immediate effect because the characater of most young men, who commit most murders, had already been formed in the 50s especially about something as serious as murder.
But as the rate of executions continued going down, boys at risk, mainly ones without a father in the home, started to develop a more cocky attitude toward toying with the idea of violence and blowing people away. They were developing disrespect for innocent life in their childhood years and it shows up as they entered their teens and early twenties. In other words attitudes about the seriousness of murder are being formed in our youth and one of the ways it is formed is the punishment the state imposes on the crime.
One of the ways our society says how serious it thinks a crime is is the punishment it dishes out for the commission of the crime. When a society says that first-degree murder isn't any more horrible than other crimes where people spend many years in prison, then attitudes toward innocent life begin to change and the idea that you can get away with it begins to develop in the minds of boys and young men at risk.
Glenn, I don't think you are a very honest man. You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe while ignoring a clear and dramatic correlation between the rate of executions going down followed by the murder rate going up and vice versa. Notice the change to more murder following fewer executions happened over several years but the correlation when it went the other way happened much more quickly.
As far as your other statistics, I'll have to do a little more research on that and get back to you.
Pending.....
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-07-2003 03:00 AM :
My how interesting the non-judgemental become so judgemental about a conservative President>>
Isn't it the truth Sophie? Liberals aren't consistent but after all, they are compassionate so no matter how mean-spirited they become toward sensible conservatives it's justified because it's okay to be mean when you are compassionate.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 05-07-2003 03:09 AM :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rhonda:
Rhonda, You've got to be kidding me. You post at 3 in the morning and at 8 in that same morning you're complaining that nobody is interested in your data? Have a sense of fairness about debating or don't debate at all. By the way, I sent you an email asking for your data as soon as I read about your offer.>>
Glenn, the 3 a.m. comment isn't the first time I had made the offer to send that link to anyone that wanted it. Geeze, I'm not that impatient. I had made the offer the first time several days previously. And by the way, you are still the only one that has asked for it. And a "sense of fairness" is very important to me whether you can see it or not.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In that case, I apologize.
[ May 07, 2003, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Glenn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 05-07-2003 03:43 AM :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Rhonda:
http://members.aol.com/sgil46/culpable.htm (just click here for those who wish to see the chart)
Glenn, I don't think you are a very honest man. You see what you want to see and believe what you want to believe while ignoring a clear and dramatic correlation between the rate of executions going down followed by the murder rate going up and vice versa.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that's just uncalled for. Didn't you just give a lecture on the immorality of attacking the person? Weren't you just pontifficating on how it's the liberals who like to attack the person and not the argument? Well you just attacked me Rhonda and I don't appreciate it. Saying I'm not an honest man is a serious charge. I broke the graph down piece by piece so you have ample opportunity to show me one sentence that I said from that post that is untrue. Show me specifically where I was dishonest or apologize. To say I'm wrong is one thing but to say I'm dishonest is pretty low.
[ May 07, 2003, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Glenn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-07-2003 04:45 AM :
I would like to apologise for implying that Glenn is a second-hand car salesman - it was an unwarranted slur on that trade.
I was heartened by Ricks comments on Bush and John Wayne,albeit surprised, as their 'shoot em up,hang em high' philosophy seems to be totally at odds with his anti death penalty position.Square that circle my boy!
Lonelyguide is a smooth operator but sometimes the mask slips and his anti Bush persona is revealed.The fact that he cites European antipathy to Bush further exposes him.A man should be honoured to have such detractors - especially when they are from that strange values- free netherworld known as Euroland.
[ May 07, 2003, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: nick ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-07-2003 05:16 AM :
Feb. 26, 2003
In Defense of the Cowboy
By Andrew Bernstein
Those who oppose war with Iraq—from foreign heads of state to homegrown antiwar protesters—employ a common expression of contempt for the American war effort. America, they sneer, is acting like a "cowboy."
A mock interview with Saddam Hussein conducted by a European intellectual is written to show, in one news report's summary, "what out-of-control cowboys the Americans are." A recent New York Times article explains that to some Europeans the "major problem is Bush the cowboy." U.S. Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut agrees, stating that America must not "act like a unilateral cowboy."
These smears imply that the heyday of the cowboy in the Old West was a lawless period when trigger-happy gunmen shot it out with reckless abandon and brute force reigned.
But to most Americans, the cowboy is not a villain but a hero. What we honor about the cowboy of the Old West is his willingness to stand up to evil and to do it alone, if necessary. The cowboy is a symbol of the crucial virtues of courage and independence.
The original cowboys were hard-working ranchers and settlers who tamed a vast wilderness. In the process, they had to contend with violent outlaws as well as warlike Indian tribes. The honest men on the frontier did not wring their hands in fear, uncertainty and moral paralysis; they stood up to evil men and defeated them.
The Texas Rangers—a small band of lawmen who patrolled a vast frontier—best exemplified the cowboy code. Whether they fought American outlaws, Mexican bandits or marauding Comanches, they were generally outnumbered, sometimes by as much as fifty to one. It was said of them: "They were men who could not be stampeded." For example, when Ranger officer John B. Armstrong boarded a train in pursuit of the infamous murderer John Wesley Hardin, he was confronted by five desperadoes. Armstrong took them on single-handed, killing one and capturing Hardin. In describing their independence and courage, Ranger captain Bob Crowder said: "A Ranger is an officer who is able to handle any situation without definite instructions from his commanding officer or higher authority."
The real-life courage of such heroes has been properly memorialized and glorified in countless fictional works. The Lone Ranger television show, Jack Schaefer's classic novel, Shane, and dozens of John Wayne movies, among others, have captured the essence of the Western hero's character: his unshakeable moral confidence in the face of evil. It is this vision of the cowboy, not the European slander, that Americans find inspiring. That's why, when President Bush said of Osama bin Laden, "Wanted: Dead or Alive," most Americans cheered.
The only valid criticism of President Bush, in this context, is that he is not true enough to the heritage of the Lone Star State. When the Texas Rangers went after a bank robber or rustler, they didn't wait to ask the permission of his fellow gang members. Yet Bush is asking permission from a U.N. Security Council that includes Syria, one of the world's most active sponsors of terrorism.
Today the terrorists responsible for blowing up our cities are far more evil than the bandits and gunmen faced by the heroes of the Old West. To defeat them, we will require all the more the cowboy's virtues of independence and moral courage.
Even as our European critics use the "cowboy" image as a symbol of reckless irresponsibility, they implicitly reveal the real virtues they are attacking. European leaders assail Americans because our "language is far too blunt" and because we see the struggle between Western Civilization and Islamic fanaticism in "black-and-white certainties." They whine about our "Texas attitude" and whimper that "an American president who makes up his mind and then will accept no argument" is a greater danger than murderous dictators. In short, they object to America's willingness to face the facts, to make moral judgments, to act independently, and to battle evil with unflinching courage.
These European critics are worse than the timid shopkeeper in an old Hollywood Western. They don't merely want to avoid confronting evil—they seek to prevent anyone else from recognizing evil and standing up to it.
Texas Ranger captain Bill McDonald reputedly stated: "No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that is in the right and keeps on a-comin'." If America fully embraces this cowboy wisdom and courage, then the Islamic terrorists and the regimes that support them had better run for cover. They stand no chance in the resulting showdown.
Andrew Bernstein, Ph.D. in philosophy, is a senior writer for the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute (www.aynrand.org/medialink) promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Jonn (Member # 309) on 05-07-2003 08:41 AM :
Thanks for sharing the article, Nick.
Ever since I was little boy I used to love westerns (&Zorro&Batman), where the good guy stood up against evil regardless of what the consequences might be.
Who in his right mind would care to identify himself with the timid shopkeeper, and not with the courageous hero? Yet if I look at Europe now where people have been basking in welfare and stick their heads in the sand just to hang on to their illusion of security, the shopkeeper’s mentality seems to prevail. Peace by giving in is no peace, it merely emboldens the aggressor.
Just for the record, not all Dutchies are against Bush, I personally like the man and the way he has handled tough issues so far, and there are many more people who feel the same way as I do.
I am very surprised about Tony Blair, I NEVER thought he would support Bush and support him in his decision, yet he did and he faced the criticisms thrown at him courageously.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-07-2003 08:44 AM :
Nick, Thank you for the addition to the cowboy theme.
Two observations if I may Nick.
First, I am not sure why you always seem to have an acerbic remark on the tip of your tongue and find the need to express it. I can not see what heavenly purpose these remarks serve. They seem particularly biting towards Glenn for some reason. I wonder why?
Second, I have been most impressed from the beginning with your love and defense of America, The Constitution and our President given your UK status. It proves that the truest ideals of America are universal. Thank you and God bless you for that.
-Rick
[ May 07, 2003, 05:48 AM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-07-2003 12:16 PM :
Hi Sophie, Rick and Nick,
Thank you for responding. I just hopped in to let you know that my schedule is making it impossible for me to react as promptly to your posts as I should have liked to. I will, however, respond to each of you as and when I will have the time to do that properly.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-08-2003 08:50 PM :
There are people here and the world over who love what America stands for at the core, her basic principles of life, liberty, freedom of worship, freedom of association etc. America at her best is a light, is that shining city on a hill and the last best hope of mankind as was once said. George Bush knows this and is determined to preserve all that is good in her and we support and love him for it. Now you may call us hypnotized fools if you wish but there is something about we Americans who love George Bush that knows instinctively that there is a direct yet unspoken and unmistakeable link between him and the divinely inspired founders of this great land. That is why he is so loved and paradoxically why he is so hated.>>
Rick,
I agree with Sophie. Truly beautifully said.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-08-2003 09:24 PM :
Thank you Rhonda.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-08-2003 10:33 PM :
Now that's just uncalled for. Didn't you just give a lecture on the immorality of attacking the person? Weren't you just pontifficating on how it's the liberals who like to attack the person and not the argument? Well you just attacked me Rhonda and I don't appreciate it. Saying I'm not an honest man is a serious charge.>>
Yes it is very serious. I hate dishonesty. Okay Glenn, I should have put it this way. It appears to me you are being dishonest and not wanting to see things as they are but instead are reading into clear evidence for deterrance what you want to see and believe instead of what is in front of your eyes.
But I can't discuss more about it now. I have to go to bed soon so I can get up at 2 a.m. for work.
But hey guys and gals, how bout that chat room that's coming soon. We'll be able to insult each other and apologize for it even faster.
Regards,
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 05-08-2003 11:49 PM :
Rhonda, with all due respect, I asked you to show me one sentence from that post where you had the nerve to say I was dishonest and you failed to do so. That is so unethical for you to do that. Can you imagine being accused of something then when you ask for justification, the person doing the accusing just runs off? I noticed when you quoted me you conveniently left off the part where I challenged you to name one thing I said in that post that was untrue. I broke that graph down piece by piece in descriptive fashion, so you had ample opportunity to do so. Rhonda, you couldn't demonstrate one thing I said that was supposedly dishonest before you had to go to bed? Unreal! If you hate dishonesty as much as you say you do, then show me one thing I said that was dishonest in that post. I posted the graph for all to see and everything I wrote about that graph was accurate. I cannot for the life of me imagine accusing someone of being dishonest, being called on it and then not being willing to back it up. You should be ashamed of yourself.
[ May 08, 2003, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Glenn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Sophie (Member # 195) on 05-09-2003 03:00 AM :
Rhonda,
Glenn did a whole lot of naming calling himself in the Sen.Santorum thread against lots of people on this board and then turned around and took the "victim" role. I believe you know the truth.
Peace Rhonda,
Sophie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Jonn (Member # 309) on 05-09-2003 06:47 AM :
Glenn, the thread on legalizing homosexuality clearly shows you resorting to namecalling, intimidation, looking down on others, denial, distorting logic when it is staring in your face, you really tried out the whole box of tricks on me and others. You even went as far as deliberately twisting my logic just to get your own right, and then trying to confuse me like some resentful woman and accuse ME of fuzzy math, just to get your way. In the end I tried to resolve the issue gracefully, yet your response clearly shows who you are at this moment.
So please, don’t hang out the innocent victim here, YOU are the one who tried to turn others into victims by attempting to control them through possible resentment you tried to cause in their hearts with your at times very crude comments, YOU are the one who should be ashamed for not debating honestly, you resort to tricks and tactics, and afterwards you deny it. And when your tactics failed, you tried to raise sympathy by assuming the victim role yourself and depicting the other members as the demons, 'THE SIN GESTAPO who ganged up on you'. What you are trying to do here is such an outrage.
I remember in your posts to Barry you accused him of the same tactics you have used, perhaps Barry IS partly right, and some members HAVE been hypnotized into accepting a false notion about themselves. However, where he continues to point the accusing finger at Roy’s meditation exercise, I point it at the motive of a person using his method for learning to be silent.
The proof for what I said in this post can be found in the thread about homosexuality, it is there for everyone to read, if it was your aim to lose credibility as a debater, you have been succesful beyond your wildest dreams. How good you are as a debater does not depend on the number of times you got your right, but it lies in the style of debating. This style also determines whether or not you are taken seriously, and whether or not it is a pleasure to debate with you.
So please stop pointing your finger at everyone but yourself, what you need is a refreshing good look in the mirror.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-09-2003 10:22 AM :
From the Poem of the Man God
A Repentant Sinner is Always Forgiven
(a partial excerpt)
Jesus, Who is about ten metres ahead of them, turns round, a white shadow in the night, and He says: "There is no limit to love and forgiveness. There is none. Neither in God nor in the true children of God. As long as there is life, there is no limit.
The only obstacle to the descent of forgiveness and love is the impenitent resistance of the sinner. But if he repents, he is always to be forgiven, even if he sinned not once, twice or three times a day, but much more frequently.
You also sin and you want to be forgiven by God and you go to Him saying: "I have sinned Forgive me". And forgiveness is pleasant to you and it is pleasant to God to forgive. And you are not gods. Consequently the offence given to you by people like yourselves is less grave than that giver to God, Who is not like anybody else. Do you not think so? And yet God forgives.
Do likewise yourselves. Be careful! Watch that your intolerance does not become detrimental to you by causing God to be intolerant towards you. I have already told you, but I will repeat it once again. Be merciful in order to have mercy. No one is so sinless as to be inexorable towards a sinner. Look at your own burdens before considering those weighing on the hearts of other people. Remove yours from your souls and then turn to those of other people to show them not the severity that condemns, but the love that teaches and helps to be freed from evil.
In order to be able to say - and not be silenced by a sinner - in order to be able to say: "You have sinned against God and against your neighbour" it is necessary not to have sinned or at least to have made amends for the sin.
In order to be able to say to those who are dejected because they have sinned: "Have faith that God forgive: those who repent" - as servants of God Who forgives repentant souls - you must show so much mercy in forgiving. Then you Will be able to say: "See, repentant sinner? I forgive your sins seven and seven times, because I am a servant of Him Who forgives countless times those who repent of their sins as many times.
Consider then how the Perfect One forgives, if I know how to forgive simply because I serve Him. Have faith!". You must be able to say so, and say so with your deeds, not just with words. You must say so forgiving. So if your brother sins, admonish him kindly, and if he repents, forgive him. And if at the end of the day he has sinned seven times and says to you seven times: "I repent", forgive him seven times.
Have you understood? Will you promise Me that you will do that?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 05-09-2003 12:18 PM :
Here come the obfuscation attempts by the 'you don't have to be held accountable for your accusations' hit squad. You want to say that I called someone a name and that's relevant because??? Let's be clear. In the post about her chart, Rhonda has accused me of dishonesty, a serious charge by her own admission. But when asked to back that up, she went running for the hills. To make matters worse, instead of her cronies demanding for the sake of fairness that she does back up her accusation, you tell the accused he's 'playing victim'. Now that's just wrong.
[ May 09, 2003, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Glenn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Desmond (Member # 182) on 05-09-2003 01:37 PM :
The Death Penality is for those who in our society who will act with the social norm when it come to taking a life.When we have other people that will not fight anyone and will call the police or even check them into a hospital be it mental or other wise. but we head Roy Masters say that when you kill someone part of that person itself enters(hope i am saying it right)and you might even get a high of murder.then when someone has take someone else life. The court system will in most cases will render a sentence of death.But if we will not punish these people what Will not stop the law is clearly not for the good it is for the bad.Have you ever hear of a good person killing someone.Sometimes we must understand that evil poeple donn't mine dying for something or killing a person out of this rage when we understand the relm of hell is real they donn't care so why should we care for them. They will just kill again.Oh have a person that rapes do it one time or a theif does he steal once. It has something exciting that drive you to do it over and ove agian.When you are sick or a psychopath you donot understand that these things are not to be done but you get excited over sin of doing these things and so we must pay like the Bible say an eye for an eye.Taking a life is very serious but bring a life into this world any two fools can do it.So one must understand that these victums have their throat cut,arm cut ,wemen even have their pravit part cut and some of them have eaten some of the victums.Who want to be around people like that,but their are some wemen will defend these low lifes to death like they are so right then they kill them or even worse burry them alive what we are dealing with here is real EVIL.One can say that an evil female looks for her mate like the black widow spaider to eat him alive.So what we have is two people one a female and the other is a feman(half man and half woman)Raise up by his mother because when he was young she put her will into him he never will understand this side of himself all he understand is that women she has control of him in somekind of way and he needs her if she will not support his short comming he will it turns become a full female.See the danger from this angle and there are hundreds more explain but all came from dear old mom (Happy Mothers DAY)!!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-09-2003 01:57 PM :
God Bless you Desmond :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-09-2003 02:02 PM :
From the Poem of the God Man
The Sermon of the Mount.
The Beatitudes (Part 2)
(a partial excerpt)
It is the same place and the same time. The crowd is larger. In a corner, near a path, there is a Roman, who seems anxious to hear but does not want to upset the crowd. I recognise him from his short tunic and the different style of his mantle. Stephen and Hermas are still there.
Jesus walks slowly to His place and resumes speaking...
[...] "Be generous towards those, who, being more honest, ask you for what they need, instead of robbing you. If the rich were really poor in spirit, as I explained yesterday, there would be no painful social inequalities, the cause of so many human and superhuman calamities. Always consider: "If I were in need, how would I feel if I were denied help?" and act according to the reply of your ego. Do to others what you would like done to yourself and do not do to others what you would not like done to yourself.
The old saying: "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth", which is not one of the ten commandments, but was added because man, devoid of Grace, is such a beast that he only understands vengeance, the old saying has been cancelled. It has indeed been cancelled by the new word: "Love him who hates you, pray for him who persecutes you, justify him who slanders you, bless him who curses you, help the one who harms you, be pacific with quarrelsome people, be compliant with bothersome persons, willingly help those who have recourse to you without practising usury, do not criticise, do not judge".
You do not know the particular reason for men's actions. Be generous and merciful in all kinds of assistance. The more you give the more you will be given and a full pressed down measure will be poured by God on to the lap of him who has been generous.
God will not give you only according to what you have given, but He will give you much more. Endeavour to love and be loved. Quarrels are more costly than friendly settlements and a good grace is like honey, the flavour of which lasts for a long time on one's tongue."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Desmond (Member # 182) on 05-09-2003 04:09 PM :
Rick Hearst,
You must understand that we have evil people here and they will not change Roy Masters bOOK ARE IN PRISON AND THE PEOPLE THAT I AM TALKING ABOUT WILL NOT GIVE THE FIRST RESPECT AND WILL GIVE YOU THE BOOK AND KILL YOU THE DEATH PENALTY IS GOOD FOR THOSE WHO KILL FOR SPORT NO ONE CAN OR SHOULD WHOLD AN EVIL PERSON UP TO ANY GOOD DEED THEY WILL PAY FOR DOING THAT AND I MEAN PAY.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Desmond (Member # 182) on 05-09-2003 04:10 PM :
Rick Hearst,
Peoms and other quotation are great but to the evil at heart you must be brave those people that kill for the sport of it and arrive in a death cell so evil they have to be handcuff or they will kill each. Not matter how much you speak those words of someone eles they still and will kill agian. And i believe in Jesus Christ and also i live there and found Roy Masters and came out a almost whole person.Evil is no play thing it will kill you using the people as a buffer for there false rightousness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 05-09-2003 07:15 PM :
Desmond, you are right on! Too many of those bad guys are being let rught back out on the street,, they think nothing of shooting a child that gets in their way..I am talking about the guys you describe, not someone who "lost it " one time in their life and is forever sorry..but there is evil out there and they have a lot of support from the system as it makes money for the system to keep them alive and "rehabilitated"..but they need repentance n ot rehabilitation, thanks, Desmond. Doreen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-09-2003 07:52 PM :
You also sin and you want to be forgiven by God and you go to Him saying: "I have sinned Forgive me". And forgiveness is pleasant to you and it is pleasant to God to forgive. And you are not gods. Consequently the offence given to you by people like yourselves is less grave than that giver to God, Who is not like anybody else. Do you not think so? And yet God forgives.>>
Rick, yes God forgives and we should also forgive people who wrong us when they are repentant. But murder is an unforgivable sin as far as humans are concerned because the person he wronged is dead and can't forgive him. He can't do much of anything unless you know something about dead people that I don't know. For you and me to take it upon ourselves to forgive someone who wronged another is truly playing God. We have no obligation or even right to do so. God might forgive a repentant murderer who by the way is much more likely to be humble and repentant if he is facing his own death. But we cannot.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-09-2003 07:57 PM :
Glenn did a whole lot of naming calling himself in the Sen.Santorum thread against lots of people on this board and then turned around and took the "victim" role. I believe you know the truth.>>
Thank you Sophie and also John.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-09-2003 07:57 PM :
Glenn did a whole lot of naming calling himself in the Sen.Santorum thread against lots of people on this board and then turned around and took the "victim" role. I believe you know the truth.>>
Thank you Sophie and also John.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-09-2003 08:06 PM :
I would like to apologise for implying that Glenn is a second-hand car salesman - it was an unwarranted slur on that trade.>>
LOL, at least you aren't letting him intimidate you.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-09-2003 08:29 PM :
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here come the obfuscation attempts by the 'you don't have to be held accountable for your accusations' hit squad. You want to say that I called someone a name and that's relevant because??? Let's be clear. In the post about her chart, Rhonda has accused me of dishonesty, a serious charge by her own admission. But when asked to back that up, she went running for the hills. To make matters worse, instead of her cronies demanding for the sake of fairness that she does back up her accusation, you tell the accused he's 'playing victim'. Now that's just wrong.>>
Glenn,
First you are not being very gracious about this. You try getting up at 2:00 in the morning and see if you take the time to respond with any more details than I did. At least I took the time to modify my comments before I went to bed.
But now that I have more time, I think I see what the problem is and why I thought you were dishonest. You obviousoly weren't looking at the whole chart. Look at the right-hand side of it. The right hand side shows the numbers for executions and the left-hand side shows the murders. When you talked about 2600 executions I thought you were either lieing or trying to distort and confuse everyone because even if you had read the wrong axis, the number would have been 26,000 not 2600. And anyone who knows anything about capital punishment knows we never executed anywhere near even 2600 in a single year. The chart clearly shows that the number of executions never exeeded 105 and that was when executions peaked in 1952. But as executions declined and lowered to zero, murders began to skyrocket. Let those with eyes see.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 05-09-2003 09:40 PM :
Rhonda, I said the blue line goes past 2600. Yes that should have been 26000. I left off a zero and called it 2600. That's what you base calling me dishonest about? You're kidding right? Leaving off a zero on one of the numbers I was referring to was obviously a typo and not a sign of dishonesty and you know it. Not only that but 26,000 makes my argument even that much stronger so I don't think that's what you were referring to when you called me dishonest. If that's the best you can come up with to attack my integrity, then you're truly grasping at straws. Typo aside, do you see anything that I said that you disagree with?
[ May 09, 2003, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Glenn ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-09-2003 10:13 PM :
Rhonda said: But murder is an unforgivable sin as far as humans are concerned because the person he wronged is dead and can't forgive him.
Rhonda,
A good person forgives every trespass. It can not be otherwise. A "Good person" and "unforgiveness" are polar opposites and can not coexist. Any good person murdered would have forgiven if they could and very well might have on the way out of this world and will have from heaven for sure. If some poor soul was murdering me I would want him to know that I held no hate for him as Jesus taught us and with my dying breath I would hope to let him know that. What other purpose do we have but to demonstrate love in this world? I would want my last act to be an act of love against such a sinner. God willing I would be as Christ until the end. I would say "I forgive you son for you know not what you do".
...As a survivor I can choose to forgive someone who murdered my wife, daughter, son or other family member. Because I continue to live I can choose vengence or forgiveness along with the justice I would seek. It is a choice.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-10-2003 12:17 PM :
Hi Rick, Sophie, Nick (and others),
In my post of 07 May, 2003 (09:16) I promised that I would respond to some of your posts re "European opinions of president Bush" once my schedule would permit me to do so and so – even though politics don’t interest me all that much - I’m back here to keep that promise.
Let me start with you post of 06 May, 2003 (17:21), Rick, because responding to that post will also reply to much that the others have said.
For starters I should like to say that I, as an outsider – a European – don’t have a real stake in any of this. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican and thus (objectivity equals looking inside from the outside) my words probably constitute a rather rare opportunity for each of you to read a fairly impartial opinion. I don’t evaluate Mr. Bush’s comportment on the basis of whether he is a Democrat or a Republican or on the basis of his words, but purely on the basis of his comportment ... of his deeds.
Thus I will not base myself on the manner in which he has been made to look ridiculous in countless photos and articles that I’ve read about him, but will simply mention three reasons why Mr. Bush doesn’t inspire me with confidence and why, in fact, I mistrust him:
Environment:
Roughly at the time that Mr Bush came into office the mood in the world was changing. People were beginning to see that we really couldn’t continue abusing our environment in the way that we were and there finally was consensus amongst politicians of by far the majority of the world’s nations. Some of Mr. Bush’s first activities in the international political arena have shown him vetoing decisions at conventions where practically all other nations of the world were ready to agree to finally take the kind of measures that were needed. Mr. Bush turned the clock of history back some thirty years. To grasp the importance of this, you should understand that the very moment that we human beings pronounce the word environment, we’re already setting ourselves up for a huge misconception. The thing is that pronoucing the word "environment" makes us see ourselves as separate from the environment and herein lies the big error. All of us are part of the environment to an extent that we – in our often artificial daily environments – are hardly aware of and in abusing the environment, we abuse both ourselves, our offspring and their offspring and all generations to come. Mr. Bush really blew it then. Everyone who has our environment at heart as well as the complete international political community regarded Mr. Bush as a pariah.
International Justice,
You may know that there is an International Court of Justice in The Hague (The Netherlands) and that this Court of Justice is and has for many years, in fact, been the successor of Nürnberg where the Nazi war criminals were tried. Recently we have seen former president Milosevic of Yugoslavia being tried there along with many other mass/war criminals. The International Court of Justice is a kind of affiliate of the UN in the sense that it is sponsored by the international community in a very similar manner as the UN. It is the venue where all international crimes are addressed.
Briefly before the campaign against Iraq began, Mr. Bush proposed a bill that would make it possible for US armed forces to attack The Netherlands and remove any US citizen who would have to stand trial at the International Court of Justice for war crimes. Perhaps you can imagine that this didn’t sit too well with those of the world’s population who believe in justice and those who feel that nobody should be above or excluded from justice. If you also know that The Netherlands is one of the world’s oldest democracies, that it is the first (or the second, I’m not sure) country that has recognised the independence of USA, that it is a Nato member and also a member of the European Union, you will understand that Mr. Bush really blew it then. Everyone who is concerned with justice, with the persecution of war crimes regarded Mr. Bush as a pariah. Many Europeans from that moment on weren’t too charmed with Mr. Bush and many inhabitants of The Netherlands, always a loyal ally of the USA, reviewed their positions.
Here is a hyper-link that explains some more:
CNN: ... "U.S. defiant on International War Crimes Court"
And here's another one:
CNN: ... "U.N. raps U.S. for shunning International Court of Justice"
Perhaps you will also understand that all of this placed Mr. Bush’s intentions as regards Iraq in a very questionable daylight and that many were wondering which extreme measures he might have in mind.
Oil Currency
I will try to keep this as simple as possible and not make an essay of economics of this, but I will try, without going into too many details, to explain something that may shed a different light on the reasons why the campaign against Iraq was launched.
The United States have had trade deficits during most years ever since 1975. In recent years that trade deficit has increased to beyond 300 billion dollars per annum. The accumulated debt of the USA within this context now equals roughly between 30% up to 40% of your Gross National Product (the value of everything that your nation produces on an annual basis). In other words … you might say that last year the average American indebted himself vis à vis the remaining population of the globe to the tune of 1,200 dollars and that the average American now has an accumulated debt to the remaining population of the globe that is somewhere between ten up to twenty times that amount.
Now you will understand that when you have a debt, you will have to pay interests to the bank who has loaned you the money. When a nation has a debt it can also pay interests or print more money and then usually see the value of its currency deteriorate.
Recently one large oil supplying nation decided to stop requesting payment in dollars for its oil and requested to be paid in Euros. It did rather well out off that decision and many other oil producing countries were seeing how well it was doing because of that decision. Without going into too many details … if all oil producing countries were to do the same, the USA would suddenly have a huge problem. Why? Because its foreign debt is partly in Dollars and partly in other currencies. If suddenly the value of the Euro were to increase vis à vis the Dollar, the trade balance of the USA would even look worse than it looks now. Since that would, in turn, weaken the Dollar further, the suppliers of many other raw materials and commodities would no doubt start requesting payment for their goods in Euros rather than in Dollars as well and that, my friends, would weaken the Dollar even more. Great for the exporting companies in the USA, because they would be way more competitive, but in a rather more direct sense terrible with regard to your indebtedness to the rest of the world.
Now the thing is that right now your accumulated debt is around 10 trillion Dollars and that only part of that is in different currencies. But what would happen if those ten trillion Dollars were all Euros and if the value of the Euro would suddenly increase by say 20%? Right …. all of a sudden your ten trillion Dollars debt would become a twelve trillion Dollar debt. Ergo a loss of two trillions Dollars.
Now if you also know that the oil producing company in question was …. precisely …. Iraq (!) and that the Dollar did decrease in value vis à vis the Euro with somewhere around 20% during the past twelve months, you will understand that I have just described a scenario that could well explain why Mr. Bush didn’t mind spending a few billion Dollars on Iraq and also why many people throughout the world now feel that the whole Iraq campaign was a game where the stakes were potentially a couple of hundred thousand deaths on the one hand and the gain of a cool two trillion Dollar on the other hand. Add this up to Mr. Bush’s activities as regards the International Court of Justice and Mr. Bush has Al Capone looking as innocent as Betty Boop.
Seen in the light of what I have explained in this post, you may understand why most of the rest of the world and history will have a different view of Mr. Bush than those who haven’t heard and/or considered these arguments and why for me what Doreen Virtue has channelled sounds like it is spot-on.
Love,
LG
PS:
You can by the way check everything that I am saying here. Let me mention a couple of hyper-links where you can find all the information from which you can piece it all together:
The Dollar Policy
Publications on Federal Data
Current Account Trends
The trade deficit - Trading away our future.
[ May 10, 2003, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Lonelyguide ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-10-2003 12:42 PM :
Hi Nick,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nick:
Lonelyguide is a smooth operator but sometimes the mask slips and his anti Bush persona is revealed.The fact that he cites European antipathy to Bush further exposes him. A man should be honoured to have such detractors - especially when they are from that strange values - free netherworld known as Euroland.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"smooth operator"
"mask"
"the mask slips"
"anti Bush persona"
"revealed"
"exposes him"
"strange values"
"netherworld"
It would be soooO easy to do a psychological profile of people using this kind of language instead of arguments and to describe the kind of mind that would permit itself to go to lengths like these to use destructive innuendo of this kind in unscrupulous attempts to assassinate the character of others just for the sake of winning an argument, that I will entirely leave it to your imagination what I could have written here had I been the sort of person who would have stooped to reply with rhetoric of a similar calibre.
Taken into account some of the words that I've also seen you use in this forum within the context of several other members, Nick, do permit me to suggest that you take a close look at the text of the house rules of this forum and to tell you that you are in need of help. Please understand that these words are not spoken in judgement, but in compassion.
Here, let me help you by mentioning one sentence of those house rules:
"We ask that you maintain a degree of respect for all those who use this discussion board and refrain from using profanity or discriminating remarks that may offend others".
Thus, for as long as you will still be in the state of mind that permits you to write things like these, I advise you to hold on to each of your posts for 24 hours at least before praying and asking for guidance before re-reading them and actually posting them, for you are hurting your soul more than you can possibly imagine.
Bless you,
LG
[ May 10, 2003, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Lonelyguide ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 05-10-2003 01:30 PM :
Nck was expressing what he sees, should he put it under a basket or get it out of his system to learn from.
It is obvious all have something to learn here and they will if the ego does not take offense so easily.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-10-2003 01:45 PM :
Dear Louise,
How unlike you to write a post that doesn't address anyone in particular but that does seem to to have been written to express something that you consider to be relevant. Could you, just so that we know who your post is addressing, please elucidate what it is that you wish to impart .
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Desmond (Member # 182) on 05-10-2003 01:45 PM :
Rick Hurst,
Mind control ,Brainwashing is not good we must become conscious of our troubles with those who hold that control.Let some of Roys' Aposles help just hang in there and you will be conscious. And understand more about Brainwashing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-10-2003 01:59 PM :
For a transcendent being LG you sure have a good line in condescension!I did not know for a fact that you were EUropean but I guess I had your number and it does become clearer now why you are anti Bush.
Most of us in the UK regard europeans as the neighbours from hell and sorry if you dont like the robust language.We certainly do not require any lectures from them about freedom,economics or anything else come to that.
Surely being the spiritually advanced person you claim to be should a few choice words by me require you to resort to legalism and pique?
OK I may be too caustic and acerbic etc.I actually find you one of the most interesting folk on here and have read Krishnamurti etc ,so lets not get too prissy.
Maybe it is a cultural thing.If you listen to Roy you will hear him use a lot of colourfull epithets that may be a tad offensiive to your more refined rarefied ears.Europeans do tend to have a superiority complex regarding Bush,born I would venture out of an actual inferiority complex.Personally I prefer the honesty of Bush to the amoral cynicism of the europeans and their corrupt political systems.You can keep the EU and Hague and international court,I would rather the UK became the 51st state of America.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 05-10-2003 04:16 PM :
LG
My unadressed post above was addressed to the post just above it.
I often do not address in that manner.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-10-2003 04:39 PM :
Jeepers Creepers, are the hornets stirred up in here or what?
Anyway, LG, Thanks for the response. I would like to discuss further with you some of the issues you've raised. Specifically the first two and after I have digested the economic issues you've raised (and left links for), we can discuss that one later down the road, if thats OK with you.
For the Kyoto Treaty and the International Criminal Court I have posted below the "Official US Government Positions". After you've had a chance to check them out (at your convience) I would love to hear your comments.
-Rick
KYOTO TREATY POSITION
ICC TREATY POSITION
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-10-2003 04:41 PM :
Hello Desmond, Do you think I am doing the brainwashing or being brain washed? -Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-10-2003 05:22 PM :
Hi Nick,
If you really knew me, Nick, you would know that condescension is something that I have no need for. There were days when, notwithstanding who I already was by then, I may still have had some remnants of insecurity in me that might have induced me to resort to rhetorics such as yours, but I have left all of that behind me some time ago . Thus, since you don't know me I wonder how you could possibly have my number. Within that context it would be interesting if you were not to delete any of your posts so that you could read them again say one year from now and then, with the eyes of the man who you will by then have become, would re-read some of your present posts. I'm sure that at that time you would see what I see now: a man whose lack of respect for others points to a lack of respect for himself (low self-esteem) and to the kind of insecurity that is usually the result thereof. Ergo, a man who doesn't even have his own number.
What you call robust language is merely what I would refer to as an escape; as a way to avoid having to debate the issues on the issues by creating side-effects and smokescreens that have nothing to do with the issues themselves. Sometimes one can spot these typical shoulder rollers in a crowd; individuals who use these silly techniques so as to avoid having to deal with (the arguments of) others on a basis of equality. That, in my opinion, is what condescension is about, Nick: making use of advantages in an unloving or even unfair manner. Not my cup of tea.
And usually people who say that they don't require lectures often are the ones whose need to learn is the greatest or whose insecurity obliges them to exercise such control over everything that anyone they cannot get a grip on constitutes someone who frightens them into all sorts of agressive comportment. That, Nick, is what control freaks are all about: people whose inferiority complexes often cause their egos to compulsively resort to agressive comportment when they are confronted with authority of any kind.
As for opinions in the UK: I know that there are people in the UK who haven't decided whether they'd rather team up with North America or with Europe. I know that there are also those who'd rather not team up with anyone and I also know that there are British citizens who will opt for the USA and that there are others who will opt for Europe. I have no idea what the population of the UK will eventually choose, but - knowing the British as I have come to know them - I'm pretty sure that chances are that none of us will live to see the day that they will actually really choose (sorry, couldn't help teasing you a little).
Yes, Nick, that is correct. Usually a superiority complex points to an underlying inferiority complex. Both, in fact, point to a psychological imbalance . And actually ... I do hope that I haven't claimed anywhere that I am "spiritually advanced" . The thing is ... anyone claiming something like that wouldn't be very advanced, now would he? No, Nick, I still have a lot to learn but calling myself spiritually advanced is something that you shouldn't expect from me. Could it be, Nick, that this, that for some reason, is one of your own perceptions that you are projecting on me ?
You know, for a little while - just a little while - before I started writing this post, I was playing with the thought of using some of your "robust language" to reply to you just to show you what it would be like if you were at the brunt of some really acerbic language and to give you an impression of what an ugly environment a forum like this can become when we don't respect others and address them from a place of ego rather than from a place of love. I decided against it. I fortunately grew out off that nonsense and know how counter-productive it can be. In the end it is one ego against the other, it only gets nastier and nastier and the topics don't get a fair chance any more. The posters are being addressed and not the posts.
It's a phase, Nick. Just a phase. Believe me, I can see a lot of potential in you and I'm confident that you'll grow out off it.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Sophie (Member # 195) on 05-10-2003 05:24 PM :
LG wrote: For starters I should like to say that I, as an outsider – a European – don’t have a real stake in any of this. I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican and thus (objectivity equals looking inside from the outside) my words probably constitute a rather rare opportunity for each of you to read a fairly impartial opinion. I don’t evaluate Mr. Bush’s comportment on the basis of whether he is a Democrat or a Republican or on the basis of his words, but purely on the basis of his comportment ... of his deeds.
Sophie: LG you seem to have made a pronounced assumption that we who are for Bush must be in the Republican Party and those against him in the Democratic Party. The tone in which you make your comments sound as if you have the ability to be more "objective" (maybe superior) to the rest of us yankees,well all Americans? Yes there exist party hacks yet fyi the Independent Party is the largest growing Party here. Many Americans take the issues item by item. The Independent Party is able to distinguish beyond party lines and look for REALISTIC TRUTH. This is not to say other individuals donot do the same. Americans across the Nation and across Party lines supported Bush's move to come out of the ICJ to maintain America's sovereignity. Is there a crime against doing so? There are individuals across American who donot trust the ICJ. A system can only be as good as the people who constitute that system. We, Americans, are aware of some European attitude toward us as being one that Nick described above, as feeling more sophisticated and superior due to Europe's longer history. As the saying goes, without being offensive....longer (history) isn't necessarily better. Give me a honest down-home cowboy, BUSH, to a linguist superior, cynical European anyday. These comments are not meant as an attack but just simple American honesty
And the proper meditation gives one that looking from the outside perspective, you spoke about....we don't have to actually be outside mileage wise like you.
Sophie
FYI: providing links to CNN commentary on serious issues are laughable to most Americans with common sense and true decency (only the social-leftist in America believe their propaganda tripe) CNN is notorious for taking the side of the enemy. CNN would love it if every American was forced to read Mein Kemp...better yet live it from their perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Sophie (Member # 195) on 05-10-2003 05:30 PM :
Regarding ascerbic language I have known people who use it and it STILL doesn't detract from the Truth in their comments. They are usually highly intelligent individuals. Sometimes lies and evasion needs direct confrontation. I donot buy into all soft and fuzzy spirituality. My opinion.
Sophie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-10-2003 05:38 PM :
Dear Louise,
Yes indeed. I'm not used to see you write posts in such an indirect manner. So the comments were meant for me then?
Really, Louise, you surprise me. Indirectness and allusion in one so short a post. You who always prefer honesty and a straightforward approach!
Louise .... you've seen some of the vitriol at Chopra.com, you've seen some of the stuff that I've been up against in that environment and you know what kind of ammo I carry. Would I, if I were still capable of coming from a place of ego, have addressed Nick in the mild manner that I did?
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-10-2003 05:57 PM :
Dear Rick,
Thank you for providing those hyper-links. I've seen these and similar statements before and I've quickly scanned them again before writing this post. Quite frankly ... I don't really feel like getting into a discussion about them. It is useless. Words and nothing but words. Mind games, propaganda, crowd control. I prefer to look at the facts. The facts are that the world was finally ready to make some changes and the biggest polluter (less than 2% of the world's population producing more than 20% of the world's output of greenhouse gasses) simply vetoes the whole thing right back into the middle ages. Appalling. The ICC is very much the same sort of thing. Rather than having to re-hash all of that, Rick, cannot we simply agree that it isn't strange that the world's population does not respond favourably to a president who is seen doing things like these?
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-10-2003 06:08 PM :
Dear Sophie,
It has been a long and heavy week for me. A particularly good one, but nonetheless a very heavy one and so, since it is past midnight in my time zone, please permit me to postpone replying to your post until another time. One thing I will say though .... the pro peace community has always seen CNN as an extension of the US government. How should I interpret that in the light of what you are saying about CNN?
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Sophie (Member # 195) on 05-10-2003 06:37 PM :
LG
Very understandable considering our time difference. We are for peace also but not peace at any price....there is a difference. Meaning you donot let your evil enemies take advantage of you. Desmond covered it very well in a post above. He has experienced being in an environment with people so evil that he understands you cannot let them advance. Look at the peaceful Tibetans, they have no homeland anymore! I believe there is a point where "peacefulness" is really cowardice.
One of Gandhi's earlier followers said he confronted Gandhi on his "so-called peace movement, non-violence." The young man at that time realized there was no "truly" non-violent movement. He saw things always ended in violence. Confronting Gandhi with his realization,after experiencing people being attacked and beaten on both sides, Gandhi asked that young man to leave his meeting....LOL...so much for Gandhi's tolerance.
Story told in the words of this Indian man at www.fatima.org radio archive,under "Message of Fatima", speaker Victor Kulanday, #208.
Sophie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 05-10-2003 07:12 PM :
Dear Lg
Do you really want me to answer you more directly?
I don't see where it does any good as all you do is defend yourself, making all intellectual explanations fail to be quie long enough to hear what others are saying to you.
You evade the issue of what others say to you by talking of what a nice guy you are if they knew you better they would think differently. You are a nice guy, but please don't use it as an excuse by evading the issues.
Your mind is closed to things that do not sit right with you and you could be very wrong in settling with what seems right to you. There is something in all of us that evades the truth whether you realize that fact or not.
I have come to the point of seeing you make excuses and justifications when people are honest with you and that directness seems a waste at this point.
May I ask you why you have no desire to listen to Roy's live program and call in and talk to him? What do you fear?
You read and listen to Deepak, a false teacher, are you attracted to his teachings?
Is this direct enough for you?
Louise
[ May 10, 2003, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: louise ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 05-10-2003 07:53 PM :
Good posts, Rick..Al Gore and Hilary's Kyoto just went out the window there, not too many more midnight swiss bank trips for her..a few "Earth in the Balance " books left at the dollar store..for him..:)I do not miss the former president or her husband, and to the former vice president, I am forever gratefull he is just that!
Mexico has been dealing some of that "justice" for awhile now, to the point where it is "dead men tell no tales", the ICC is wise in their own eyes only and need some Texas accountability as long as they are dishing it out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-10-2003 07:58 PM :
...As a survivor I can choose to forgive someone who murdered my wife, daughter, son or other family member. Because I continue to live I can choose vengence or forgiveness along with the justice I would seek. It is a choice.>>
Rick, if your wife and child were murdered you would certainly be one of the victims of the crime and if it would give you more peace to forgive a murderer for the loss he inflicted on YOU by taking your wife and child permanently away from you then you are certainly free to do so. But you CANNOT forgive the murderer for what he did to your wife for her sake. Only she can do that.
You say any good person would forgive and you assume your wife would be that good. Only God can look into the human heart and only He would know if your wife wants to forgive the murderer or not. We are not required to forgive someone who is unrepentant. We are required not to return evil for evil but justice is not evil. The justice system is something God has given us. And he's the one that said to Noah, from whom we have all descended, that if a man sheds man's blood, by man must his blood be shed."
God learned when Cain killed Able that the law he placed in their hearts not to murder wasn't enough but that man also needed an outside law to support the law he had already put in their heart.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-10-2003 09:53 PM :
Hello LG,
In my post to you on 5-6 I said "I think you under-estimate the love many have for this President. His words and actions resonate with far more people and more deeply than you realize and not just in America."
What happened above is an example of how my statement is so. How?
Well, remember the anger Jesus displayed when His Fathers house was being abused. A similar kind of anger came out at you in defense of a father (of the country) many here love because you seemed to be dismissive and distainful of him. Imagine a large family with a noble father as the head who loved his family with common sense, fairness, virtue and gave his children good gifts. Imagine what would happen if a stranger came into that home and belittled a father so beloved. The family would rush to his defense and throw the stranger out. Like Jesus did in His Fathers house.
I said earlier that the real America is not well understood. The America of noble and godly ideals is not the America represented by that amiable rogue Bill Clinton who with serious socialist leanings was never once elected with over 49% of the vote, nor by CNN, commonly referred to as the Clinton News Network. Our America is about individualism not statism. Clinton was an amoral and godless one worlder who is to this day beloved by the world. He sold out the real America in many ways to obtain that phony love and approval. Now George Bush has to go out and take back that which belonged to the family and should never have been given out in the first place. National sovereignty being one of them. Now just imagine if you will a mother who being not quite right in the head and wanting the love of strangers taking all the belongings of her family and household and giving what belonged to that family to all the neighbors to win thier love and approval. Now image a father coming home and seeing the injustice of this and going out into the neighborhood and taking back what belonged to the family. How popular would such a father be in that neighborhood? How popular at home? The good book says that the love of the world makes one an enemy of God which implies that perhaps the disdain of the world means one has the approval of God. A true man cares not a lick for the love and approval of the world but of God and what is right. The character and principles of George Bush resonate with many on this site as I said. Why, because he is us, because he is a good and decent and God fearing man like most of those here. He IS one of us and we DO love him and we will defend those we love.
Now with all due respect the question for you LG is this. Do you care to understand this part of America? Or are you content to keep your already formed ideas about us as Louise alluded to?
[ May 10, 2003, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-10-2003 10:16 PM :
You can keep the EU and Hague and international court,I would rather the UK became the 51st state of America.>>
That's a wonderful idea. We speak the same language. Since they are our parent country and most of our culture is Anglican, it would be wonderful to be joined with them again. But what would we do with the Royal Family? Could we allow them to continue to exist as a states' rights issue? They're not much more than a figurehead anyway. Parliament runs the country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-10-2003 10:31 PM :
One of Gandhi's earlier followers said he confronted Gandhi on his "so-called peace movement, non-violence." The young man at that time realized there was no "truly" non-violent movement. He saw things always ended in violence. Confronting Gandhi with his realization,after experiencing people being attacked and beaten on both sides, Gandhi asked that young man to leave his meeting....LOL...so much for Gandhi's tolerance.>>
Sophie, I agree and another thing to consider is that the reason Gandhi's relatively non-violent methods worked is because they were used against a decent country and society--England. No way could his non-violence have worked against a country or culture that was truly evil.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-10-2003 11:32 PM :
Rhonda said: "We are not required to forgive someone who is unrepentant"
Now, finally, we are at the core of our difference on this issue. Please elaborate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Jonn (Member # 309) on 05-11-2003 04:16 AM :
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what would we do with the Royal Family?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could exploit it commercially by turning them into a tourist attraction, where tourists are allowed to wave at them, and for a special fee can have their photo taken with them. I think the idea of the UK becoming a 51st state of the USA will remain confined to the realm of wishful thinking, it’s more likely the British government will demand that the USA must become part of Great Britain.
About forgiveness: the way I see it some people look at forgiveness as a form of condoning and/or pardoning what the other did.
In my opinion forgiveness is more like an attitude of letting go of anger and hatred you might feel towards the other over what he did. As such, the death penalty and forgiveness need not be mutually exclusive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-11-2003 05:10 AM :
I am glad you folks picked up on LG's 'impartial objective European' gambit.Where I come from we call that chutzpah!Quite a few of us had a chuckle over that one.Anyway it has now merited worthy inclusion in the 'lets believe seven impossible things before breakfast' file.
I am prepared to accept LG's urbane civility at face value and he is obviously a decent chap.I just take issue with his Eurocentricism.If he is content to live with the Kafkaesque nightmare of EU rule with all it's implicit and visceral anti Americanism that is his prerogative.For this european at least I can only echo in inverted form the old Kennedysism: Ich binn eine American.
I am prepared to take lectures from LG on spiritual matters as he is a master at expounding upon them and has much to share.However I am not prepared to buy the package deal when it come to his politics where there is something decidedly rotten in the state of Denmark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-11-2003 06:13 AM :
Dear Sophie,
This, though it may not appear to be so at first, is to reply to your post of the 10th of May, 2003 (14:24).
Throughout the ages, people have tried to visualise or, if you like, to conceptualise who God is and what He is all about. There are those who are quite happy with the image of a bearded benevolently smiling man who is sitting on a (probably gold) throne and there are those who go to the extent of seeing God as pure consciousness and vibrations.
I believe that "all that is" exists as a consequence of God - "in the beginning" - projecting Himself into a material and an immaterial universe and that consequently all that is equals God. For me God is in everything and everyone and thus is everything orchestration. Even those who believe that God is pure consciousness or, if you like, Being, cannot get around the fact that orchestration is where God also shows that the flow of His consciousness illustrates a Will; a Will which - since it is consciousness - is capable of embracing all that is since it comes from the innocence of not separating itself from anything, and it is this - separation - that I should like to discuss in this post to reply to your post and to elements of many other posts that I have seen in this forum.
The thing is that it is so easy for us limited human beings to forget that we are all merely splinters of the same indivisible phenomenon and that forgetting this makes that we separate ourselves from others. The fact that we are not purely spirit, but that there is this funny package of flesh and bones that has created a mind, makes that at times we can distance ourselves from God. When we do this often enough, the soul - the seed or, if you like, the antenna of God inside us - will start protesting and will e.g. manoeuvre our mind into a state of depression; a phenomenon where we seem to lose control over ourselves to such an extent that we sometimes have the impression that it is as if a strange outside force is playing a cynical game with us, whereas in reality it is a "force" inside of us and whereas thus depressions are merely God's instrument to force us to re-acquaint ourselves with our selves and thus to get back to our "core" when we've distanced ourselves too much from that core.
And this is a very important element in all of this: separation, acting in separation of one's own soul, of others and of the environment. In fact, the very moment that we pronouce the words "I" or "you" or "the environment" we are already in separation of all that is .... of God. It is in saying "I" that we find the reason for mistrusting others and for separating ourselves from others, it is in saying "I" that we lose ourselves in assumptions about others and that we separate ourselves from others and it is in saying "I" that we abandon "innocence".
Some people can walk through a beautiful landscape and behold the undulating hills, the meadows, the forests, the flowers, the birds and other animals, a beautiful sky and can be heard saying "what a beautiful landscape". Likewise, in visiting this forum and meeting all of you, I can look around myself, see all those wonderful souls and all the love there is, and say "what a beautiful landscape".
There is a choice, Sophie. There is a choice in every thought that we allow ourselves to have and a choice in every word that we permit ourselves to speak: a choice between separating ourselves from others or of coming from a place of innocence and of embracing all others.
These are not words, Sophie. This has been assimilated. This is lived. I too was once in a place of separation - of course I was; I was just like all or by far most of us are - but I know that separation is the lie, that separation is the delusion, that separation is the beginning of fragmentation and of disintegration and I will not allow it in my life. I am glad to say that it occurs less and less and that I'm on some sort of auto-pilot right now where I don't - with the exception of some very rare moments that occur less and less - even have to think about it any more most of the time. I am - thank God - more and more becoming what I believe in. Often nowadays I can even enter a pub, look around me, see all who are present, and think "what a beautiful landscape" and, sitting down somewhere, look around at every face, at every human being, and bless each of them, one after the other .
Please don't be shocked, Sophie, but coming from that place and seeing some of the posts here I often - even though I trust that each of you is sincere in what he or she is seeking - perceive a lot of mind and a lot of separation. I see people perceiving ego in others not as a matter of discernment, but as a matter of judgement. I see good people making assumptions and judging continuously and thus merely judging themselves.
What do we do when we say that another is judging? How can we be sure that the other isn’t merely observing and discerning and saying things from a place of compassion rather than from a place of ego? How can we be sure that another hasn’t risen above ego and speaks to us from a place of higher consciousness and how can we know that the superiority complex that we perceive in another isn’t merely the result of the hurried little voices of our own ego and of the compulsive manner in which that ego tries to hide our own inferiority complexes or our own imbalanced need to be in control of our environment from us?
The thing is ... we can only recognise in others what is already inside of us and thus everything we see in others is merely something that we still recognise in ourselves, because that is the reality of what we do each time when we are in judgement. Unwittingly we are constantly projecting something that is inside of us on someone else, the other then merely becomes a projection screen and when all of that is reflected back to us it obscures who the other really is .... merely another version of who we are; more than a brother, more than a sister ... a drop of water of the same Ocean. We are One, all of us, and we act as if we aren't, and as long as we do this we will continue to have learning experiences that are, in fact, unlearning experiences - experiences that show us what things were like when we still came from a place of innocence.
Let me, within the context of what I remarked about the fact that we can only recognise in others what is already inside of us, give you another example.
Suppose that we have three pilots. One has a license to fly a Cessna, a one engined plane for a total (including the pilot) of four passengers. Another pilot, after his license to fly such one-engined planes like the Cessna, also obtained his license to fly two engined planes and now, after many years of flying a Cessna, flies a Piper Seneca, a two engined plane with space for two more passengers and quite a bit more freight. The third pilot, after getting his licenses for planes of the former two categories and flying both for quite some time, has also obtained his license for larger jet aircrafts and now flies a two engined Learjet where he often transports payloads of ten passengers or more and quite a bit of luggage.
In this example, pilot number one can only recognise the Cessna pilot in the Piper Seneca pilot. He may (or not) know that the other is a Piper Seneca pilot, but he doesn’t yet know what all of that implies. He cannot see it. All he can really recognise goes up to the level that is inside of him – the level of a Cessna pilot – and not any further. Thus he will often have misconceptions about the Seneca pilot. The Piper Seneca pilot, however, will have very few misconceptions about the Cessna pilot, because he himself has been a Cessna pilot and his additional experiences with the Piper Seneca have taught him many additional things. He will, however, have many misconceptions about the Learjet pilot, because his Piper Seneca level does not enable him to recognise the additional knowledge that is in the Learjet pilot. The Learjet pilot finally will have least of the misconceptions. His knowledge and experience enable him to view the Cessna pilot as the Cessna pilot and the Seneca pilot as the Seneca pilot.
One last thing .... on enlightenment and on the assumption that people who are living consciously could at all judge others or be condescending .... try to imagine that there is something like enlightenment level zero (e.g. a pebble) and enlightenment level infinite (God). If you contemplate this, you can perhaps understand what I mean when I say that man, on a scale of enlightenment, probably ranges somewhere from 400 to 4000. If you do that, however, just for a moment try to see the relativity of it all. Try to see how level 4000 compares to level infinite. If you do that, you will understand why listening to the silent, gentle voice of your soul – your link with God – is so much more important than listening to the often loudmouthed voice and the often "robust language" of the mind, and you will understand why God so often smiles (sometimes a somewhat sad smile) when He hears us talk in the way that we do.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 05-11-2003 06:21 AM :
Thanks to all "out of town" US supporters..for we who htink this countryis the BEST are always lambasted for our "arrogance"..nonethelss our blood, sweat,tears, and$$$, if not gratefully, IS accepted all over the world..we do without for this,..and we get criticized for leaving our soldiers on others' battlefields, and and ofr not turning the other cheek when we had been invaded while at peace on 9-11..if this happened in another country we would never hear the end of it, yet we were not supporte din the many areas where our loved ones died for you..so if we say ta heck with you and defend ourselves against teroism and in the doing so, once again you guys too..yah we re arrogant..I guess..only because we put up as well as SHOW UP..the world is full of avant garde French types who pontificate while carrying accordians..but that did not save Normandy or GB..Tony Blair showed what he was made of and I hope those with the Euro fixation realize he is th e man of the hour over there,not Vlad or Jacques ..they are the Saddams of the whine and cheez set..they profit off others' blood and tears, and don't lift a pinky to help and lead the charge against Americans, you have had no better friends than americans. but after the blatant ineffectualism of Kofi and the money money money by the pound alliance with Saddam while saying Americans are the ones that want oil.they are the ones afraid of losing the WMD for oil trade...we are now hard put to ever trust the UN for help any more...God bless President Bush and Tony and God Bless America ..without us, proudly,and TRUTHFULLY not arrogantly , where would Europe be, God bless the holocaust victims who also gave their lives for European whiners. Most Europeans don't understand this cowboyhood of ours, see, WE ARE YOU...just like a sinner is repentant after he meets God, we are mostly former Europeans who left tyranny and oppression and came here , leaving all comfort, loved ones, etc behind, to change for a bETTER way..as former member s of Europe, who can speak better of how great this country is in comparison to the laissez faire attitude of always needing rescuing from ourselves and our neighbors, then saying the rescuer is an "arrogant cowboy"..see why we are PROUD to be "arrogant' we earned it,we are a cleaned -up YOU, we moved our butts, started something over here, and help anyone anywhere anytime, that needs us..who has a better right to be proud of their country except the citizens who make it happen? Not only here but around the world. Yes, Jacques will show you how to wear a gas mask, but we will show you how to take it off.Just give us 2 weeks, and we give it to SAddaam, not very nice of us, we know, but it was do it to him or let him do it to YOU..."no greater love than"..and the least you could do is appreciate supreme acts of sacrifice..although you owe us, BIGTIME, you can never attempt to pay the supreme acts of sacrifice the socialists live in freedom allover the world because of heroes, to protest. For the first time in all these years of our shedding blood for you, we needed your help and all we got was whine , whine whine..so we did it ourselves and with Britain and Aussies and afew others who were not afraid to stand up for Right..Even Iraquis are no longer in fear, that is what we DO..while others instill fear, we annihialate it, in doing so it is a great deterrent to bullies, jsut like the death penalty.
[ May 11, 2003, 03:31 AM: Message edited by: DoreenC ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-11-2003 06:58 AM :
Dear Louise,
Let me explain to you why you are projecting in your post of 10th May, 2003 (16:12):
1. On and beyond what I've read of him in his Q&A, I have never read a single word that Deepak has written. I have been present in his forum, have had discussions with many and have started numerous topics, but I have never even had a book of his in my hands. I am not and have never been a follower of Deepak. I have not, have never had and will never have a guru. I will let no man stand in between me and my God and will always advise everyone to do the same.
2. I will listen to anyone, including Deepak, but I find myself listening less and less to mental constructs and things that I have to wrap my brain around. All we need to know can be found directly at the Source of all knowledge. All it takes is that we are prepared to listen. Truth, real truth, is simple. We don't have to think about it. The moment we hear it, we know that it is Truth.
3. You have known me and have seen me in action long enough to be aware of it that I'm not the kind who evades anything. Remember!? But I will admit that I will not enter into any kind of a discussion. If this (not entering into a certain discussion) is what I do, however, I merely do so because I feel that the discussion in question is useless or not likely to lead anywhere at that precise juncture in time .... or quite simply because these days I merely go where the spirit moves me and because those areas usually seem (and are) less useless.
4. My mind is closed to nothing, Louise. How often haven't I taken time to listen to your words and to weigh those words in areas where my own conceptions totally differed from you. And haven't I, on occasion, been prepared to come back on previous conceptions and concurred with things that initially didn't seem to sit well with me?
We all see what we are willing to see, Louise.
"The search for truth is but the honest searching out of everything that interferes with truth.
Truth is.
It can neither be lost nor sought nor found. It is there, wherever you are, being within you. Yet it can be recognized or unrecognized.
Whatever you accept into your mind has reality for you. It is your acceptance of it that makes it real. Release your mind, and you will look upon a world released.
It is still up to you to choose to join with truth or with illusion. But remember that to choose one is to let go of the other." (from A Course In Miracles)
Let me add to this that we cannot find Truth when we actively search it. When we do, we search from a place of knowing and thus from ignorance; an ignorance which will keep hiding Truth from us. Truth is. We will only spot it when we have made living consciously - conscious of the questions - a second nature. Truth is like Love. The surest way not to find it is to go out and seek it.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-11-2003 08:00 AM :
I read some thoughts on the subject of forgiveness in a number of posts. Please excuse me if I forget a name, but I believe that the posts were from Rick, Sophie, Rhonda and Doreen.
Within the context of those posts I should like to share a few thoughts about forgiveness:
There has been a not too distant period in my life when I lost eight loved ones - the eight I loved most - in an impossiby rapid succession; a period of roughly three years where I had barely finished nursing one through his or her final stages, when the next was already on his or her deathbed, a period that - when it ended - made me look around myself and see that I was completely alone in this world.
Thus I've often sat alongside a bed holding the hand of a loved one and noticing that the only warm part of that loved one was the hand that I was holding. It was warm because of the warmth of my hand. I know what death and dying are about.
When a human being gets to that stage and s/he has already experienced many of the symptoms of ageing - the body is functioning less and less whilst friends and loved ones have more and more disappeared - that person will have come to the greatest extent of empathy that this life has made him experience. He knows what pain is all about. He has experienced it. He can perceive it in others. He can feel the pain of and in others. Empathy. Thus, very often, the ones who are dying are like Angels to those who remain behind. They complain little, they don't let on about the real pain that they are experiencing ... the pain that their body gives them, the pain of having to leave their loved ones behind, the pain of no longer being able to look after them as they would wish ... and often they are an example to the ones who are nursing them by making that difficult phase easy for the others rather than thinking about themselves.
When a human being dies, he is at the summit of his empathic capabilities. His body has become an often painful and cumbersome envelope and his soul would have an easier existence without it. His open-backed hospital shirt has no pockets in it and that doesn't bother him, because pockets, possessions, bank accounts, silly material things no longer matter to him. He is almost soul already. And when finally God's sweetest Angel, the Angel of death, passes by, he is embraced like a welcome friend and like the bringer of peace...
The soul then moves to a place where it meets other souls; a place where essence meets essence, where trouser pockets and bank accounts do no longer exist and where the I does no longer exist, because when essence meets essence there is no separation. Everyting is known at once. Instantly we will experience the joys and pains of those we have known during our lives on this planet and instantly the joys and pains - all the joys and pains - that we will have served those others will become our very pains and joys. Hell is what we create for ourselves. We do not judge. Each time we judge, we judge ourselves. We will not be judged. In that place of Truth we will judge ourselves ...
And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. This is the first commandment. And the second, like it, is this: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. There is no other commandment greater than these.Mark 12:30,31
Be aware of these words each day of your lives and in everything you do, try to be forgiven for what ignorance made you do unto others and forgive others for what ignorance made them do unto you. And ... remembering that community of essence that I mentioned ... do try and forgive yourselves and remember His words Who, at the maximum of His empathic capabilities said "forgive them, Father, for they don't know what they are doing".
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DoreenC (Member # 322) on 05-11-2003 09:12 AM :
LG..very beautiful thoughts, by reading them one can see you have suffered loss, as most of here, it is there we are at the end of our selves ,there too , that we reach out for God..as the spirits of those we love, go back to the One who made them, in our reluctance to let them go, in our juxtaposed longing for them to go , to where there is no more pain, we lose them , and we lose,too, and gain, something of ourselves. Because I have been in an abusive, loveless relationship, and one that is now, ongoing, forgive me if I envy those who lose people they love. The trite saying for it is "it is better to have loved and l ost, than never to have loved at all". The gift that they,the loved ones give us, that is so painful for us to lose, is still better than the love that might have been, but was unattainable, just out of reach. In this loveless one , there is no need for forgiveness, just remorse for the lack of what might have been. In some cases, to forgive, there needs to be an original interest, when that is lacking, the sorrow that most people have when they lose someone they really love, is more sorrowful in the absence of never having been loved. One can try to forgive, but sometimes there is just no there there, just a sincere wish that things could have been different. I did lose my mother though, physically, but I can never really lose what she meant to me, so Happy Mothers Day to all the mothers out there and to all those who are not but who have lost mothers, either through death or from never having been able to have been known or loved by them. Forgive them for they know not what they did, but theirs was the loss, not yours, they did not have a chance to know you as we do. Love, Doreen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-11-2003 09:17 AM :
Hi Rick,
This is in reply to your post of 10 May, 2003 (18:53):
I could reply to you that I have traveled a lot during my life, that I have been around the globe more than 130 times, that I have visited 94 countries repeatedly, that I have lived and worked in quite a few countries (Holland, Germany, France, UK, USA, Canada) and that thus I'm quite well aware of it that there are good people everywhere. I always was. I never doubted that. And even if I am a European and prefer Europe as a place to live, I enjoy being in northern America and have many friends there. I do not discriminate. I never have. Not because someone's tone of skin differs from mine, not because someone's sexual preference differs from mine, not because someone's ideas about what human society should look and function like differ from mine, etc. For me everyone is equal. For me nobody is better than someone else. For me especially those who differ most from me can teach me the most and I know that those who others often refer to as simple can - depending on my perceptiveness - often bear gifts of great wisdom.
All of that, however, is less relevant than what I said in one of my previous posts where I spoke of the extent to which we are One; an extent, Rick, which is beyond our wildest imagenings even if many fail to see it ... all of that is irrelevant when it comes to the manner in which we deal with the ignorance of separation. When I look around me I see the madness of a society that illustrates so clearly what separation is all about: materialism, egoism and an existence where the adage is "each man for himself" and where reality is that many suffer because of the ignorance and the greed of few.
I see separation in the polluting that we do, I perceive separation - mistrust and separation - in loudly proclaiming that we opt for sovereignty rather than for taking our place in the ranks of those who will work towards the common good. I perceive a lot of hollow pride and also a lot of hollow humility: the humility of those whose pride urges them to be humble.
For me nobody is a stranger. We are all kin. If I say something, I am not doing so as a stranger but as a fellow human being. Each of us, Rick, is an aspect of all that is and each of us is merely a reminder of that One Voice. I do not judge; I observe and point out the deeds of those who live in separation. I pointed our some of Mr. Bush's deeds; deeds where he separates an entire country from all of God's other children.
I understand that some of the things that Mr. Bush do appeal to the sentiments of many. Looking objectively at those things and at the deeds rather than at the words, however, I often see that many of the sentiments that his words and deeds appeal to are base sentiments; sentiments that promote separation. I have read the words where you likened Mr. Bush to a father and am reminded of many passages in scripture that tell us to forsake the things of this world and to focus only on Truth and on essence. One simple example: "Yet I hold this against you: You have forsaken your first love". Revelation 2:4
Jesus pointed to the true essence of things when he said "And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but unto him that blasphemeth against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven. Luke 12:10. The Holy Ghost, Rick, is Love and many things that this world has seen Mr. Bush do have not been very loving or rather the opposite of what love is all about. It is one big act of separation.
And if I may be very frank ... there are reasons that make that I will not be in this forum much longer. If you don't awfully mind, I had much rather share and discuss rather different topics than Mr. Bush. You don't need me for that. For starters I'm not too interested in politics or politicians and secondly the media are doing quite well as far as that is concerned without me .
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-11-2003 09:42 AM :
Hi Nick,
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by nick:
I am glad you folks picked up on LG's 'impartial objective European' gambit. Where I come from we call that chutzpah! Quite a few of us had a chuckle over that one. Anyway it has now merited worthy inclusion in the 'lets believe seven impossible things before breakfast' file.
I am prepared to accept LG's urbane civility at face value and he is obviously a decent chap. I just take issue with his Eurocentricism. If he is content to live with the Kafkaesque nightmare of EU rule with all it's implicit and visceral anti Americanism that is his prerogative. For this european at least I can only echo in inverted form the old Kennedysism: Ich bin ein American.
I am prepared to take lectures from LG on spiritual matters as he is a master at expounding upon them and has much to share. However, I am not prepared to buy the package deal when it come to his politics where there is something decidedly rotten in the state of Denmark.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have copied your post, Nick, because it is such a wonderful example of what words and mind can do. Nietzsche, one of my favourite philosophers would no doubt have replied "To help a perception to achieve victory often means merely to unite it with stupidity so intimately that the weight of the latter also enforces the victory of the former."
Since this is me speaking, however, let me merely say that I have no politics and that I am nobody's lecturer. In this life I am - like all of us - as much a pupil as a teacher. And let me add that underneath all the "robust language" I can perceive oodles of positive vibes and a loving creature - a human being who, in fact, yearns to be loved - and that I am sure that your heart is such that one day you will re-read your above words and be able to see what I now see: words, mental constructs and mind, a lot of mind .
I, Nick, have merely come here to share. Not to convince, but merely to share ... to share out off gratitude for what I have received ... to share and to move on .
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-11-2003 09:57 AM :
Dear Doreen,
Thank you for sharing that. I perceive many words of wisdom. Yes, through loss something in ourselves may be found again or have a chance to grow; something very valuable I should add! And yes, we will only realise the extent of our love and the extent of what we miss, once we have irrevocably lost it. I am glad for you, however, that you can say that you haven't really lost it, for your mother, Doreen, is still very much with you . You can be sure that she is waiting for you and that you will meet her once your sojourn here too draws to its close .
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 05-11-2003 01:07 PM :
Dear LG
Loved to hear what you described in your post on your understanding of spirituality. It was beautiful and I know you are sincere and a great person.
When I suggested the meditation to you, I did it because I see so much potential in your spiirit, I have said that to you several times, but I know you can be further enhanced by doing the meditation.
I understand that you want to follow your spiritual path on your own and I am with you on that I also do not want a guru to guide me.
Roy's meditation does not teach you, it awakens all truth in you. If it is something we simply learn and repeat even from a meditation it is not of God, but of the intellect.
You say all we need is truth, real truth, but let me ask you, do you believe Bush is wrong for starting this war?, do you believe it is an unrighteous war? You seem to agree with the vision of Deepak and his followers, it seems you are thinking like he and the others.
These are not truths, these are lies.
What I am eluding to here is the fact that the truth is evading you, you do not see that something is evading the truth in you and you are identifying with it.
I know you do not believe in satan, but he is very much alive trying to lead us astray.
You speak of love, yet you do not recognize that there are two loves, one can either destroy a person with one or true love (truth) can bring health and well being.
You say "simple" the moment we hear truth, we know it.
It all depends on the leading of the soul what we accept as truth.
You forget there are two spirits that speak to us.
Yes I have known you and seen you in action long enough to be aware that you say you are not the sort to evade truth,
but again Harmen, there are two sources speaking to us. You may not be following Deepak,but you surely do think like him and his followers.
This tells me alot.
Your mind is closed to alot that is the only reason I care enough to suggest that you meditate with Roy's mediation. It is not one like Deepak's, it is one that the scripture eludes to, "be still and Know that I am God"
Yes "Truth is like Love. The surest way not to find it is to to go out and seek"
But Harmen, it is within and if we learn to be quiet within, we will find it all.
You continue to evade what others here have said to you, although your words are beautifully expressed, you still cannot see for they cover up truths you fail to face.
Best to you,
Louise
[ May 11, 2003, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: louise ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-11-2003 02:00 PM :
LG I hesitate to counter your benign retorts but just a couple of points.Your 'I am not political' is of the same disingenuous nature as your'I am an impartial,objective..'I think we shall call it flying under false colours.
Second, all my comments are mere 'words and constructs'.This begs the question, what are you dealing in, if not words and constructs?We need these things to communicate with,and that includes even mortals such as yoursef surely?
Beyond that I think we have pretty much a meeting of er minds and I shall endeavour to avoid any more hostile interlocutions with you!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 05-11-2003 02:49 PM :
Just want to ad a PS to my post on some of the things you wrote to others.
"We are all kin.
I pointed our some of Mr. Bush's deeds; deeds where he separates an entire country from all of God's other children"
Doesn't seem that way to me, I see Bush doing everything to unite Israel and Palestine. I see Bush freeing people from a terrorist leader, I see Bush bring freedon to suffering people.
You see LG, If we are kin in spirit, then we are truely kin not merely of the flesh. And, I choose my neighborhood very carefully.
And you say we are one and those making projections project what is in them. Well that's true to a point, however one big difference,
Projection made in anger may be a projection of what is in oneself but when the soul changes people project from what they have overcome.
I have heard your version on Deepaks site and Sharon is the biggest believer in the assumption that we are all one and what is in one is in another.
Enough said Harmen, I do hope you can see some misconceptions in some of your statements.
As I said before, your speak eloquently, but so much of it is a screen covering things you do not wish to go deep enough into yourself to see. You are settling for so much less.
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-11-2003 03:22 PM :
Released: April 15, 2003
On Earth Day Remember: If Environmentalists Succeed, They Will Make Human Life Impossible
By Michael S. Berliner
Earth Day approaches, and with it a grave danger faces mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism.
The fundamental goal of environmentalists is not clean air and clean water; rather it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Their goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather it is a subhuman world where "nature" is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.
In a nation founded on the pioneer spirit, they have made "development" an evil word. They inhibit or prohibit the development of Alaskan oil, offshore drilling, nuclear power—and every other practical form of energy. Housing, commerce, and jobs are sacrificed to spotted owls and snail darters. Medical research is sacrificed to the "rights" of mice. Logging is sacrificed to the "rights" of trees. No instance of the progress which brought man out of the cave is safe from the onslaught of those "protecting" the environment from man, whom they consider a rapist and despoiler by his very essence.
Nature, they insist, has "intrinsic value," to be revered for its own sake, irrespective of any benefit to man. As a consequence, man is to be prohibited from using nature for his own ends. Since nature supposedly has value and goodness in itself, any human action which changes the environment is necessarily immoral. Of course, environmentalists invoke the doctrine of intrinsic value not against wolves that eat sheep or beavers that gnaw trees; they invoke it only against man, only when man wants something.
The ideal world of environmentalists is not twenty-first century Western civilization; it is the Garden of Eden, a world with no human intervention in nature, a world without innovation or change, a world without effort, a world where survival is somehow guaranteed, a world where man has mystically merged with the "environment." Had the environmentalist mentality prevailed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, we would have had no Industrial Revolution, a situation environmentalists would cheer—at least those few who might have managed to survive without the life-saving benefits of modern science and technology.
The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism is the enemy of man, the enemy of human life. Intrusion is necessary for human survival. Only by intrusion can man avoid pestilence and famine. Only by intrusion can man control his life and project long-range goals. Intrusion improves the environment, if by "environment" one means the surroundings of man—the external material conditions of human life. Intrusion is a requirement of human nature. But in the environmentalists' paean to "Nature," human nature is omitted. For the environmentalists, the "natural" world is a world without man. Man has no legitimate needs, but trees, ponds and bacteria somehow do.
They don't mean it? Heed the words of the consistent environmentalists. "The ending of the human epoch on Earth," writes philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics, "would most likely be greeted with a hearty 'Good riddance!'" In a glowing review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature, biologist David M. Graber writes (Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989): "Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet....Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable.
The guiding principle of environmentalism is self-sacrifice, the sacrifice of longer lives, healthier lives, more prosperous lives, more enjoyable lives, i.e., the sacrifice of human lives. But an individual is not born in servitude. He has a moral right to live his own life for his own sake. He has no duty to sacrifice it to the needs of others and certainly not to the "needs" of the non-human.
To save mankind from environmentalism, what's needed is not the appeasing, compromising approach of those who urge a "balance" between the needs of man and the "needs" of the environment. To save mankind requires the wholesale rejection of environmentalism as hatred of science, technology, progress, and human life. To save mankind requires the return to a philosophy of reason and individualism, a philosophy which makes life on earth possible.
Michael S. Berliner is a senior writer for and the former executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, California. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-11-2003 06:08 PM :
Dear Louise,
Thank you for your kind words. Let me reply to your post point by point:
Politicians (Mr. Bush):
Put thirty sturdy men in a bus and drive them to one of the large Sequoiah trees that are to be found in the State that you reside in and ask them to shake the tree. Nothing, Louise, nothing will happen. They can work themselves into a sweat, but the tree won't move. Wait for a small gust of wind, a mere gentle breeze, and you will see the leaves and some of the branches move. The earth rotates and everything on her moves along. For us, standing on her, she turns invisibly but yet she moves.
It is the unseen things, Louise, the wind, the ideas, the ideologies that really make things move, that really make the world turn. Not the men, not the actors that promote those ideas and ideologies, not the politicians. Always they merely believe in the things that the majority believes in. Always they merely believe in what makes that the majority will believe in them and thus at one point they will say this and the next moment they will say that. Their approval rating is way more important to them than their integrity and hence they have the conscience of a weather condition.
They believe that making more noise than some of their opponents equals persuading and that bombing other opponents equals being right. Getting people to follow them and believe in them and their words is more important to them than getting people to live according to the words of Christ. Just try to find one politician who will be prepared to stick his neck out to propose the two laws that supersede any law as an amendment for your constitution .
And the masses? The masses will follow their actors, their heroes until they drop them again for another actor who will expose their present hero and make more noise and create more of a spectacle.
Thus I don't listen to what politicians say. I merely observe what they do. In that I don't treat them unlike I would treat any other man. I merely observe and notice to which extent they act in separation.
Enough said?
War:
Unrighteous war? Righteous war? Why not talk about righteous evil? What of the Islamic fundamentalists yelling Jihad? What of the wars and acts of violence for which they claimed to have a mandate from God? How often will we still cloak God in the blood of others just to provide ourselves with an alibi? He who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword is what Divine wisdom says. That, however, is a prophecy, not a blessing or a manual for those who wish to spill the blood of others! Please don't talk to me about a righteous war unless God has clearly sanctioned it. War begets war. Ignorance begets ignorance. For well over a thousand years we've had crusades. We still have them. We haven't learnt a thing. Short term some good things have come out off this war, but long term we've merely once more fed the inferiority complex of the Islamic world. Long term we will have to continue looking over our shoulder and live in separation. There were way more intelligent (wise) alternatives to have Saddam removed.
Meditation,
I'm one of very, very few human beings, Louise, who has been blessed by what is known as a "lightning flash experience"; a rare spiritual privilege that is even mentioned in the Qabalah and other scripture. I'm not saying that I possess the truth, Louise, but that I know where to get it, that the Source is open to me and - lies being what I abhor most - that truth is important for me. From what I hear I don't doubt for a moment that Mr. Masters is an extraordinary person, but I wonder why you would think why any man could give me more than what our Heavenly Father has given me. Having said that I'll gladly take some quality time one day to take a look at what you're mentioning. Right now, however, my life is such that I truly don't have that time.
Truth,
Yes, Louise, truth is simple. The moment we hear it we know it to be truth. Lies are always complex as in "the bigger the lie, the harder to disprove it". Truth, however, is simple. Truth is merely another name for God.
Love,
LG
[ May 12, 2003, 02:28 AM: Message edited by: Lonelyguide ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-11-2003 06:14 PM :
Hi Nick,
I just read your post of 11th May, 2003 (12:22). I don't quite understand. Are you saying that someone with your brains actually swallows this stuff?
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-11-2003 06:44 PM :
Hello LG,
Just a few comments and simple questions to let you know where I am coming from hoping that it will make future conversations more understandable.
I was thinking about some of the things you have said, particularly the "we are all one" concept. Yes and No I say. The idea that we are all equal and one and brothers and sisters is not what I believe. I believe that in this world there is Good and Evil, Ying and Yang, black and white, children of Light and children of darkness, that there are the descendants of Isaac and the decendants of Ishmael, that there are powers, angels, envoys, diciples and believers and lovers of Heaven and there are powers, demons, high priests, practitioners and believers and lovers of evil. I believe firmly that there is an us and there is a them and that we share existence on this earth and that there is a conflict between us that can and does serve the purposes of both Good and evil...
Also, I was sorry to hear about the losses in your life, such times I have not experienced and I can only imagine what that kind of pain must be like, but with all due respect, I do not believe that the "characters" of all who die move on to a higher plane as it sounded like you were suggesting. I believe that the "energy" or "life force" of all living things, plants animals etc, borrowed of God, returns to Him upon death. But I believe few develope the "character" to go on to populate heaven as self-aware living immortal beings.
I also mentioned to you twice earlier a verse in scripture that reads to the effect "the love of the world makes one an enemy of God". How does that square with your idea that if most of the world is against someone then that someone must be wrong? Or, that that person couldn't possibly have good reason to stand alone? Just curious.
-Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 05-11-2003 07:28 PM :
Sorry LG
You did it again, you just don't get it.
I am going to repeat what I sent to you other day.
"When you can speak to a man and don't you lose that man, when you see it is no longer of use you waste words, A wise man wastes neither words nor man."
Confuscious
Louise
[ May 11, 2003, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: louise ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-11-2003 09:58 PM :
Rhonda said: "We are not required to forgive someone who is unrepentant"
Rick responded: Now, finally, we are at the core of our difference on this issue. Please elaborate.>>
Luke 17 shows that Jesus himself doesn't forgive without some kind of repentance but will hold people accountable and will be especially hard on those who hurt children.
17:1--Then He said to the disciples, "It is impossible that no offenses should come, but WOE TO HIM through whom they do come!
17:2--"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
17:3--"Take heed to yourselves, If your brother sins against you, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.
17:4--"And if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times in a day returns to you, saying, 'I repent,' you shall forgive him."
The word "if" was used here more than once. "If" he repents, forgive him. And again "if" he says 'I repent,' you shall forgive him.
Those scriptures along with my common sense are why I believe we aren't required to forgive someone for the harm they've done if they aren't sorry for what they did. Let your conscience be your guide.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rhonda (Member # 310) on 05-11-2003 10:16 PM :
About forgiveness: the way I see it some people look at forgiveness as a form of condoning and/or pardoning what the other did.
In my opinion forgiveness is more like an attitude of letting go of anger and hatred you might feel towards the other over what he did. As such, the death penalty and forgiveness need not be mutually exclusive.>>
True, we don't have to hate the murderer and should take no pleasure in his death. In fact, it should be a sad occasion except in the most heinous circumstances. Like when the "Night Stalker," Richard Ramires, finally goes, I won't be sad about that. I won't jump up and down for joy but I will be relieved when the pure evil that is this man will no longer be with us.
Rhonda
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-12-2003 03:28 AM :
Hi Rick,
I did say somewhere that a man wasn't necessarily right if a majority believed that he was right, but I never said that someone would be wrong if a majority said that he was wrong. I merely dedicated some words to the phenomenon separation, to the fact that acting in separation equals going against God, to the circumstance that separation leads to fragmentation and disintegration and I explained why the deeds of Mr. Bush that I have beheld, though commendable on the surface for some, do, in fact, constitute acts of separation for all.
And as for good and evil: if you believe that the spirits of evil men are lost when they die, how do you explain evil spirits?
There are those (mediums, etc.), Rick, that say that there are many different realms in the after-life, many levels of consciousness, just like there are many different levels of consciousness amongst the living. There are those that say that some spirits return and get other chances to make a go of it. None of that can be proven, can it? My Faith is solid like a rock and I've been blessed to have been privileged by experiences that make me say "I know" rather than "I believe", but within the realities of this realm, Rick, it is all - everything that we believe - a matter of belief, isn't it?
I have a text somewhere that explains (in amazing detail) visions of the after-life and of the other realm that we call Heaven. If you're interested I can try and see if I can look it up somewhere and post it.
And ask yourself ... doesn't Yin exist by the grace of Yang, doesn't white exist by the grace of black, doesn't rich exists by the grace of poor (!), doesn't good exist by the grace of evil (!), don't extremes exist so that we may know the phenomenon that embraces both within one circumference? Would God have allowed evil to exist all this time if it wasn't meant to help the Divine purpose to unfold?
Does this provide you with the answer that you were seeking?
Love,
LG
[ May 12, 2003, 01:58 AM: Message edited by: Lonelyguide ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-12-2003 04:56 AM :
Dear Rhonda,
A number of years ago, I appointed a man who I had known for fifteen years, an attorney of excellent standing, as my second in command in a company that I possessed. While I was on a business trip abroad he committed a form of fraud that made me lose millions. I had to sell my house and nearly everything that I possessed to make sure that my company would not go bankrupt and that others would be paid rather than have to suffer the same problems that I was being made to confront.
The fight to get my money back lasted more than a year and had no result since the guilty parties (the man had worked in conjunction with others) simply went bankrupt. During that one year struggle my wife, who was a sweet soul but not the kind of fighter that I would have needed at my side at that time, couldn't digest the fact that she lost her house, her surroundings and her plush little life and simply took off. Despite the fact that she claimed to love me, she pushed a proverbial dagger in my back by doing this at a time that I needed her most. The end of it was that I got into a depression and that she admitted that she wasn't capable of looking after a husband in a depression. In other words ... she divorced me while I was rather ill.
Forgiveness? I will admit that I did play with all sorts of ideas of revenge within the context of the guy who had been responsible for the origin of all these problems. Eventually, however, I came to see that these negative thoughts were only hurting me and I knew that I would have to learn to forgive him if I were to be free of that episode and move on with my life. It took me some two years before I could say the words and another two years before I could say them and really know in my heart of hearts that I meant them and that I had forgiven all of that. So Rhonda, I have forgiven the man who ruined what had taken me 19 long years of hard work to build up and I have forgiven the woman who I had always loved and treated like a princess for letting me down when I really needed her. I have forgiven them and I have blessed them.
Some of The Christ's most important words say "Forgive us our trespasses (sins) as we forgive those who have trespassed (sinned) against us. That, Rhonda, is the essence. Nothing else, no other words are more important when it comes to forgiving. We must forgive, we must forgive others and ... ourselves. This is what Christ did and what many who die do at the moment that they are at the summit of their empathic capabilities: "Father forgive them, for they don't know what they are doing".
Were those who crucified Jesus repentant? Yet He asked God to forgive them.
Let your conscience be your guide .
Love,
LG
[ May 12, 2003, 02:32 AM: Message edited by: Lonelyguide ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-12-2003 07:56 AM :
Hello LG,
Let's try these one at a time and, by the way, I did not mention George Bush in my last post at your request, I was speaking to the concept of "the world vs one" in general. But since you brought him up again let me ask what should we make about the below statement and its simple truth regarding fair and unfair.
You said "I explained why the deeds of Mr. Bush that I have beheld, though commendable on the surface for some, do, in fact, constitute acts of separation for all"
Reply: "Our country, the United States, is the world's largest emitter of manmade greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases...This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. And many of those emissions come from developing countries... The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol...India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto...America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility...We recognize our responsibility and will meet it" -George Bush, June 11, 2001.
Is this causing a separation or pointing out that one already exists?
Rick
[ May 12, 2003, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-12-2003 08:44 AM :
Hello LG:
You said: "And as for good and evil: if you believe that the spirits of evil men are lost when they die, how do you explain evil spirits?"
In reply I will use a bit of commentary from the net if you don't mind. "There was a war in heaven: Satan and his angels, fought against the archangel Michael and his angels. The devil and his angels are defeated. They are cast out of heaven-ref Rev 12:7-10. Satan, which deceiveth the whole world and accused the brethren day and night, has fallen from heaven. There is rejoicing in heaven; however, it is very bad news for the people of the earth. The devil is now among the inhabitants of the earth. He is furious and has great wrath-ref 12:12. He is like a wild, raging animal with great power. He understands, at this time, that his days are numbered. He knows that he has only a short time left-ref Rev 12:12. He goes forth to utterly destroy"
(Me): A third of the angels fell with he who became Satan and they are the opposite and equal to the Angels of heaven and serve thier evil master and constitute the evil forces or spirits quite alive on earth.
You said: I've been blessed to have been privileged by experiences that make me say "I know" rather than "I believe", but within the realities of this realm, Rick, it is all - everything that we believe - a matter of belief, isn't it?
Reply: Most people with an alive inner life have had some kind of experience/s after which they can say "I know" but most try to not lord it over others, particularly to the more infant of us and try to be examples and will often use the words "I believe" so as not to offend or give the appearance of beating someone over the head with what they "know".
You said: "There are those that say that some spirits return and get other chances to make a go of it."
Reply: Who has met someone who has died and come back as the same person (the exception being Jesus)? The theory of reincarnation usually implies coming back a someone/something different. Although I have neither died nor been to the other side I can only rely on my "inner teacher" for clues to the truth. I heard once asked "Is God so limited that he can not make a human being completely individual each time?" I like the suggestion of that idea and find it fits well with scripture and besides, my inner teacher gave approval.
You said: "And ask yourself ... doesn't Yin exist by the grace of Yang, doesn't white exist by the grace of black, doesn't rich exists by the grace of poor (!), doesn't good exist by the grace of evil (!), don't extremes exist so that we may know the phenomenon that embraces both within one circumference?
Reply: You perhaps did not read my statement in the above post that said: "I believe firmly that there is an us and there is a them and that we share existence on this earth and that there is a conflict between us that can and does serve the purposes of both (that) Good and evil"
Humans in many ways are mere pawns in that battle and we are, whether we care to admit it or not, on one side or the other. There is an us, there is a them. Therefore, the "can't we all just get along?" refrain must be answered by saying "No, we can not, we can not serve two masters".
-Rick
[ May 12, 2003, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Desmond (Member # 182) on 05-12-2003 11:16 AM :
We all need a conscious but some of us are full of the female that it is impossible to control your life you have to mess everything up and say it take time for us to get right. well if you was going before a judge and was standing trail for killing someone child .you will have to be held accountable for your action. If you are ready or not and you just might get the death sentence.What do you think you will get for not obeying rules and the topic of this board?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Jonn (Member # 309) on 05-12-2003 12:36 PM :
...hopefully not the death penalty?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 05-12-2003 12:53 PM :
The world versus one is a very interesting point.
When I was at the Deepak Chopra site, I was singled out within one months time as wrong by the maority for expressing my understanding that all paths do not lead to Rome. the webmaster and the majority of those of the same mind took offense.
On the subject of evil in one of the posts on the previous page I would like to say to any doubter that evil does exist.
On the subject of whether good and evil exists. It can be seen clearly. and where there are people who are one in spirit is there true kinship because they have the spririt of God. Truth is evident.
Evil exists, and thinking among God's people seperates between God's people and those who are mislead for they cannot distinquish the truth from the lie that these see good as bad and bad as good, the only way to prove evil exists is to see it one time and you will find without any doubt of it's existence.
Louise
[ May 12, 2003, 10:34 AM: Message edited by: louise ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 05-12-2003 01:09 PM :
Good question Jonn?
Louise
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-12-2003 09:35 PM :
Rhonda, Thanks for clarifying that. -Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-13-2003 11:53 AM :
Rhonda,
I have contemplated your response over night in which you said "We are not required to forgive someone who is unrepentant" and read the scriptures you gave as proofs as well. I think Jesus must have been saying something deeper (or was lost in translation) because I have to consider also the rule that we can only receive forgiveness if we forgive first. The Lords prayer says "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us". I do not see where it says "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those repentant ones who trespass against us but not those unrepentant angry husbands who drink, or the daughters sleeping around and partying all night, or the mother addicted to sleeping pills who takes her guilty existence out on us, or the neighbor whose wife left and won't give us the time of day or the son who rebelled against our hypocritical preaching, got mixed up in the wrong crowd and stole our money for a drug habit" Do we hold a grudge against these if not forgive them? Where does the "giving before hand" that the "fore-give" means come in? What do we give before hand? What does "make allowances" for those who do wrong to us mean as stated in the meditation exercise, and why would Jesus say, "Forgive them Father for they know not what they do"? Were they repenting as they were driving in the nails?
Now, I am really trying to understand where you are coming from on this issue. If there is something for me to learn here then let it be so.
So, I ask, how would we square this seeming dichotomy that on one hand says "do not forgive the unrepentant" and the command that says "forgive us as we forgive" Inquiring minds want to know :-)
[ May 13, 2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-13-2003 04:39 PM :
Hi Rick,
This is to reply to your post of 12th May, 2003 (04:56):
The manner in which economies roughly develop - nomadic > agricultural > cottage industry > industrial - is such that during the initial phases of the industrial stage, the predominance of heavy (not too sophsticated) industry is enormous. Often these heavy industries are big polluters.
The economies of the developing countries that you mention have little or no sophisticated (often less polluting) industries and consequently environmental measures would involve a much larger percentage of their industry as a whole. As a consequence their economy would collapse if they had to impose the sort of stringent measures that the other participants were prepared to impose on the more advanced economies such as Japan, Western Europe and Northern America, where the so-called heavy industries represent a much less important percentage of the whole.
Europe (you mentioned Germany, but I believe that this applied to the European Union as a whole) and I believe Japan were prepared to do this and allow the developing economies some slack so as to enable them to first build up their economies. In being prepared to do this, they showed leadership. Leadership, Rick, is not waiting for the weaker players to take action. Leadership is to do what is right and to lead by showing what is right. Leadership is to live by example. Your president made your country do the opposite.
Love,
LG
PS:
This almost sounds as if I were a USA basher . Believe me, I am not. I have always enjoyed being in your country and, like I've said somewhere else, I have many friends in your country. It's just that your president is doing things that make that I have to speak my mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-13-2003 04:56 PM :
LG there is a malevolent intent behind environmentalism.It doesnt surprise me that a liberal European like you subscribes to it's false dogmas.Go back to that text which you failed to understand.Most Greens are on the Left.Why do you think that is.Find a book called The Greening of America - the environmentalist handbook.It reads like Das Kapital.
Here in the UK when the British Communist Party broke up after the fall of the Berlin Wall it's members looked around for another movement to join and found the Green Party.Scratch a Green and find a Red. Go figure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-13-2003 05:09 PM :
Hi Rick,
This is in reply to your post of 12th May, 2003 (05:44):
You will never hear or see me trying to convince others and certainly not whilst merely saying "I know". When I say "I know", Rick, I am talking of Faith; of a Faith that only applies to myself.
In your post you write "although I have neither died nor been to the other side" and this indicates to me that you are indentifying with mind rather than with soul. Let me therefore repeat some words that I mentioned in a post addressed to another member somewhere else in this forum; words from "The Power of Now" by Eckhart Tolle:
-------------------
The greatest obstacle to experience Being (God introduced Himself to Moses as I Am) is identification with your mind, which causes thought to become compulsive. Not to be able to stop thinking is a dreadful affliction, but we don’t realise this because almost everybody is suffering from it, so it is considered "normal". This incessant mental noise prevents you from finding that realm of inner stillness that is inseparable from Being. It also creates a false mind-made self that casts a shadow of fear and suffering.
The French philosopher Descartes believed that he had found the most fundamental truth when he made his famous statement "Cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am). He had, in fact, given expression to the most basic error: to equate thinking with Being and identity with thinking. The compulsive thinker - almost everyone - lives in a state of apparent separateness, in an insanely complex world of continuous problems and conflict; a world that reflects the ever-increasing fragmentation of the mind. Enlightenment is a state of wholeness, of being "at one" and therefore at peace. At one with life in its manifested aspect, the world, as well as with your deepest self and life unmanifested – at one with Being (God). Enlightenment is not only the end of suffering and of continuous conflict within and without, but also the end of the dreadful enslavement to incessant thinking. What an incredible liberation this is!
Identification with your mind creates an opaque screen of concepts, labels, images, words, judgments and definitions that blocks all true relationships. It comes between you and yourself, between you and your fellow man and woman, between you and nature and ... between you and God. It is this screen of thought that creates the illusion of separateness, the illusion that there is you and a totally separate "other". You then forget the essential fact that, underneath the level of physical appearances and separate forms, you are one with all that is. By "forget", I mean that you can no longer feel this oneness as self-evident reality. You may believe it to be true, but you no longer know it to be true. A belief may be comforting. Only through your own experience, however, does it become liberating.
Thinking has become a disease. Disease happens when things get out off balance. For example, there is nothing wrong with cells dividing and multiplying in the body, but when this process continues in disregard of the total organism, cells proliferate and we have disease.
Note: the mind is a superb instrument if used rightly. Used wrongly, however, it becomes very destructive. To put it more accurately, it is not so much that you use your mind wrongly - you usually don’t use it at all. It uses you. This is the disease. You believe that you are your mind. This is the delusion. The instrument has taken you over. And so you take the possessing entity to be yourself. The beginning of freedom is the realisation that you are not the possessing entity – the thinker. Knowing this enables you to observe the entity. The moment that you start watching the thinker, a higher level of consciousness becomes activated. You then begin to realise that there is a vast realm of intelligence beyond thought and that thought is only a tiny aspect of intelligence. You also realise that all the things that truly matter – beauty, love, creativity, joy, inner peace – arise from beyond the mind. You begin to awaken.
-------------------
You see, Rick, your mind is telling you that you have never died before. The thing is, however, that your mind has never died before. It may, however, very well be that your soul has left (and entered) a human body many times .
Let me try and find the text on re-incarnation that I mentioned elsewhere in this thread. You may find it interesting.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-13-2003 05:16 PM :
Hi Nick,
The Greening of America, by someone named Charles Reich I believe, is a book that was published during the sixties and that is when I read it; some thirty-five years ago. I may not recall it too well, but if memory serves me correctly, some of it, like so many other things do too, did have to do with environmentalism, but that was not the essence of it. With "Greening" Mr. Reich was thinking of a green revolution, a bloodless revolution; a revolution of love rather than one of greed. He was thinking of changes in the society that people lived in those days. Did you ever actually read the book, Nick?
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Glenn (Member # 153) on 05-13-2003 05:20 PM :
LG, have you read a book called The Power of Now? It's very similar to Roy's teachings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-13-2003 06:01 PM :
Hi Rick,
I promised you a text on reincarnation (and quite a few other phenomenons). Here it is:
The following essay draws its material from Vedanta, theosophy and the writings of Swami Ramacharaka. Even if the concepts sound too metaphysical or arcane it is food for thought and a summary of the ideas and experiences of some of the greatest people who have lived on our planet.
--
The Meaning of Death
When people ask if the soul lives on after death, the answer is yes. When people ask if the personality lives on after death, the answer is that personality doesn't even live on while we are alive. Our personality is always changing, we are not the same person we were five, ten or fifteen years ago. It would be a sorry state if we were. Our personalities are constantly evolving, transforming, growing. If the question is, does the individual survive death, the answer is, what's an individual? In reality there's no such thing as an individual, what we call "me", the individual is different from day to day, week to week, year to year. The question would be, which individual are you talking about, the old individual who was bordering senility, the young person who was in love and full of romance and desire, or the young child who was full of innocence and wonder. Which one are you talking about? Which one would you survive as?
The individual is constantly undergoing changes so what survives is a soul which is beyond individual personalities in the sense that there is a continued transformation of what we call the individual, during life and after death. The caterpillar dies to become a chrysalis and begins a long slumber with its own energies. Then the chrysalis dies to become a butterfly which is a very different level of existence so, is the caterpillar the same individual as the chrysalis and the butterfly? It is the same creature that has become something else and yet every cell in its body is different, every energy in its body is different, every expression of the energy in its body is different. Everything experiences a change of form and a change of activity. There's a change of the expression of energy within the form and then there's a change in the form. Nothing really dies. The water drop becomes vapour, which becomes a cloud or a rainbow, which falls as rain to become water deep in the ground transforming into a spring, which becomes a stream then a river, a waterfall and finally back to the ocean. In each state it's the same drop of water with a different expression. There's a constant transformation in nature and a constant transformation in that which we call our being or our soul. Therefore the idea that we are a set personality, fixed in space and time, is an illusion, a mirage. Everything is changing but nothing ever dies.
In Western religions the hereafter has been traditionally thought of as a place existing in space and time. Heaven, hell, purgatory or some other localisation are portrayed as being above or below or in some distant region. To Eastern philosophy this concept, whether called heaven, hell or whatever, is not thought of as a place but as a state of awareness, a plane of existence. A plane of existence is a vibratory expression of Spirit or consciousness in which the cosmos lives and moves and has its existence. The cosmos that you are experiencing right now, with trees, plants, people, houses, cars, stars, and galaxies, is a vibratory expression of Spirit or consciousness at one particular frequency. However, in any given location in space, there may be the simultaneous presence of several different planes of existence. For example, if you are listening to a one hundred piece orchestra, there are a hundred instruments playing, each occupying the same place in space and time.
You can listen to the symphony as a whole or, if you wish, put your attention on the music or vibration of each specific instrument or even separate out the individual notes of the different instruments. Several vibratory frequencies are existing independently yet occupying exactly the same place in space and time and the presence of one does not displace any of the others. If you had an ear that could only hear one frequency, you would miss out on the rest of the symphony and only hear one instrument out of the hundred or, if your ear could only hear the frequency for a few notes, you would miss on all the other notes being played. 99% of reality would be unavailable to you because you weren't tuned into those frequencies. Another example is electro-magnetic energy which includes what is called visible light. Visible light contains all the colours of the spectrum in the same beam of light. That same electro-magnetic radiation however contains invisible light such as x-rays, micro-waves, radio waves, radar, etc. They all exist in the same location simultaneously and yet you only experience that which is called visible light and even there, you don't normally experience it in its individual components. The visible and invisible light are all part of the same electro-magnetic spectrum which is simultaneously vibrating at different frequencies at the same location in space and time. Every pin-point of space contains all these different vibrating frequencies simultaneously and one does not displace any other from its location either in space or in time. With the correct instrument, tuned into the right frequency, you can pick out any vibration you wish.
Similarly these different planes of existence represent different vibratory frequencies of consciousness, the world of physical matter being just one expression of a particular frequency of consciousness. Space, fire water, earth are in fact different vibratory frequencies of consciousness in the material world, different planes of existence in the material world. Even in the regular material world you can see that anything has a quantum mechanical nature which is energy and information, it has a gaseous or vaporous nature because if you heat it will evaporate, it has a fiery nature because if you heat it to a certain temperature it will be just luminous flames, it has a liquid and a solid nature. Every day, ordinary matter simultaneously exhibits different vibratory frequencies but you experience them only in one frequency because of the nature of your sensory apparatus. Any material item can be experienced in these different forms but, after taking in all these different levels of existence, your senses give you only one perspective. Solid things can be said to have dense vibrations or in spiritual terms, to be vibrations of a lower plane. Vaporous things can be said to have a fine vibration or a vibration of the higher plane. Here however, the reference to higher or lower does not mean being up or down, better or worse but is just an indication of the levels of density.
Just as there are different planes of material things, there are also several planes of existence of the Spirit called spiritual planes. The most obvious vibratory frequency of consciousness is the material plane but there are also finer or what are referred to as higher spiritual planes known as the astral planes. There are almost an infinity of astral planes which are divided into the higher and lower astral planes, the lower astral planes being higher than the material planes. In the lower astral planes are found experiences of psychic phenomenon, clairvoyance, clairaudience, telepathy, psychometry. Other vibratory frequencies of the lower astral planes include ghosts, apparitions of disembodied souls, etc. These are sometimes sensed by humans in certain states of awareness but are often sensed by animals, which have a sharp sense of awareness to some of these lower astral planes. In the lower astral planes we also find thought forms and thought clouds, astral bodies travelling during sleep or altered states of consciousness, astral colours and auras. All these are vibrations of Spirit in the lower astral plane.
Every physical body has an accompanying astral body. This astral body is a complete mirror of the physical body with a heart, liver, arms, legs, a face, etc. but as it is vibrating at a different frequency, most people are not aware of its presence. During life, the physical body provides a covering for the soul at a lower frequency, it gives it the appearance of being localized in the material world. In death, the physical body disintegrates leaving the astral body to clothe the soul at a higher frequency, giving it a different appearance of localisation.
Upon death of the physical body, every soul enters the vibratory frequency of the astral plane that corresponds to the existence it had on the material plane, the frequency that corresponds closest to the reality of its material life. The disembodied soul then begins to work up its karmic experience and gradually ascends to the higher frequencies of the more spiritual astral planes. It can therefore be said that, the highest vibratory frequencies, the highest planes, correspond to the descriptions of heaven given in the religious traditions. On the astral plane there are vibratory frequencies that correspond to every possible version of heaven, hell or purgatory, not as places but as planes of existence. The
disembodied soul moves from one to the other based on how it works out its karma and moves according to its desire, from one imagined plane to another. In reality all these planes have been imagined by the Spirit, just as it imagined the material plane. Just as in the material plane, on the astral planes, the Spirit continues to play roles. Each astral plane is the experience of a concept of the Spirit just as the material plane was also the experience of a concept of the Spirit. The Spirit conceives, constructs, becomes.
The cosmos is, in reality, non local. You say the earth is local, the sun is far or the moon is near, but it is only so from this vantage point. In the universe everything is non-local. You are at the center of the universe because infinity extends in all directions and someone who is on the other side of the world is also at the center of the universe because infinity extends on all sides of him. Both of you are centers of the universe which, of course, means you must both be at the same location. The fact that you appear to be in different locations is a sensory artifact based on this vibratory frequency of consciousness. Similarly with time, each moment is the center of time, eternity stretches forwards and backwards. This is the only moment because all other moments are also the centre of eternal time and every moment is therefore the same as every other moment. The cosmos, being non-local, means there is no up or down, north or south, east or west, these are only points of reference for our convenience. There are no pertinent, particular locations in space or time. The transformational process after death is not a movement to some other place or time, it is just a change in the quality of attention. It is a condition or state of vibrational quality of your awareness.
Based on the experiences of people who have had near death experiences, the insights of sages and rishis, or just by changing the quality of your own attention in meditation, or by having the intention or desire to have these experiences, what seemingly happens is, as death approaches, there is a dulling of the senses. The senses are material so, as the transition begins, they start to fade one by one. The last one to leave is sound, which was also the first to come. However, as the material senses become duller, there is an increase in the psychical senses such as clairaudience, clairvoyance, celestial sights and sounds, heavenly beings, and brilliant lights. During this time, people who have a close association to a dying person may feel the presence of that person in the form of an apparition, sound or physical sensation even from a distance and sometimes even before the death of the person. Somehow they have tuned into the dying person's vibrational frequency or their own astral body may have projected to the dying person so they were able to became aware of the transition of the person.
At death, the astral body, which is the exact counterpart of the physical body, separates from the physical body. The soul then enters a period of sleep in the astral body, a deep slumber. Normally the soul sleeps in deep peace but, if the person departed prematurely or had many unfulfilled desires, this sleep may be restless and disturbed. Disembodied souls that have a very strong attraction to the physical plane of material existence and have not been able to let go, people who have died suddenly or violently or unnaturally (such as those who have been murdered, committed suicide or have died from drugs), can get stuck in these lower astral planes for an extended period of time (time measured in the material sense). These disembodied souls can vibrate at a lower astral frequency for a fairly prolonged time as we perceive it. When a person dies suddenly or unnaturally, they haven't had time to work out their earthly karma and until they have fully processed their attachments and karmic obligations on this plane they will remain drawn to this denser plane and continue to vibrate on the frequency of this plane for some time, even though they are on an astral plane. They remain caught between two worlds so to speak. Also, if there is intense attachment from the people left behind and they keep calling to the soul through seances and such, the soul will continue to be disturbed in its sleep. The will of those left behind can cause restlessness of the soul. When a person dies, it is important to let them move on and rest in peace. The soul sleeps in the astral body just as the foetal soul sleeps in the womb. A peaceful death and a letting go will produce a peaceful sleep in the astral body. A restless soul may attempt to revisit the earthly realm as a ghost or apparition but ultimately, even in these cases, fatigue will set in and the soul will eventually settle into its deep sleep in the astral body.
At death, and from people who have had near death experiences, we hear that often the whole panorama of a person's life flashes before his eyes in a split second. This is a demonstration that every second contains the whole of eternity. During the deep sleep of the soul, all the memories of past events in the physical body, get impressed onto the soul, forming the karmic "software" which will give rise to its future individuality. In the process of dying, very often, a person will have a review of this software, seeing their entire life re-run in a few moments. A concentrated record of an entire lifetime is then carried into the slumber state of the soul as the karmic software. In Christian and other religious doctrines we hear expressions such as "rest for the weary", "entering the long rest", which seemingly are also relating to this slumber of the soul. When a person has a near death experience, they have, for a moment, vibrated at a certain astral plane and then come back to their normal, physical, vibratory frequency.
The period of the soul slumber varies according to the degree of evolution of the soul at the time of death. The main reason for the sleep or slumber of the soul is to shed its attachments and then to awaken to the astral frequency or plane most appropriate to its level of evolution. The degree of attachments will determine how long it takes to shed them. When the soul awakens it can only enter a plane of existence that is familiar to you. If you entered a plane higher than your level of evolution, you would become confused and uncomfortable. Likewise, it is not possible to go backwards in evolution, you can only progress. First, the astral soul sleeps to partially detach and forget the things that are not necessary to remember and then awakens to the astral frequency plane that is most appropriate to its level of evolution. Once it re-awakens, it continues with its evolution, from that point, to higher levels of awareness.
At physical death the physical body disintegrates and the soul begins its first period of sleep in the astral body. During this sleep the astral body and soul are encased in a kind of astral shell or cocoon. Just as sleep is important to the physical body, so this sleep is important to allow the soul to rejuvenate itself. When the soul awakes from this deep slumber it sheds its shell which is then said to float in the astral atmosphere until it eventually fades away. At this point the soul is still in the astral plane and continues its evolution moving to higher astral frequencies of its astral life. During this astral life a whole new world of experiences begin. The soul meets the souls of other beings who are also in the astral world, vibrating at a similar level of evolution at that time. It may meet the souls it encountered in the physical world if they are now on that same vibratory frequency. In the astral planes there is no physical body only thought form. All communication is telepathic. When Spirit vibrates in the world of physical objects its vibration is very slow and dense, it appears to be still, frozen Spirit. Similarly when it is at a very high frequency of vibration, it is also still. At both extremes it is still and in between is the whole range of movement of creation. In the astral world of experience, the disembodied soul can visit planes of vibration lower than itself at will, but can only visit higher planes through evolution. Just as when you pass particles through finer and finer sieves, any particle can always pass back to a grosser level but can only advance when it has reached the correct level of refinement.
The astral plane is a manifested reflection of the imagined ideal. The scenery on the astral plane is just a projection of the thought forms inhabiting it. Like everything else, it is a manifestation of the imagination. The Spirit pervades all of space and the experiences on the other side match the beliefs and expectations of the life here in the physical body. Depending on your level of evolution, you will experience your ideas of heaven or hell in this life when you reach the other side. There are many astral planes and even in these planes your experiences will correspond to everything that you have previously imagined. You have your own heavens, hells, purgatories and everything else to work through on the physical as well as astral planes. In the astral world, everything is created through imagination. In the physical world, if you want to build a house you need to collect the bricks, put them on top of one another and so on. In the astral world, you could just imagine the house the way you wanted it and it would appear. However, to the person in the astral world, the house would seem just as real and solid as the one in the physical world. Evolution on the physical or astral planes is gradual, it takes time. All suffering and all enjoyments occur in the imagination in the astral plane, even though, like on the physical plane, all appears to be real. The sceptics, cynics and unbelievers in the physical plane will be the same sceptics and unbelievers in the astral planes, they just won't realize that they are in fact in the plane that they don't believe exists. The body or personality you inhabit in the astral world is the one you most identified with in the previous physical life. As this is an imaginary body, you can keep it the same or change it during the astral life. You could actually do this with your physical body but, due to social conditioning, most people follow the accepted process of aging. However, in every seed of desire is the promise of future blossoms, fruits and gardens. Evolution is really the process of fulfilment of desire that is being worked out through these on going cycles. In the astral world, you fulfil and refine the desires that are left over from your last physical life. You also refine all your knowledge and experiences from the material world. The astral world is like a graduate school for your previous physical incarnation. In the astral plane, the soul stores up energy for manifesting its higher more evolutionary desires so they can be fulfilled in the physical plane.
Just as when the soul has reached its maximum level of evolution in a physical body it must shed that body and begin its first soul slumber so, when the soul on the astral plane reaches the maximum evolution for that astral lifetime it goes back into slumber and takes with it the karmic software it has been preparing for manifestation again into the physical plane. During this second period of slumber, the soul seeks a set of suitable parents so it may be reborn into the physical plane to continue its evolution. Now, however, because of the evolution that has taken place on the astral plane, you reincarnate onto the physical plane at a higher level than where you left off. You are born into a higher evolutionary circumstance of events. Only a feint memory of what has gone before remains but a whole new level of insight and creativity blossoms. The process continues to repeat itself over and over, each time progressing to a little higher plane. When the karma has been worked out there, you reach the maximum limit for that plane and must go back into a slumber again and so on and so on. This process continues through higher and higher physical and astral planes. The movement is always upward. You can never move downward as your karmic plan is such that your actions will always be better next time. The degree of freedom of choice you have as to how you come back into the physical world is dependent on the degree of witnessing you have. Depending on your ability to witness, to be aware of your situation, you will be able to choose the physical or astral lives and bodies you incarnate into and the speed at which you will work through your karma. Just as in the physical plane you are refining skills and talents, so too in the astral plane, the soul is refining skills and talents that will be expressed in material existence. Whenever you are born physically or astrally, you come with the increased talents from all previous existences.
At birth, because of your previous actions and karma everyone is at a different level of evolution. We can compare the earthly life to that of a caterpillar, the astral sleep to the chrysalis and the rebirth onto the astral life as the butterfly. Each time, still not fully expressed but higher than the previous life. The cycle of evolution must go on, a new caterpillar, a new chrysalis and a new butterfly. There is a constant upward spiral. Soul bonding and soul relations occur on the astral plane just as they occur in the physical world. As Walt Whitman said, "I cannot be awake for nothing looks to me as it did before, or else I'm awake for the first time and all before has been a mean sleep". Relationships in the astral plane mean that you are vibrating at a similar frequency to someone and therefore feel love, unity and bliss. It is not a relationship in spatial or physical terms as in the astral world there is no physical form only thought form. When the disembodied soul thinks of a loved one back on the physical plane, the person on the material plane may experience a feeling of the presence of the departed one. There can be a communion of soul with soul even though one is vibrating in the material plane and the other in the astral plane.
Death of astral life leads to slumber, which leads to preparation for rebirth in a physical body. To continue its evolution, the soul must renew its attractions, its needs to fulfil desires and the need to incarnate with other souls with whom there is a karmic relationship. The reason to keep coming back to the material plane is to fulfil desires and renew relationships with souls with whom there has been a previous kinship. The soul often awakes slowly from its second period of sleep and the effects of the slumber can continue well into childhood and the early stages of growth. When you are first born, there is still some element of soul slumber present, the baby drifts back and forth not fully aware of its physical surroundings. Sometimes this can last into adulthood and you may notice people who don't seem fully here, they are still partially in their soul slumber. Usually, however, there is a gradual awakening of awareness through childhood and adolescence. The dreaminess of youth is often due to soul still not being fully awake, the exceptions to this being child prodigies and geniuses who have woken up very quickly. Any soul that has worked through its karma and has awakened will not have that dreamlike appearance or will have more witnessing but, most people on the earth carry some degree of a hangover from the soul slumber of the last life.
When a soul has completely worked out all its karma, it looses all earthly desires. It has transcended all material objects and attachments to become enlightened. There is not need to be reborn onto the physical or astral planes as we know them. This soul continues to spiral upwards to continue its evolution on planes we cannot imagine. We are reborn to express and exhaust the force of desire. In the absence of rebirth, the soul moves to higher and higher realms of existence, to an infinity of them that are beyond the scope of our imagination or understanding. As Rumi says, "When I die I will soar with angels, and when I die to the angels, what I will become you cannot imagine".
In addition to the astral planes already discussed, there are the celestial realms which belong to higher astral realms of existence vibrating at very high frequencies. They are still in the imaginable realms, just as each religion has its imagined heaven or hell. They are however, very high levels, close to the unimaginable levels. At a certain high level of evolution, some souls may choose to complete their evolution in the celestial rather than returning to the physical world. Once a soul has reached these levels it would not normally want to re-take a human birth except to provide a particular service and would complete its material cycle in this celestial realm. The force of evolution is always to go to the highest possible level but your karmic limitations may not allow you to go beyond a certain level at that time, in which case you must keep returning to the cycle. Most people of course are unaware of all this and it continues to happen spontaneously and simultaneously. Right here, right now, we are surrounded by an infinity of planes. The celestial as well as the realms of suffering, tormented souls exist right next to us. If you could shift your perception right now into one of these higher vibratory frequencies you could be with the angels. In the field of infinite possibilities you are existing on all these levels at the same time but at the level of experience you exist in only one, your own, plane of existence at any one time.
During astral projection or travel at night when a person is asleep, the astral body actually leaves the physical body but remains attached by a filament which brings it back again. If the filament gets severed then of course, the way back could be lost. It is only dangerous to flirt with the lower astral planes if you don't understand them. They are only scary if you don't know what they are about. If you realize that the whole thing is imagined by the Spirit, from the lowest level to the highest, from demons to angels, and everything in this universe, there can be nothing dangerous about it. Ghosts, demons etc., are all imaginary forms of the universal Spirit which is doing its Lila or play.
This Vedic perspective is very intellectually satisfying. Different theologies claim a more fixed view point saying that heaven looks this way or that, hell is here, purgatory there. This could be very intellectually disturbing. If a devout Muslim landed in a Christian heaven, or visa versa, he'd be very unhappy, it certainly wouldn't meet with his expectations. Whenever expectations don't meet reality you are disappointed. Here however, there's a scheme for everybody to vibrate at that level which matches their expectations, your image of hell here will be your hell there and the heaven you are hoping for will also be waiting for you. All your desires are fulfilled because within every desire are the mechanics for its fulfilment, your own evolution.
Well, I hope that you found that interesting.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Lonelyguide (Member # 353) on 05-13-2003 06:09 PM :
Hi Glenn,
Yes I have. Actually, I just posted a small chunk of The Power Of Now in my reply to Rick. I wouldn't know if it is very similar to Mr. Master's teachings, for I've not yet been able to read anything by Mr. Masters, but I wouldn't doubt it. Most if not everything that is taught nowadays, Glenn, is merely ancient wisdom in new words. Every thought has already been thought once before. Only the words change and are adapted either to a period or to a specific group of listeners/readers. Also Jesus the Christ's words were an interpretation of ancient scripture. That's why there is mention of the Old and the New Testament.
Love,
LG
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by louise (Member # 135) on 05-13-2003 09:44 PM :
The famous giant Goliath of the Philistines affirms that there is no reincarnation after death of the mortal body.
November 25th, 1916.
Received by James Padgett
Washington D.C.
I am here, Goliath;
I have been present for some time and have listened to your conversations on the various sects who are expecting a great teacher and others who look for a reincarnation and if it were not so serious to the welfare of mankind, it would be very humorous. But the matter- is too serious to deal with in a humorous vein and I will say a few words as to the utter falsity of both of these beliefs.
There will appear no such great teacher as is expected. Of course, many may appear on earth claiming to be such a teacher and they may declare some moral truth that may be beneficial to mankind but these teachings will not be such as these people may expect a great teacher to make known and the result will be that if the world had to depend on such teachings, it would be very little if any better than it now is, for there is only one course of truth and in order for any great teacher to teach such truths, he necessarily will have to have a knowledge of such truths. And here I want to say that there is only one means of learning such truths and that is through the help of Jesus Christ and his followers, who know these truths and the Holy Spirit that speaks to all men if they will open their souls to its silent voice of truth and love.
So I say that these people who are expecting some earthly teacher to arise and come to them with a knowledge of truth will be greatly disappointed, for it is impossible that any man will ever come in some mysterious and godlike way be endowed with this knowledge. The souls of these people are longing for the truth and not having a knowledge as to how it may come about are willing to conjure up in their minds some being that may possibly burst on the world and enlighten them in those truths for which their souls are longing and wishing. No, they will never in all time and eternity learn what they so anxiously desire from any great teacher of the kind that I have named and they expect.
As to the others who are equally misguided and who believe that their salvation or future condition of happiness and perfection depends on reincarnation, I must say that they are now, and will be, disappointed just as will the first class that I mention. This doctrine of reincarnation is a false and misleading one and will never enable any man or spirit to live the second time in the body as a mortal.
It is so utterly absurd that it is astonishing that men can believe that such a thing can be and besides, if they will only think seriously for a moment, they will realize that there is no necessity for man to live again on earth, for the surroundings and things that prevent the progress of man to perfection are so detrimental to his progress that it would not assist him one particle, in acquiring such progress, to have to undergo a second incarnation.
When the spirit leaves the body, its possibility for progress then becomes greater than ever existed on earth, though some spirits for long ages do not take advantage of such possibilities, yet they exist, and earth life can afford no means equal to them for making this progress towards what these people call Nirvana. Some day the truths will become so plain and easily understood by mortals that these beliefs will of their own weight, and I mean weight that absurdity gives them, that they will cease to exist.You may be somewhat surprised that I write on these subjects, but you must know that I am an angel of the Celestial Heavens and have a work to do, and being present, I requested the privilege of writing and it being granted, I did so.I know what Divine Love means and what progress means, as I came from the lowest hells and found no necessity for reincarnation, and you may be assured that if my condition of suffering and darkness could have been gotten rid of by reincarnation,
I would have reincarnated centuries before I was relieved of my awful condition. I have met spirits who said they believed in the doctrine, but strange to say, none of them had ever been able to reincarnate though they persisted that they felt assured that other spirits had who were just in that condition that permitted it, and that they would when they became in a condition that was suitable, but I have noticed that these spirits never got in that suitable condition, but progressed in the spirit world and now say that they were mistaken and are thankful that there is no such thing as re- incarnation. Well, the race will die and a new race will arise on earth, but in the new race there will not be any who have been reincarnated. I want to stop now, so thanking you, I will say good night.
Your brother in Christ,
Goliath of whom men may think a mythical person. but who really lived and died, even though he may not have been killed by a slingshot of David, as the Bible relates, but yet a real living mortal who followed the ways of other mortals in sinning and dying and gone through hell and is at last redeemed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-14-2003 06:46 PM :
Hello LG:
In reference to the subject of reincarnation I submit the following. The first is a verbatim transcript from the King James Version of the Bible and the second is from the "Poem of the Man-God" which many believe to be a direct dictation of Jesus through Maria Valtorta, a bed ridden and dying invalid from France c1945. It is an expanded version of the same scripture verse allegedly told in the words of Jesus himself. A Internet search will give more information about her. In any case both seem to be a direct repudiation of the reincarnation theory.
Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no
resurrection, and asked him, 24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no
children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 25 Now
there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased,
and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother: 26 Likewise the second also, and the
third, unto the seventh. 27 And last of all the woman died also. 28 Therefore in the
resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her. 29 Jesus answered
and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 30 For
in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of
God in heaven. 31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that
which was spoken unto you by God, saying, 32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of
Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
(Poem of the Man-God): The Sadducees, who pay their respects to Jesus bowing even ex-aggeratedly, say to Him: «Master, You replied so wisely to the Herodians, that we also wish to have a ray of Your light. Listen: Moses said: If a man dies childless, his brother must marry the widow, giving offspring to his brother. Now there were seven brothers among us. The first one married a virgin, he died without issue, so he left his wife to his brother. Also the second
one died without is-sue, and also the third one who married the widow of the two who had preceded him, and so on down to the seventh. Finally, after be-ing married to all the seven brothers, the woman died. Tell us: at the resurrection of bodies, if it is really true that men resurrect and that our souls outlive us and join our bodies on the last day, form-ing the living again, which of the seven brothers will have the wom-an, since all seven of them had her on the Earth?»
(Jesus):«You are wrong. You understand neither the Scriptures nor the power of God. The other life will be quite different from this one, and in the eternal Kingdom there will be no necessities of the flesh as there are here. Because, truly, after the last Judgement bodies will rise from the dead and will be joined to their immortal souls, forming whole beings, as alive, nay, more alive than your person and Mine are now, but no longer subject to the laws and above all to the incentives and abuses that exist now. At the resurrection, men
and women will not get married, but will be like the angels of God in Heaven, who do not get married, and yet they live in perfect love, which is divine and spiritual. And with regard to the resurrection of the dead, have you not read how God spoke to Moses from the bush? What did the Most High say then? I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob. He did not say: I was, making him understand that Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob had been, but no longer were. He said: I am. Because Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are. Immortal. Like all men in their immortal part, while ages last, and later, also in their
bodies raised for eternity. They exist, as Moses, the prophets, the just exist, as, unfortunately, Cain exists, and those of the Deluge, and the sodomites, and all those who died in mortal sin. God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-14-2003 07:08 PM :
Hello LG:
You said: The economies of the developing countries that you mention have little or no sophisticated (often less polluting) industries and consequently environmental measures would involve a much larger percentage of their industry as a whole. As a consequence their economy would collapse if they had to impose the sort of stringent measures that the other participants were prepared to impose on the more advanced economies
Reply: There may be some truth to your statement but how does that explain China's complete exemption from the Kyoto Treaty. Particularly when they are enormous polluters and represent 20%, plus or minus, of the problem, and particularly given that China is hell bent on achieving parity with the US militarily. Is there perhaps some attempt by certain parties to give China an advantage here? They are expending enormous amounts of money in developing ICBM nuclear weapons, laser weapons, satellite technology and satellite killers, they are presently developing a superior and expensive Main Battle Tank and a blue-water navy complete with aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines in order to project power far from thier shores. How can they afford these measures and not the ecologically friendly ones that you mentioned would harm thier economy? Smells like a rat to me.
And how about India, they too are rapidly developing a very expensive nuclear force as well and a large surface and underwater naval force. This requires huge amounts of money. They are huge polluters up there near the top tier yet they are exempted from the Kyoto Treaty too. Perhaps someone, I wonder who, needs to have a bit of a balance to Chinas military weight. Hmm? I think I smell another rat.
Perhaps George Bush is on to something after all.
-Rick
[ May 14, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Rick Hurst ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nick (Member # 141) on 05-15-2003 06:03 AM :
Well attested ric.The environmentalists have more agendas than legion had demons.Number one on their list is the destruction of the American economy.Rush Limbaugh has been exposing environmentalist fallacies for years has he not.
Pretty good rule of thumb: if the liberals,the UN and the EU are for something - it is bad for America.Bush was right to snub Kioto.It was just a load of liberals gathering at a bash America meet.Kioto: tilting at windmills.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rick Hurst (Member # 237) on 05-15-2003 07:25 AM :
Nick, Just curious, how do you hear Rush way over there?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by DrLee1 (Member # 450) on 05-16-2003 11:09 PM :
The Death Penalty:
Since time immemorial the death penalty has applied to certain crimes. Religions are for it and some are against it. Still it is the rule in many countries. Certain crimes will qualify their makers for this penalty.
As to the saying that countries not having the death penalty have a lower crime rate than those nations were the death penalty rules: please cite the facts and your source as a reference.
Justice is the rule of law of society and the rule of God, since the majority of the Gods, appears to believe in the golden rule of "an eye for an eye" Criminal activities should be rewarded, on a need be basis as per legislated law and if the rule is the death penalty then let it be: Let criminals beware.
Salvation, forgiveness and similar measures are still available to the criminals facing the death penalty; their souls may be saved via different theological mechanism as the flesh is redeemed by their exemplary extinction. There is more value to the redeeming of a criminal soul by the death of their criminal carrying flesh than by condemning the criminal to a life in perpetual prison---besides the additional costs involved and dangers to society should convicted criminals walk free due to their good imprison behavior and possible religious conversions of convenience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copy Right © 2002, Foundation of Human Understanding Web Site by Crystal Digital Images (www.crystaldi.com)
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0