Quantcast

What is the role of capital punishment in contemporary society? What are your views regarding the use of capital punishment? Do you agree or disagree with the death penalty? Why or why not?

xphile 2009/09/23 12:38:44
Yes, please explain
No, please explain
You!
Add Photos & Videos
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Philo-Publius 2009/10/01 03:24:40
    No, please explain
    Philo-Publius
    +2
    I gotta start the discussion somewhere I guess... let's start out small.. I would say that I do not think the STATE has the dispensation to take life. I would start out with the assumption that the victim or his family likely has the dispensation but not the state. I could be wrong in this... this is really an issue that does not lend itself to simple answers, as justice is difficult to measure... so if you wanna convince me of something here's your chance : )

    I also think back to the premise that, in America, the state does not have powers which the people do not (I know the state has overSTEPPED their powers at times). But the concept here has always been that, since the state derives ITS powers from the people themselves, it cannot possess (in this case, possess the dispensation of the death penalty) a power that was not first inherent in the people.

    The People (individuals) have the right to commit what is sometimes called "justifiable homicide", so even if we DO allow (delegate) the state that right, it would have to conform to the right which the people had in the first place to give, which they GAVE OVER (delegated) to the state, right?

    There are a lot of hard questions here, xphile... I thought this was a FANTASTIC discussion... be gentle with my hippie ass, hon, but don't hold back what you think. : )

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Philo-Publius 2009/10/01 03:24:40
    No, please explain
    Philo-Publius
    +2
    I gotta start the discussion somewhere I guess... let's start out small.. I would say that I do not think the STATE has the dispensation to take life. I would start out with the assumption that the victim or his family likely has the dispensation but not the state. I could be wrong in this... this is really an issue that does not lend itself to simple answers, as justice is difficult to measure... so if you wanna convince me of something here's your chance : )

    I also think back to the premise that, in America, the state does not have powers which the people do not (I know the state has overSTEPPED their powers at times). But the concept here has always been that, since the state derives ITS powers from the people themselves, it cannot possess (in this case, possess the dispensation of the death penalty) a power that was not first inherent in the people.

    The People (individuals) have the right to commit what is sometimes called "justifiable homicide", so even if we DO allow (delegate) the state that right, it would have to conform to the right which the people had in the first place to give, which they GAVE OVER (delegated) to the state, right?

    There are a lot of hard questions here, xphile... I thought this was a FANTASTIC discussion... be gentle with my hippie ass, hon, but don't hold back what you think. : )
  • xphile Philo-P... 2009/10/01 06:57:52
    xphile
    +1
    Alright here goes, My SH buddy!! :)) I will address each of your paragraphs sep.

    In your first paragraph you said the state doesnt have the dispensation to take life. The states (more specifiacaly the judge) do have authority to dispense the sentence of death to certain offenders under our law as a nation. Our nation was founded under the asspect that the justice system serves as God's servants and therefore are expected to be the judge and punisher of such crimes. To quote the bible:
    The right to exercise capital punishment is reserved for the state, not the individual. There is no place for personal revenge in the administration of this punishment (Rom. 12:19). It is the state’s responsibility, as God’s civil servant on earth, to protect its citizens and to punish those who harm them (Rom. 13:4,6). Capital punishment provides the state the means to apply the appropriate punishment to the crime (Deut. 19:21).
    And lets face it my bleeding heart buddy, LOL, if we allowed the victims to arrive at a punishment for certain offenders, woha, the left would raise hell because victims would punish inhumanly.

    In your second paragraph you say the state derives its powers from the people, and you are absolutly right. That is why some states do not have capital punishment and some d...





    Alright here goes, My SH buddy!! :)) I will address each of your paragraphs sep.

    In your first paragraph you said the state doesnt have the dispensation to take life. The states (more specifiacaly the judge) do have authority to dispense the sentence of death to certain offenders under our law as a nation. Our nation was founded under the asspect that the justice system serves as God's servants and therefore are expected to be the judge and punisher of such crimes. To quote the bible:
    The right to exercise capital punishment is reserved for the state, not the individual. There is no place for personal revenge in the administration of this punishment (Rom. 12:19). It is the state’s responsibility, as God’s civil servant on earth, to protect its citizens and to punish those who harm them (Rom. 13:4,6). Capital punishment provides the state the means to apply the appropriate punishment to the crime (Deut. 19:21).
    And lets face it my bleeding heart buddy, LOL, if we allowed the victims to arrive at a punishment for certain offenders, woha, the left would raise hell because victims would punish inhumanly.

    In your second paragraph you say the state derives its powers from the people, and you are absolutly right. That is why some states do not have capital punishment and some do. It is voted upon. The only thing that stops the ability of the victim or the people as you say to carry out such a punishment, is to elliminate the lynch mob effect which was abundantly in effect before. This way the accused gets a fair trial, and is judged under God.

    When you say "justifiable homicide", are you talking about like mercy killings, you know when you take someone off of life support? Or are you talking about self defense? Or both? If you mean both, these circumstances both demand that a trial and judgement are not possible. The state hands down punishments due to the verdict and recomendation of the JURY, which is the PEOPLE. Right? And to go even further with that, the prosecution will seek the death penalty as a sentence based on the facts, evidence and victims wants.

    I hope I was gentel, oh and as a personal note, without brining God into it, I simply believe it is a waste of money and time to treat monsters with any kind of humane treatment. I guess I am just a horrible person...........sigh.

    LOL, thanks man, I enjoy debating with someone I can respect.
    (more)
  • Philo-P... xphile 2009/10/01 19:46:13
    Philo-Publius
    +1
    Aw, I enjoy debating with you also, so don't mention it. The respect is mutual, and yes, you were very gentle. I think we NEED to bring God into it. I don't know if I've mentioned it or not to you before, but I am comfortable with the bible, and I am comfortable with using it as citation, what you wrote I consider well-founded, although the interpretation I may come up with might be different than your own. That two people disagree on scripture is inevitable I suppose, but I am liking the fact that we are "grounded" somewhere we can agree on, at least as a starting point, and yes, I am a bleeding heart and an artist ; ) I must make my stand... I'm going to be all over the place here a little as were you, but this is good, because we can throw these thoughts out there and see if they line up with each other... we can explore the ones which seem to jive, and discard the ones that don't... Now...

    When I say, "They (the state) don't have the dispensation to take life," I mean by that not that they do not have legal authority to do so. They are clearly authorized even now, but I'm saying they are doing what they're doing under "man's law", not in accord with "Providence". Now, I use the word "dispensation" you'll notice, rather than "the legal power to" because, to me at least, "...












































    Aw, I enjoy debating with you also, so don't mention it. The respect is mutual, and yes, you were very gentle. I think we NEED to bring God into it. I don't know if I've mentioned it or not to you before, but I am comfortable with the bible, and I am comfortable with using it as citation, what you wrote I consider well-founded, although the interpretation I may come up with might be different than your own. That two people disagree on scripture is inevitable I suppose, but I am liking the fact that we are "grounded" somewhere we can agree on, at least as a starting point, and yes, I am a bleeding heart and an artist ; ) I must make my stand... I'm going to be all over the place here a little as were you, but this is good, because we can throw these thoughts out there and see if they line up with each other... we can explore the ones which seem to jive, and discard the ones that don't... Now...

    When I say, "They (the state) don't have the dispensation to take life," I mean by that not that they do not have legal authority to do so. They are clearly authorized even now, but I'm saying they are doing what they're doing under "man's law", not in accord with "Providence". Now, I use the word "dispensation" you'll notice, rather than "the legal power to" because, to me at least, "dispensation" evokes the concept of carrying out of the Divine Will, the Will of Proividence, Divine AUTHORITY, which you expand upon, but which I disagree is connected with or SHOULD be connected with the state. "The state", and consider this, is not an eternal creature. "The state" is something that has occurred in man's history which, before modern times, we didn't HAVE any "state", there were just people, living their lives, doing their day-to-day tasks, occasionally I would assume doing wrong to their fellow men, and occasionally dispensing "justice" on their own or in groups. There was a time when the state did not exist in human conception, and there will be a time again where the state no longer exists (I could get into why it doesn't exist even now, but that's another discussion for another time, and we'd be here another hundred years if opened that box up, haha).

    The state is, at best, an artificial construct, to which man has temporarily delegated the powers that he already had, for his collective betterment. Now, I would agree that ANY institution either CAN be in harmony with Providence, or IS or IS NOT in harmony with Providence, but there is quite a distinction here I think, in saying that the state has the POSSIBILITY of, or at times CAN BE in harmony with Divine Justice, and saying that the state ITSELF is Divinely-Ordained, Sanctioned and therefore has the dispensation (authority) to administer justice. What the founding fathers set up (to me) in the court system, seems to be an admittedly artificial construct, not necessarily a bad one, just one that ATTEMPTS to carry out the Divine Will (as represented by figures like Moses above its doors, and the Ten commandments until recently ; ) but also which realizes (or did realize early on) that it is NOT the final arbiter of Justice, that it is NOT all-seeing and all-knowing, and therefore NOT Divinely-Ordained. There are two representations of Lady Justice, as you may know. In one of her aspects she is blindfolded and in the other one there is no blindfold. In our courtrooms, she is blindfolded, she holds the balances and weighs EVIDENCE. Evidence is far inferior to KNOWLEDGE, to ALL-SEEING-NESS (as God sees) which the second figure (non-blindfolded) represents. The second figure (non-blindfolded) is DIVINE Justice, and it is Divine justice which these feeble courts who are reduced to weighing evidence attempt to approximate. That they cannot do it should clue us in instantly that they DO NOT and CAN NOT have the dispensation (Divine Authority) to administer Divine law.

    Now, I will agree with you that the judge represents the state, the judge IS the state, just as in England the judge represents the Crown, he is administering justice for the Queen, in her stead. I would agree with you also that the premise of the justice system in America, indeed the premise of most human law, is that it is attempting to act as a servant to the Will of Providence (I speak a somewhat different language than you, I see : ) but I understand where you are coming from, and you would likely agree with me that terms like "God" and "Providence" are interchangable. "God" just seems to color or filter the idea of Providencial Divine Justice through a Judeo-Christian lens, and that is perfectly valid, I'm cool with any terminology. As many of the founders were Deists [like me, I suppose] rather than Christians, I use the more general term "Providence" because I believe it is more inclusive, and better represents the idea of "Natural Law", and Natural Law here is clearly what we are talking about, whether we say it's "God's Law" or "Providencial Law", it is all NATURAL LAW).

    Moving onto the bible, you quote Romans 12:19:

    "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

    This verse is quoting Deut. 32:35, which says:

    "To ME (the LORD) belongeth vengeance and recompence..."

    And ultimately that is true. I will, for now, dispense with the meaning of "the LORD" as "yahveh" as indicating LIFE, process, the will to live, the generative principle in Nature, and indirectly "karma", rather than a separate being, because we'd be here ANOTHER hundred years talking about that... it isn't important here anyway whether Divine Justice flows from something which is more abstract or more concrete, we agree on the concept of Divine Justice already it seems, so let's keep that rollin'.

    You next mention Romans 13:4-6, and some other verses in the context of man being God's "civil servants" on earth, and you state that, "The right to exercise capital punishment is reserved for the state, not the individual." I interpret these verses the exact opposite way (LOL)... Chapter 13 I read, much in the same way I read the rest of the New Testament, in a spiritual sense, and not as pertaining to this world. Jesus says, "My kingdom is NOT of this world," so it makes little sense to me for him to thereafter sanction a system of civil or criminal law. "Turn the other cheek" is a spiritual exercise, the exercise is, and Buddha said this too (I know you're not a Buddhist, but Christianity is of the same species as Buddhism, both are methods of illumination, again, another hundred years we could spend, what are we up to now, 300 years?) that if someone is attacking you, you must make it a mediatation and not defend yourself. Clearly, this thinking is antithetical to the common thinking of this world. Now, you can say no! You can say, "People are saps if they don't defend themselves, they'll be ruled by tyrants!" But the whole point of the gospel, the good news of the gospel, is that this thinking (bodily-centered thinking over spiritually-centered) can be turned on its head. I can't turn it on its head by myself. I need... others... to... "help" turn the old thinking over and accept the Christian gospel, but all they see is fear, all they see is that they are their bodies, they wanna be top dog here on earth for 60 or 70 or 80 years and the most they are willing to do for the other world is HOPE there's a better place waiting for them when they die. But to refuse to defend is the ultimate acknowledgement that you are going to one day lay it down anyway, and that you are NOT this body. Let them kill it. This is revolutionary, I realize. This is gnostic, and I understand this is heresy to traditional Christianity, but I also understand it is correct.

    "Rulers" and "Powers" are Gnostic terms, they indicate hierarchies within the Pleroma, as mentioned in Col. 2:9 with the idea that in Christos "...dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power..." Anybody who bothers to pick up James Robinson's or another translation of the Nag Hammadi Library will see instantly that this is what Paul was talking about. Look closely at the lines below and see if they are speaking of the Roman Empire, or about a high Archon, a nemesis:

    "3For rulers (archons) are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
    4For HE is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; FOR HE BEARETH NOT THE SWORD IN VAIN: for HE is the minister of God, a revenger to execute WRATH upon him that doeth evil.
    5Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for WRATH, but also for conscience sake.
    6For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.

    Look at Pistis Sophia 113 (Nag Hammadi) and the meaning of the above becomes clear:

    "The second thought is on the other hand that which thou hast just said unto us concerning the soul which receiveth the mysteries: 'If it cometh into the region of the rulers of the way of the midst, they come forth to meet it in exceedingly great fear and they are afraid of it. And the soul giveth the mystery of the fear unto them and they are afraid before it. And it giveth the destiny to its region, and it giveth the counterfeiting spirit to its own region, and it giveth the apology and the seals to every one of the rulers who are on the ways, and it giveth the honour and the glory and the laud of the seals and the songs of praise to all those of the region of the Light,'--concerning this word, my Lord, thou hast spoken aforetime through the mouth of our brother Paul: 'Give tax to whom tax is due, give fear to whom fear is due, give tribute to whom tribute is due, give honour to whom honour is due, and give laud to whom laud is due, and owe not any other anything,' --that is, my Lord: The soul which receiveth mysteries, giveth apology to all regions. This, my Lord, is the second thought."

    I will not argue this part any further here, because if it's not something that has been studied, it's not something that will click. You would have to be in my thought here as looking upon this holistically in reference to other apocryphal books and literature, and also would have to believe them or have supplemented with them to get into that frame of reference. But we can explore these also, as I see the bible means a lot to you already, as it does me. I think the bible is something we both live our lives by, even though it appears we look upon it in slightly different lights.

    There is no place I can think of where capital punishment is reserved for the STATE in the Old Testament, but to the PRIESTS (or the Sanhedrin? I suppose) it is presumed. Sanhedrin is likely coeval with Torah, or maybe slightly anterior, if we follow the body and not the name they went under. This body may have been mentioned first in Numbers 11, if we take the "seventy elders to be assembled" as representing this body. But even here, even if we equate the Sanhedrin with the state, which would be a purely theocratic one, we still do not have anything like perfect Divine justice, though it would be hard to argue that the authority (dispensation) was not there expressly given. Which kind of brings up another issue I have, maybe now is a good place to bring it up... if God is presumably infallible, and He appoints a state (be it Israel or modern day America) to dispense His Justice, and uphold His Laws, how can the state then dispense infallible law fallibly? Especially when we have the example of the Urim and Thummim which could presumably be used today, which ARE infallible:

    "And thou shalt put in the breastplate of judgment the Urim and the Thummim; and they shall be upon Aaron's heart, when he goeth in before the LORD: and Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of Israel upon his heart before the LORD continually." (Exodus 28:30)

    Why did THESE odd divination devices fade into oblivion when they worked so well at the outset? Why not just bring the accused before a high priest today who would use the Urim and Thummim to decide their fate INFALLIBLY? If we answer that this dispensation has fallen from Israel, perhaps during their history or in the diaspora, or when they rejected the messiah, when was it re-established WITHOUT Urim and Thummim? In other words, when did God "give back" the dispensation? WHERE (to whom) did He give it back? I perceive that this must be meant allegorically then rather than literally. We can return to this.

    When I said "justifiable homicide" I was refering to self-defense. I see that I said:

    "The People (individuals) have the right to commit what is sometimes called 'justifiable homicide', so even if we DO allow (delegate) the state that right, it would have to conform to the right which the people had in the first place to give, which they GAVE OVER (delegated) to the state, right?"

    And what I meant was that we have to be consistent if we truly believe that the ONLY powers a state can possess are those derived from its people. If the PEOPLE do not have the legitimated power to murder someone, neither then could the state (that much I'm sure we both agree on). The people DO individually have the power and the Natural right to commit what some have called "justifiable homicide" (in cases of self-defense and in whatever other cases... have been considered "justifiable", including perhaps, making sure a perpetrator who attacked someone was unable to do it ever again if it were perceived that they might)... I just was thinking out loud previously that this theory of delegated powers might be capable of approaching Natural rights as upheld or dispensed by the state, via a different avenue. I'm still thinking it might, but again, the state being a temporary and artificial creature (no state in fact exists outside of the men and women who consent to its reality) it would not ultimately be the STATE that would be sanctioned by Divine Law or Providence to carry out the retribution killings, but the people THEMSELVES, who have just happened to have delegated their power to this state for sake of expediency. I realize this is full-circle from the premise of the first paragraph at the outset of this reply, but this is a needful distinction I think, because it reinforces my opinion that the state does not and should not have power exclusive of the people, and also lends itself to YOUR premise, that the state, being OF the people, has the dispensation to administer capital punishment (subject to the will and/or consent of the people).

    I really wish we could get into why there is no such thing as a state in actuality, it's a pretty simple argument really, essentially its the same as the water droplet analogy, you can look and see an ocean (the state) or you can look again and see that it's really just individual people who are responsible for THEMSELVES, or how a flock of birds can either be a "flock"... or it can just be "birds". But the benefit in seeing that everybody is just an individual who is in on a consensus reality that, "This is the government, this isn't ME," is that it eliminates the possibility of shifting the blame or "moral responsibility" onto a fictitious entity such as "United States", or "Jackson County", etc. We use that all too often in the sense of, "I didn't pollute the environment, 'XYZ Corporation' did that!" when you hold stock in XYZ Corporation... or a parent saying, "It ain't MY fault! The SCHOOL SYSTEM failed my child!" We all refuse responsibility, yet we want to accept power. it's natural to want to refuse responsibility, but with power COMES responsibility... the water droplets are affected naturally by the other droplets they're up against. That doesn't mean that we are responsible directly for a murderer's actions. He's ultimately responsible for his actions, I'm responsible for MY actions, you're responsible for YOUR actions. But on some level, and to some degree, if we are truly all connected, if one droplet has even once come into conact with another droplet that came into contact with another droplet that came into... contact with the murder, then we have to take responsibility. Out of 300,000,000 it may be equal to or less than 1/300,000,000th of responsibility, but nonetheless, you can't be "connected" and yet separate, it's not possible. I see refusing to accept this inevitable fact, no matter how much we don't want to be responsible, as the number one cause of crime. It is undeniable that when a member of society really feels he is a member, really feels part of the group, has and is entitled equally to things and can partake in the things that the rest of society partakes of, that he is far less likely to commit a crime. This is why "poverty breeds crime".

    I am diverging here, I see I'm off on a little bit on a tangent, so I will reel this in. To some up, we need to focus on how this argument relates to natural law and also interconnectedness, because the natural law portion of it I think will reveal who or what entity gets the dispensation, if any, of capital punishment, and interconectedness exploration will reveal who has the dispensation, in other words, the moral authority to take life... and it is true, that regardless of what we decide, God HIMSELF is the ultimate dispenser of vengeance and retribution, whether dispensed directly (in Nature, karma, etc.) or vicariously (through a human agent). Write back when you are able, this took me awhile to consider and write up, so if you have thoughts, today, tomorrow, whenever is fine... these are not easy answers. Thank you again, my conservative friend!
    (more)
  • xphile Philo-P... 2009/10/01 23:50:58
    xphile
    +1
    Holy crap Philo, we are already going to be here for 100 years, LOL

    Big breath, ok here we go.......

    Here are a few lines of scripture, I also have a few posted in another post that I was debating with another person on here and I think she gave up on me. LOL

    Genesis 9:5-7, "Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

    6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
    By man his blood shall be shed;
    For in the image of God
    He made man.
    As an artist I would assume that you have a lot of passion as I do. And in knowing that passion let us both acknowledge that passion is prevalent in the good and the bad. (Oh I am going to go paragraph by paragraph this time also; I have to keep moving the page up so I can read your humongous post. LOL Oh and I am so glad that you can keep up with my all over the place posts, ha ha most people complain, can’t keep up with me. I think it is residual ADD)

    Ok Passion yes......Passion is the drive that makes us all unique, and ensures that that uniqueness comes out. I think you would agree. I would outline many of the thousands of serial killers I have studied here and define each of their unique qualities ...



















    Holy crap Philo, we are already going to be here for 100 years, LOL

    Big breath, ok here we go.......

    Here are a few lines of scripture, I also have a few posted in another post that I was debating with another person on here and I think she gave up on me. LOL

    Genesis 9:5-7, "Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

    6 “Whoever sheds man’s blood,
    By man his blood shall be shed;
    For in the image of God
    He made man.
    As an artist I would assume that you have a lot of passion as I do. And in knowing that passion let us both acknowledge that passion is prevalent in the good and the bad. (Oh I am going to go paragraph by paragraph this time also; I have to keep moving the page up so I can read your humongous post. LOL Oh and I am so glad that you can keep up with my all over the place posts, ha ha most people complain, can’t keep up with me. I think it is residual ADD)

    Ok Passion yes......Passion is the drive that makes us all unique, and ensures that that uniqueness comes out. I think you would agree. I would outline many of the thousands of serial killers I have studied here and define each of their unique qualities that they claim as a signature in their work, but this blog would quickly be 404d by SH. I don’t know if you have studied at all in this realm so let me just ask you how, especially a bleeding heart, could not feel the natural human emotion of revenge after hearing about.......oh let me just pick one........AMBER. Do you know about that one, look up Amber alerts on line. I have books full of the sick shit these monsters have done to babies. And I do feel in my deepest sole that the Lord wants us to clean up as much as possible, only because he wants to bring his justice swiftly, he even says that. Ok, how about Ted Bundy........I bet you didn’t know that that man was responsible for the sexual mutilation and murder of over 100 female citizens across the country ranging from Washington State to Florida U. They are not human, in my eyes or the Lords, how? How could they be, please tell me. I am not talking about physical form at all, (and you said bringing the Lord into it was ok so) but inside, not human.

    Ok I just woke up so let me go get some subway, I will be right back. LOL, I work 3rd shift.

    Ok I am back..............ha ha. I really did leave. Hungry!!

    I think you went on to say next that the Lord states vengeance is his and his alone. I am not disputing that one bit, however my interpretation of that is that it is the type of vengeance that ONLY God can give. And it must be swift. That vengeance being..........wait for it..........A SENTENCE TO HELL. Man I wish we had sound effects for words..........wouldn’t that be cool???

    I think that you go on to pick apart each one of my choices from the Bible, and really I shouldn’t expect anything different. So let me Just acknowledge all of that with simplicity. The Bible contradicts itself in many, many places, and I think WE (people) loose in the translation only when we take the verse out of context, I am sure that when you say "Turn the other check is practiced spiritually in day to day life" .....You can also agree that some circumstances defiantly warrant the action of just letting go, when other do not. I think it depends entirely on what the situation was that the Lord was referring to in the Bible. Let us not forget the Bible was written by men, that.....like us.......had opposing views on issues just like this.
    Ok I am going to move on.........Oooooh well I was until I read you’re.........
    Why not just bring the accused before a high priest and allow him to judge infallibly???? REALY? I honestly can’t believe that coming from you, a bleeding heart???? So you think the accused would get a more fair judging than actually having a trial, and a lengthy appeal process through a....yes.....state? Like they did in the middle ages right??? UH no.

    Ok I will give you a chance to elaborate, just incase I am not getting it right.

    Ok so I was right that you were talking about self defense. Really the only argument I can say is that, the state does get its power from the people, we vote on capital punishment and the jury recommends it. Also the judge, and prosecutor are both people of the state, they just represent the state. And yes we do both agree that there is a difference between the punishment of death, and a justifiable homicide. However we do not agree that they are both NOT murder. The difference between self defenses is that there is no time for a trial. The trial and justice system is the only thing between the vehemence of the people. The state does not have power exclusive of the people; you are disproving your own argument. You say the state doesn’t exist without us, and your right it doesn’t. Therefore the power the state has to punish comes from us.

    Ok I agree on your entire analogy of how a state isn’t a state so we do not even have to go into this.

    For me to try and some up may not be so easy, but you said we need to figure out if the dispensation of capital punishment even belongs to anyone. I ask in view of all of the evidence of the lack of care for life these people have, except their own, and acknowledging the fact that space for criminals and money is running out...........what are we supposed to do????

    Aw man take it easy on me, my head is going to explode!!! LOL talk to you soon, I will be on training with the military for a couple weeks so it may be a while till you get my unbelievably long answer to your next book!! LOL
    (more)
  • Philo-P... xphile 2009/10/05 15:04:06
    Philo-Publius
    +1
    I've been writing you for three days, xphile, LOL... and keep getting distracted every time I begin to compose... I have some written and will reply here with it probably today... just wanted to let you know I didn't forget about you. To the contrary, this is fascinating and you make points which require a ton of thought, and I don't wanna gloss over any of them. Thank you, I'll post later today : )
  • xphile Philo-P... 2009/10/06 07:03:18
    xphile
    +1
    LOL, you rock man!!
  • Philo-P... xphile 2009/10/06 00:27:01
    Philo-Publius
    +1
    Al right. NOW you have me interested! : ) Sorry it took me so long to respond, you said you would be busy for a few days and I set this aside to think on it and kept coming back to it. I'll just hit these as they were dealt, and I am going to go a long way in some of this to demonstrate what I realize is very little! LOL, but the hundred years begins NOW:

    Genesis 9:5-7. I want to relate something to you that might help you see how I look at bible verses, especially Old Testament verses. I take them allegorically, yes, but just to say "allegorically" doesn't communicate a whole lot. There are many levels I think to the books, there are many keys to interpretation. The scriptures, we seem to agree, are divinely inspired. But how do you communicate to every person that has ever lived or who ever WILL live, when they have vastly different mental capacities and proclivities? You're God, let's say, and you're going to write a book that's got to communicate something to everyone who reads it, and not only that, but the more times they read, the more they study, the more it has to keep ON communicating. What would you write? Literal history? Something that is a "take it or leave it"? Or are you going to write something that is open-ended, or at least on so many levels that it become...

















































































































































    Al right. NOW you have me interested! : ) Sorry it took me so long to respond, you said you would be busy for a few days and I set this aside to think on it and kept coming back to it. I'll just hit these as they were dealt, and I am going to go a long way in some of this to demonstrate what I realize is very little! LOL, but the hundred years begins NOW:

    Genesis 9:5-7. I want to relate something to you that might help you see how I look at bible verses, especially Old Testament verses. I take them allegorically, yes, but just to say "allegorically" doesn't communicate a whole lot. There are many levels I think to the books, there are many keys to interpretation. The scriptures, we seem to agree, are divinely inspired. But how do you communicate to every person that has ever lived or who ever WILL live, when they have vastly different mental capacities and proclivities? You're God, let's say, and you're going to write a book that's got to communicate something to everyone who reads it, and not only that, but the more times they read, the more they study, the more it has to keep ON communicating. What would you write? Literal history? Something that is a "take it or leave it"? Or are you going to write something that is open-ended, or at least on so many levels that it becomes so? The bible contradicts itself, yes, but only on the surface. There are, it is said by some, "seven keys" to interpretation to every scripture, a given scripture can be taken astrologically, anthropological, numerical, physical-chemical, etc. The Jews have their own guidlines of interpretation, which, like the "seven keys" complement each other rather than invalidate each other, and I'm just throwing this out there in the general to illustrate how their are several, not one, levels of interpretation when we quote a verse... the below rundown illustrates this Jewish approach to scripture:

    Peshat (פְּשָׁט) — "plain" ("simple") or the direct meaning[1].
    Remez (רֶמֶז) — "hints" or the deep (allegoric) meaning beyond just the literal sense.
    Derash (דְּרַשׁ) — from Hebrew darash: "inquire" ("seek") — the comparative (midrashic) meaning, as given through similar occurrences.
    Sod (סוֹד) (pronounced with a long O as in gold) — "secret" ("mystery") or the mystical meaning, as given through inspiration or revelation.

    Now, let's look at t Genesis 9. I consider this chapter to be a re-telling of the creation story, on a higher level, and of a new and different round of humanity, and with different outward conditions and different "rules" in operation:

    Genesis 9
    1And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.

    2And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

    3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.

    4But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.

    5And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.

    6Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

    7And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.

    The plain meaning here (peshat) would be that humans are now "allowed" to eat meat. With remez, we have "hints" that, for instance, although God "allowed" the eating of flesh HERE, it was not so from the beginning when we were given "every green herb" to eat, "for you it shall be as meat". So it is suggested (more than suggested) that, although this activity is permitted, it is not the original law, thus it is stated here alongside the reiteration of the original law (v.3) and thus represents a "compromise" rather than the say all and end all of the matter. We would look at the injunction to "shed blood" (v. 5) then in the same light. And we would see that it is segued from vss. 3 and 4, which speak of this new carnivorous diet, and look at these all in their context and in the same light. This principle recurs in Ex. 21:24 as "eye for eye, tooth for tooth", Lev. 24:20 "Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him [again]." And again in Deut. 19:21, a verse on it's face seemingly even MORE in favor of capital punishment, it is written, "And thine eye shall not pity; [but] life [shall go] for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."

    But we don't have the whole picture yet. Moving onto Drash, we'd have to compare it to "similar occurences", not of this particular command, but of a similar story or verse that is saying the same thing, midrash is a "retelling" also called a "revolutio", a principle that is "turned" or "rehashed" by stating it in another way. Specifically, in verse 2 where the "fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered," we might compare to Isaiah 11:6-7, where the prophecy of the end of this state of affairs occurs:

    Isaiah 11
    1And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:

    2And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD;

    3And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears:

    4But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked.

    5And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins.

    6The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

    7And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

    8And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.

    9They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

    "Jesse" can be interpreted as "yesh"+"i", or "my being"... out of the ground of being comes "Christos" or "The Branch" upon which the Spirit of Yahweh rests and this is the Spirit we're trying to realize, the spirit whereby we "judge not". Verse 2 also, very interestingly for interpretation, names the upper sephiroth and thus stamps this passage as decidedly kabbalistic, as I believe the whole bible can be interpreted this way, this passage merely highlights what has come to be a standard motif thereof. Verses 5-9 talk about the overturning of nature in the animal kingdom, just as 3-4 speak of the "judgement", or discernment, wich will herals it, which will preceed it. Jesus mentions this level of interpretation I'm alluding to here, when he says, "Do not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgement," and also "I have come not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it."


    More bible exegesis in a moment, but back to the discussion at hand... you bring up serial killers, and this is an interesting topic to me also. You say that these people are not human. You would be right, I would agree. They are not human, as their consciousness is not centered in the rational mind, which alone, I understand, makes us men (there is a broad range of gradation of mind, or grades of quality of mind, but I am here talking about the "normal" range which I will explain presently) and they have their punishment coming. In theosophic teaching, which I am heavily into, there are posited seven aspects of man, which are merely a slightly expanded version of the triune entity man is portrayed as in the bible, both old and new Testaments, positing the body (Heb: nefesh, Gr: soma) soul (Heb: ruwach, Gr: psyche) and spirit (Heb: neshama, Gr: nous).

    In all of these systems, mind (called manas in theosophy) is viewed as "dual", in the sense that a proportion of it is divine which pulls from, or is colored by the spirit (called "buddhi" in that system) and a proportion is "mortal", "fractured" or divided as it is colored or influenced by the principle below it (in that system, "kama", which means passion or desire) and that alone is the source of every evil, every outrage committed, ever murder, rape, etc... every wrong done to other human beings, and I feel that it is in the realm of the mind that we need to be looking. We have not solved the problem of crime in 3,000 years by looking at crime... it has actually gotten WORSE by reacting to crime through the agency of the state. This is my "Rubik's Cube" theory, which is really just a rip-off of Zen or Taoist theory. You cannot solve Rubik's Cube by turning the pieces TOWARD the sides they go to!!! That works in the beginning, and gets us maybe 2/3 of the way there, and so we believe we are making progress toward a goal. But in point of fact, the same logic that got ONE or TWO sides to line up is DETRIMENTAL when carried through to try and line up the other sides, which can only be aligned completely via a roundabout method, where we appear to be, and are in fact, turning the pieces AWAY from their goal prior to the remainder aligning. It likewise seems insanity to tell people to "turn the other cheek" when their instict is retribution, to punish, to "get even"... but that's what has to occur to solve the problem of crime, and to make criminals no longer commit crimes. Again, we love the neighbor as ourselves because they ARE ourselves. We are monsters ourselves, "in here" (points to head and heart) else how could there be monsters "out there"?

    ======================
    Aside: When I said I was a bleeding heart and an artist, I was more quoting a Pink Floyd song : ) ...I think it's called "Outside the Wall" and is the last little ditty prior to the album "looping" (if you are familiar with The Wall, you will now see what I mean. But in any case, the lyrics are:

    All alone, or in twos,
    The ones who really love you
    Walk up and down outside the wall.
    Some hand in hand
    And some gathered together in bands.
    The bleeding hearts and artists
    Make their stand.

    I think I am saying something very different here than, "Don't hurt these poor criminals!" And hopefully you can get a better taste of what that is as we go back and forth, if you are interested...
    =======================

    So in any case, back to this dual asect of mind, which dovetails with this I think... We say these murderers are not human. Now, if they are not human, and we both agree to that, it looks like we first have to answer the question of "who" or "what" commits these atrocities, and therefore who can or should be punished. Now in the traditional view of hell (which I would challenge, like I seem to challenge everything else ; ) hell is for humans. If we say that these serial killers are possessed by demons, for example, then who is responsible for the crime? Who actually COMMITTED the crime? The person, or the demon? In Kabbalah (I'm seeing that's another 100-year diversion : ) there is the concept of "klippoth", which are the "shells" or broken vessels cast off by the sephiroth, in other words, their unbalanced or shadow aspect, their image, and these are seen as demons by some schools. That last sentence will become very imposrtant if we look at the book of Revelation. I believe II Peter speaks of these (partially) as the "elements" and klippoth are illustrated, I think, in the story of Judas hanging himself in the potter's field (yes, this is a big circle, bear with me : ). Look at Matt. 27:

    7And they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

    8Wherefore that field was called, The field of blood, unto this day.

    9Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom they of the children of Israel did value;

    10And gave them for the potter's field, as the Lord appointed me.

    In Acts 1, the potter's field is also mentioned in connection with Judas:

    18Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

    19And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

    20For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

    Here comes a fruitless part, LOL, a little interpretation... the above scripture references Psalms 69:25. The gist of this psalm is found in v.18: "Draw nigh unto my soul (nefesh), [and] redeem it: deliver me because of mine enemies." The soul is attempting to be "drawn up" by the spirit", and the "enemies" are these forces, these shells, which in one sense are the demonic world, the shells or husks of disembodied souls, but which in another sense the klippoth are actually THIS very world and its material nature (you've heard people say that "hell is right here on earth") the desire principle and the "evil" which accompany it, which has its seat in the lower mind (he phren- whose numberical value is 666). This is the mind of "traffick", "merchandise", "treasures", "riches", and "commerce" as portrayed in Revelation 17 and elsewhere (Ezek. 28) regarding the great whore of Babylon (confusion), which is why no man can "buy or sell" (be attached to or involved in material lusts and desires, be "in bed with the whore") save he that has the "mark" (stigma) of the "beast" (the phren). In Greek the number translates "ή φρήν" but in Hebrew it is "תרסו", a play on the famed city of Hiram where in I Kgs. 10:22 Tarshish is mentioned as a naval center, in connection with the 666 talents of gold cited a few verses prior, connected again with traffick and commerce:

    14Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold,

    15Beside that he had of the merchantmen, and of the traffick of the spice merchants, and of all the kings of Arabia, and of the governors of the country.

    The man "out of Tarsus" (Paul) meets the Christos on the road to DAMASCUS, in other words, Aceldama. Now, I would interpret Aceldama to mean not only, "field of blood", from "halak", "field"+ "dam" "blood", but as (better, I'm sure) "AKAL", "to eat, consume"+"dam", "blood", meaning material life living off of other material life, which brings us back to the verse you cited in Gen 9. Let's look at it again:

    3Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.
    (Now the new order has begun: life must now live off of life, this is now drash, which has led us into the sod)

    4But flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall ye not eat.
    (This is the peshat prohibition)

    5And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man.
    (There it is... this is a new mode of nature, the new earth after the flood, where Noah's race, the seed of the previous one, repopulates the earth with this new mode of life... now there's physical reproduction, animals and humans are fearful of each other, one must kill the other to sustain their own life, etc. "At the hand" of every man indicates peshat, the plain meaning, and could allude to capital punishment, but the author including "at the hand of every BEAST" indicates that we must take the passage figuratively, because beasts do not have hands...)

    6Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

    (This is both a peshat prohibition against murder, and also a sod, it reflects this new general principle. It says what you say it says, but it also says something more. The plain meaning you suggest is not invalidated, but it is mitigated by the other interpretations, to where, ultimately, why are we killing people? Is killing criminals what we should be focused on? What IS a criminal? Who is doing the crime? How do we PREVENT the crime? Dig what I'm saying?)

    But this is why we drink Jesus' blood, right? Jesus is the Lamb of God, slain from the foundation of the world. He (the Logos) IS the world, all things were made by Him (out of Himself, IN whom we live and move, and have our being [Acts 17:28]), and outside of Him was nothing made which was made (John 1:3). We're down here in this field of blood and we say, "We want out! Save me, Jesus!" And so we start "drinking" the blood of the Logos which is life, the "blood" of the spirit, rather than the blood of the field (the world) which is death. You are familiar with the phrase "beast of the field"? Well, that's what we are, all of us, the murderers of this world and also us who "aren't so bad" maybe... beasts of the field until we realize this and get Jesus, then the "metannoia" ("new mind") is what we become, SOME of us already are this, trying to foster this metannoia in others ("metannoia" is usually translated "repentance")... and Romans 12:2 has, "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what [is] that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God."). But in any case, the motif is, that the "beast" is exposed" (understood) and THEN the higher nature can begin to take over... this is why Solomon laments in Eccl. 3:18

    "I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts."

    And in Rev. 6:8 the one riding the pale horse (death) has power to kill "with the beasts of the earth".


    Now, again, we'd be here forever getting into the structure and power of these klippoth, or as they are sometimes referred to as "demons", "principalities", "powers", etc... and I'm just a student also, but klippoth are in one sense, the images of the sephiroth, the "seven heads" and "ten horns" of "evil" which are the shadow (the imbalanced manifestation) of the tree of life. This is all according to kabbalistic sources, these are not interpretations I made up all on my own, there is a whole backdrop of literature BEHIND the bible, which the average person just never reads up on... but here is what a theosophical dictionary has to say about the klippoth, just while we are on the subject:

    Q’lippoth (Hebrew, Jewish), or Klippoth. The world of Demons or Shells; the same as the Aseeyatic World, called also Olam Klippoth. It is the residence of Samael, the Prince of Darkness in the Kabbalistic allegories.

    But note what we read in the Zohar (ii.43a) "For the service of the Angelic World, the Holy. . . . made Samael and his legions, i.e., the world of action, who are as it were the clouds to be used (by the higher or upper Spirits, our Egos) to ride upon in their descent to the earth, and serve, as it were, for their horses". This, in conjunction with the fact that Q’lippoth contains the matter of which stars, planets, and even men are made, shows that Samael with his legions is simply chaotic, turbulent matter, which is used in its finer state by spirits to robe themselves in.

    For speaking of the "vesture" or form (rupa) of the incarnating Egos, it is said in the Occult Catechism that they, the Manasaputras or Sons of Wisdom, use for the consolidation of their forms, in order to descend into lower spheres, the dregs of Swabhavat, or that plastic matter which is throughout Space, in other words, primordial ilus. And these dregs are what the Egyptians have called Typhon and modern Europeans Satan, Samael, etc., etc. Deus est Demon inversus - the Demon is the lining of God.

    =============================...

    Now, I'll try and put this where WE are, I'll bring this down to the thought of you and I, and how we keep this game going, as I see it anyway, this perpetuating of crimes that deserve "capital punishment":

    Ok. It's like this: You mention you took a break and got a Subway sandwich (good call! I love Subway, too) but how many animals were on that sandwich? How much killing, how much of the exact principle of what that original Genesis 9 passge was contained in your sandwich? Dig me? When Paul says that the gentiles HAVE the law, are a law unto themselves, he isn't jivin'. An entire Torah is written in that Subway sandwhich, just waiting to be deciphered. Now, I'm not downing anyone for what they eat, the allowance is made in Genesis 9, it's true, we were just over that... but "from the beginning was it so?" Do we wish to take part in the "eye for an eye" law that we are "allowed" to partake in... or do we wish to partake in the higher law of Christ? The old law looks through the lens of the 80 scant years we are alloted on this earth, and what can be done to rectify the wrongs done in that little span... but the law of Christ looks through the lens of eternity. One Law is talking about better conditions in the prison cell we are in, the other is talking about breaking free from prison and completely swallowing up death in victory. Now, clearly if I am into this "kaballah stuff" and "gnostic stuff" you suspect by now I am clearly an acknowledger of reincarnation and (LOL) a host of other doctrines which are heresy. But forget whether or not are they heresy... the question is, are they CORRECT?

    Skipping through, just to try and not miss anything (I'm almost done) you mentioned this,

    "I am sure that when you say 'Turn the other check is practiced spiritually in day to day life' .....You can also agree that some circumstances defiantly warrant the action of just letting go, when other do not."

    My answer to that would be, "What does 'warrant' mean? And to whom?" I wouldn't view that in terms of "warrant" or "not warrant", in survival there is no "warrant", you don't need a cause or a reason/// there is not moral dilemma... there is no morality at all in survival... but if you're asking would I take a fist or a knife or a bullet to someone who was attacking me or my family? Me personally?

    Yes.

    Without thinking, I would imagine I would do whatever I have to do to survive. Survival takes precedence, and when in Rome, do as the Romans do, perhaps. But that's here in Rome. That's here in Genesis 9 where we are stuck in our minds, and where we seem to not be able to get UNstuck from. But maybe the question is, "Would it be ME who pulls the trigger on a perp?" Or would it be the law (I mean the law of Gen. 9) working its mechanisms through me that it was set in motion to do? In other words, should I have to then take my pulling the trigger, one time, something that has only to do with survival, and then hold that up and form it into a system and a superstructure and to get other people to join in the building of court houses and jails, and declare it to be "divinely ordained"? Dig my meaning? In other words, would doing that be expanding the law of Christ or would that be simply perpetuating the OLD law?

    The "bring the accused before the high priest to be judged by the Urim and Thumim" was a little facetious, I admit. LOL. I'm clearly not in favor of ecclesaistical courts if I'm even having trouble with secular ones : ) That was perhaps unfair of me *grin*

    There is another topic I wanted to bring up to you, because you mentioned your study of serial killers. If you are studied in the "Manson Family Murders" I would like to get into that... I have studied this myself and believe Manson to be innocent of any involvement (OH, GOD! You just said out loud, didn't you? LOL), and since you have a background in this stuff I would be VERY interested in your take on it. You also understand I'm sure by now, and I admit, that clearly I am speaking idealistically in a lot of the stuff I talk about here... but to me that's where the finger points, that, if we want to end murder and violent crime we have to stop making it the premise of our reality. In other words, we fear things happening to us, and we fear people doing violence to us... it's the premise upon which we build our lives, individually and collectively. People assume that, "Well, we HAVE to have courts! We HAVE to have jails! Why, if we didn't have a society with jails, there would be killings and rapes being committed in the streets!" But maybe that premise is faulty. Maybe the premise of courts and jails is what MAKES kids grow up to be murderers and serial killers?

    And here's another question which I'm gonna leave hanging and not address very well this time around: Maybe our pushing off the dispensation of justice onto an external court and prison system is not only an attempt to remove the responsibility from ourselves, but also that "little space" in between us and the "justice system" is the vacuum in which crime breeds, because, let's say, my parents or Sunday school teacher might be telling me to fear God, but the rest of the actions of society, the very premise of society, is that I have to fear the justice system, NOT God. If all I had to fear was the police, and the justice system, and the prison system, I'd do things that would make Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche look like moralists, right?

    But I fear God. I KNOW what's coming to me if I harm another human being in any way. Ifr I hurt them, I hurt MYSELF. I don't fear the "law". I fear the LAW. And you do, too. You and I, I venture, would behave exactly the same as we do now if the courts and police closed their doors tomorrow. But would others? And if not, WHY wouldn't others?

    I know I rattled off way too much way too fast and mixed and jumbled everything up... but I hope if we continue this we will start to get focused, maybe once all the initial hurling of our chaotic opinions is let out? Take your time in answering, I know you are busy as you mentioned. Thanks xphile! : )
    (more)
  • xphile Philo-P... 2009/10/06 07:25:00
    xphile
    +1
    OMG............Wow man..... Oh yeah I am on training still for two weeks but we got lucky this time, actually in a hotel off base that actually has reliable WiFi so I am able to communicate with the world still, lol.
    Are you sure your not a philosopher/artist? LOL I think you may be interprating the bible on a different level as me. I try to be a deep thinker however need someone like you to sort of spark the light I guess. Do we both at the very least agree that God did not write the bible? I understand that the word was given to man to communicate with the world, from the Lord, however I remain skeptical. I dont mean that to say that I dont believe, I just may find it harder than most. I struggle with my faith a lot, and uh...........kind of big on science. Cringe....I hope you dont think less of me. I do enjoy reading your interpratations, and will read the rest now and post more later. See ya buddy!!
  • Philo-P... xphile 2009/10/06 15:01:21
    Philo-Publius
    +1
    Do I agree that God did not write the bible? Hmmm... Nietzsche says:

    "The belly of Being does not speak to man at all... except by a man."

    Yes, you are correct. MAN wrote the bible, not God. But as in the above quote, and according to IITim. 3:16:

    "All scripture (that means Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) [is] given by inspiration of God (doesn't mean it's infallible, or that it wasn't altered, interpolated, redacted, etc.) and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

    I just as freely quote the Pali canon, the Bhagavat Gita, the Nag Hammadi gnostic scriptures, the Mahayana sutras, the Koran, the Upanishads, etc... anything that is "inspired" (the test of whether or not it is "inspired" is whether it inspires me, LOL... that's actually true though). But I am probably most well-versed on the bible since I grew up woth it.

    But was the bible written by a being? Even by the "supreme" Being? If God is IN His creation (and I believe the interpretation of John 1 regarding the Word/Logos coming into creation as the universe is correct) then WHO IS IT that is inspiring? On what level? Through what mechanism? Inspired, yes! God-breathed, yes! But we are certainly not to understand inspiration as direct dictation from a highe...











    Do I agree that God did not write the bible? Hmmm... Nietzsche says:

    "The belly of Being does not speak to man at all... except by a man."

    Yes, you are correct. MAN wrote the bible, not God. But as in the above quote, and according to IITim. 3:16:

    "All scripture (that means Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) [is] given by inspiration of God (doesn't mean it's infallible, or that it wasn't altered, interpolated, redacted, etc.) and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..."

    I just as freely quote the Pali canon, the Bhagavat Gita, the Nag Hammadi gnostic scriptures, the Mahayana sutras, the Koran, the Upanishads, etc... anything that is "inspired" (the test of whether or not it is "inspired" is whether it inspires me, LOL... that's actually true though). But I am probably most well-versed on the bible since I grew up woth it.

    But was the bible written by a being? Even by the "supreme" Being? If God is IN His creation (and I believe the interpretation of John 1 regarding the Word/Logos coming into creation as the universe is correct) then WHO IS IT that is inspiring? On what level? Through what mechanism? Inspired, yes! God-breathed, yes! But we are certainly not to understand inspiration as direct dictation from a higher being to a lower. Other examples of this "God" being IN his creation, of forming the Universe out of himself (aside from just about every other world scripture outside the bibe) is Rev. 13:8:

    "8And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

    (Here the "Lamb" [Logos, as in John 1] is portrayed as "sacrificed", that is, his REAL life in Eternity sacrificed to become the Universe. Just as OSIRIS [who is identical to Jesus] was cut into fourteen pieces and his body scattered by Seth [scattered across the earth because it BECAME the earth] Jesus body is "slain for the the FOUNDATION of the world" to "FOUND" is "TO ESTABLISH"... the eternal Jesus was "slain" or "sacrificed" to "establish" the world, the Universe.)

    And one more, to which no one has ever paid attention, this is the whole Jesus story right here, the gospels are a mythological (but accurate!) extension of this concept... they are a midrash let's say, of Isaiah 7:14:

    "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

    (The Virgin is [in this aspect] God becoming the Universe in an immaculate way, not as men and women "conceive". His name is "Immanuel", because this coming into being of the Deity is called "God WITH US"... he is "with" us as in "in" us, all around us... through us... "IN HIM we live and move and have our being," as I quoted previously from Acts, etc.

    In summary... it SOUNDS like we agree, LOL
    (more)
  • xphile Philo-P... 2009/10/07 07:30:16
    xphile
    +1
    Oh ok, I was confused until i read your last line. LOL, we agree on something that is good.
  • xphile Philo-P... 2009/10/06 08:05:11
    xphile
    +1
    Ok, I have read your interpretations and we seem to agree on most if not all of what the message left to us was intended to articulate. Uh……but when I got to your portion of “turning the other cheek”, all I can say is you must be stronger than me. Are you saying that you think God wants us to just ignore the evil on Earth? He fights evil, I just can not fathom that the Lord expects us to be mindless. If that was what he expected and/or wanted out of the human race I assume he would have made us un-feeling. No passion, no pain, no remorse, no vengeance. Then when my daughter (which no I don’t have, but I have studied many cases) gets snatched in broad day light, tortured sexually for weeks and then brutally murdered I would be able to turn my cheek. I think God expects us to react this way, he wants the passion to come out in us, he wants us to strive to use it to heal. Justice only helps that, I am thinking more of the victims and families here. You may find this analogy funny, but I see myself kind of like a human Gabriel, and I don’t view him as very merciful when it comes to fighting evil.

    I think you are saying we need to allow the co-existence of our neighbor the monster because we are monsters. All I can say to that is, yes we are all sinners but with very important di...


    Ok, I have read your interpretations and we seem to agree on most if not all of what the message left to us was intended to articulate. Uh……but when I got to your portion of “turning the other cheek”, all I can say is you must be stronger than me. Are you saying that you think God wants us to just ignore the evil on Earth? He fights evil, I just can not fathom that the Lord expects us to be mindless. If that was what he expected and/or wanted out of the human race I assume he would have made us un-feeling. No passion, no pain, no remorse, no vengeance. Then when my daughter (which no I don’t have, but I have studied many cases) gets snatched in broad day light, tortured sexually for weeks and then brutally murdered I would be able to turn my cheek. I think God expects us to react this way, he wants the passion to come out in us, he wants us to strive to use it to heal. Justice only helps that, I am thinking more of the victims and families here. You may find this analogy funny, but I see myself kind of like a human Gabriel, and I don’t view him as very merciful when it comes to fighting evil.

    I think you are saying we need to allow the co-existence of our neighbor the monster because we are monsters. All I can say to that is, yes we are all sinners but with very important differences. The serial killer or rapist or masochist, accepts his sin, and finds excuses for him to feel better about himself. He does not and never will, even when confronted with the pain he has caused, realize that it was bad. It made him feel so good inside to express his PASSION that he can not convince himself of the existence of his monster. He knows the difference between right and wrong only because he is not ignorant to the laws of the land, they are actually quite smart.

    You are not the first to use this argument and all I can really come up with to say is, if God intended for us all to live in this manner, than I guess I am one of the weak ones and am unable to successfully fight those emotions off. I have been a victim before, too many times, and maybe it makes me weak in that way. I always felt it made me stronger. To not just let such acts against humanity go like it doesn’t matter and to actually fight it. If that is not what God wants of us, then maybe I am weak. But at the same time I don’t know if I can accept that, what about Hitler, Stalin? I think you are saying that Capital Punishment does not work to fight crime, and I would agree with you. As an officer I can say that our end goal is to stop all crime, but as a practical human being I can also say in the same breath that will never happen. I only want to fight it, and fight it until I can no longer fight it anymore.
    Ok more to come!! LOL
    (more)
  • Philo-P... xphile 2009/10/06 17:07:45
    Philo-Publius
    I am not saying that we should ignore evil on earth. Now, I realize I'm going about articulating this in a ridiculously roundabout way, which seems necessary to me to convey my point. I don't think you're quite following my thought here : ). You ask:

    "Does God want us to ignore the evil on earth?"

    "Does the Lord want us to be mindless?"

    I'm skating the question maybe because we would first have to determine who "the Lord" is, and also who "WE" are. How can we know what is "good" and "evil" if we don't know ourselves? If I have found out who I am, for instance, I can tell YOU what I think about who YOU are. But if I am just running around following a certain moral code, or a certain bible, because I DON'T know anything about myself, about my nature, then I'm only gonna mess YOU up more, and then you go off, just as clueless, and multiply the confusion when you tell THIS cat over here what HE needs to do and then THIS lady over here... and before you know it there is a government built up, there is a police force built up, there is a justice system built up who's determined, "We're gonna go get the bad guys... we're gonna have justice!" when in reality... you haven't built up justice... you've built up a justice SYSTEM. We didn't have the strength to dispense justice ourse...























    I am not saying that we should ignore evil on earth. Now, I realize I'm going about articulating this in a ridiculously roundabout way, which seems necessary to me to convey my point. I don't think you're quite following my thought here : ). You ask:

    "Does God want us to ignore the evil on earth?"

    "Does the Lord want us to be mindless?"

    I'm skating the question maybe because we would first have to determine who "the Lord" is, and also who "WE" are. How can we know what is "good" and "evil" if we don't know ourselves? If I have found out who I am, for instance, I can tell YOU what I think about who YOU are. But if I am just running around following a certain moral code, or a certain bible, because I DON'T know anything about myself, about my nature, then I'm only gonna mess YOU up more, and then you go off, just as clueless, and multiply the confusion when you tell THIS cat over here what HE needs to do and then THIS lady over here... and before you know it there is a government built up, there is a police force built up, there is a justice system built up who's determined, "We're gonna go get the bad guys... we're gonna have justice!" when in reality... you haven't built up justice... you've built up a justice SYSTEM. We didn't have the strength to dispense justice ourselves, individually and as we saw fit... so now we got this monster.

    I alluded to the fact last time that the very concept of a justice system PRE-supposes crime. It's built on the premise of crime. I think that's very damaging to our psyche to live with the premise of crime, and I don't wanna live with the premise of crime.

    Secondly, I've suggested that, because erecting a justice system has removed the burden of dispensing justice from the individual, from the family and from the community, who are rooted directly in a certain morality and are swift to act, and has placed that burden now on the state, which is a-moral, and slow to act, criminals no longer fear the ultimate source of punishment: God. They only fear the state. But their fear toward the state who's going to simply keep them locked up for a time... and they get "rights" and they get court hearings... and they get a lawyer appointed... man, I wouldn't fear a system like that... not much anyway... it might keep me from SOME crimes and not others... once the concept of LAW (Natural Law, "God's Law") was replaced by this system of civil law and a police, prison and justice system, 1) it would then be a game in my mind of how I would evade the justice system, cause if you evade them HERE, there's no answering for it. They either get you or they don't get you, and you can try and outwit them, and it turns into a game. 2) There's no focus on LAW in a system like that. The focus is on human punishment. There is an IMMENSE difference in the consciousness of a society whose focus is on secular punishment rather than divine morality.

    I actually LOVE your analogy of being the human Gabriel (and you can be a Gabriel in ANY human system you are involved in, the outer form of the justice system you serve may not be perfect, but you can continually APPROXIMATE that divine retribution in your work... that is beautiful!). I would say this in that regard, and maybe this sill communicate a new fire in you and maybe it will not. But when you act as Gabriel, when you have that in your consciousness that you are doing this, that you are manifesting this, you are, literally, manifesting that being, that angel. Just as in the system of kabbalah there are "sephirot" (spheres, enumerations of powers) each of those is a divine BEING, not just an abstract concept. To US concepts like "Gabriel" is either a being outside us, or is an abstract concept... but it is something more than this I think, too. Gabriel is IN you, he manifests through you... these powers of the universe are NOT separate from us.

    One last thing on Gabriel: You said, you "...don’t view him as very merciful when it comes to fighting evil." Well, we may be closer to agreeing that we appear, and you are just saying it more directly than I am in MY endless bullshit... but in this concept you are right. In Tibetan Buddhism, and to a lesser extent in Hinduism, there is a "wrathful" aspect to every deity. In other words, look at Vajrasatva. Vajrasatva is the Buddha of "pure" or "illuminating" (sattva) power (vajra) and he has both a beneficent aspect, a "boon-bestowing" or "teaching" aspect which positively transforms the consciousness of the student... but if the student is not ready, he sees vajrasattva as "vajrapani" ("the power of his hand"):
    transforms consciousness student student ready sees vajrasattva vajrapani power hand transforms consciousness student student ready sees vajrasattva vajrapani power hand


    Now, as for "allowing" the monster next door to us to co-exist because we are monsters, no. Maybe you can see this now that this is not what is meant. I agree that many of these killers are quite smart, and have in their mind exhonorated themselves of any guilt. I am not arguing that we should do nothing. I THINK I am arguing (we've been all over this issue, it's hard to remember, but if I can recall my main two points):

    1) That the STATE has no business getting invoilved in capital punishment (I didn't say the people couldn't, as they see fit... and I know this is a fine distinction). The state is an artificial construct, and therefore cannot be "sanctioned by God", and

    2) I have argued, I think, that pushing the dispensation of justice off onto the state is actually CREATING crime (maybe we haven't explored that last concept much, but I think it is correct)

    You are not weak... certainly not... you are STRONG for doing what you do... all I'm asking is "what is strong" maybe? Where does "strong" come from. I ask alot of questions rhetorically like this, because I believe any ONE of them will lead us back to the answer right where it was in the first place: in ourselves. We have to start getting our ideas of justice from INSIDE us... especially if we are tuning into the idea of what I alluded to above regarding "God IN His creation". IMMANUEL, "God WITH (or IN) us". God creating the world out of Himself and also US out of Himself and also the CRIMINAL out of Himself. It is painful to think that the criminal sitting in the cell or out doing terrible acts is in any way made out of "God-stuff". But this is no different that understanding he has a soul. WHO gave him his soul? Did MAN give him his soul?

    You are not wrong to "fight crime". I'll open another box up here that we can explore: If we remove the concept of a static heaven or hell, and instead understand transmigration and reincarnation as much of the rest of the world's religions do, where is the "soul" of the killer going to go when we kill him? What will be the effect of forcibly disintegrating his lower principles (his physical body, his bundle of pranic energy and his lower passions [kama]). If energy is never created nor destroyed but only changes form? Moreover, if we DENY that something like the above is likely the case now, and instead posit the static heaven and hell... what would be the effect of the polarization of souls, and the energy they have stored up in them, of an unfathomably large mass of negative energy on one side of the universe (hell) and an unfathomably large mass of positive energy on the OTHER side of the universe??? ESPECIALLY if we admit that BOTH (both kinds of souls) are "made of" God... would God be so divided He could not fuction? And how does that jive with THIS verse:

    "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

    Also, what about Charlie? LOL
    (more)
  • xphile Philo-P... 2009/10/21 07:50:30
    xphile
    +1
    Hello SH buddy. Just wanted to let you know I do plan on responding. I just have been out, I also just found out..............I AM GOING TO HAVE A BABY!!!! WOOOOO HOOOOO. I promise I will speak with you soon.
  • Philo-P... xphile 2009/10/21 13:08:45
    Philo-Publius
    +1
    Awww! Congratulations and God Bless you!!!

    That is so awesome! I'm very happy for you, you will make a wonderful mother with that strong will coupled with the love and caring you have for people even now! Children are SUCH a blessing!

    You do what you have to do, and get back on here whenever you can at your leisure and reply... I'm so happy for you SodaHead buddy! : )

    Talk soon then.
  • xphile Philo-P... 2009/10/24 15:49:21
    xphile
    +1
    You rock man, I will be on all day and I am going to need some time and patients to read and respond. LOL, Let me respond. Talk later and thank you for being soooo sweet!!!
  • Allbiz - PWCM - JLA 2009/09/23 14:54:46
    Yes, please explain
    Allbiz - PWCM - JLA
    +1
    Yes, and I also believe in "an eye for an eye". To me that means if the felon caused great pain and horrific treatment to their victims, they should suffer a like execution.
  • xphile Allbiz ... 2009/09/24 08:09:00
    xphile
    +2
    I agree, I dont get how some people could ever get it into their heads that it is inhumane. It isnt inhumane if the offender isnt humane.
  • BART 2009/09/23 13:49:41
    Yes, please explain
    BART
    +1
    Some people just need killing! I believe Capitol Punishment should be reserved for those whom commit murder that are found guilty on hard evidence and beyond doubt.
    And I would us ROPE, Hemp rope. It’s GREEN (got to think about the environment), and reusable. Which reduces the cost to the Taxpayer. After all, they decided to commit murder and why should the taxpayers have to foot their bill? HANG EM HIGH! Publicly. Hell you could sell tickets in California and close in on that budget deficit. Do it nation wide and pay for Obama’s health care reparations.
  • Kiss my Bean 2009/09/23 13:13:28
    Yes, please explain
    Kiss my Bean
    +1
    I agree with capital punishment. I prefer the method of lethal injection. There are some people who are not able to be rehabilitated, and why should se support a criminal who receives life without parole? What value would they have to our society other than training others in prison how to commit the same crime they did?
  • xphile Kiss my... 2009/09/23 13:19:16
    xphile
    +1
    exactly how much money would be free if we executed everyone on death row now????
  • Kiss my... xphile 2009/09/23 13:27:15
    Kiss my Bean
    +1
    That is a good question. According to www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/statsb... it costs $20108 per year to house an inmate. According to the US DOJ, as of 2007 there were 3,220 death row inmates in the US. That amount would be...(counting beans) $64,747,760. That's a lot of money to ME.
  • xphile Kiss my... 2009/09/24 08:10:31
    xphile
    +1
    Yeah and it costs a total of like 1200 to execute!! That is just redicoulous, so far we have paid over a million for Manson.
  • Misselee 2009/09/23 13:01:03
    Yes, please explain
    Misselee
    +1
    I believe there are certain crimes that are so heinous that no amount of rehabilitation can change that person. Charles Manson and his lunatics come to mind. Any terrorist, anyone one who sexually attacks or hurts children, gangs that kill for fun, the guy that killed seven family members including two children with down syndrome because he was ashamed of them. I think if we went back to putting these people to death that would deter future career criminals from being so in your face with their crimes. I mean the liberalized judicial systems way of smacking them on the hand, giving them chance after chance only to get out and repeat their crimes is not working.
  • xphile Misselee 2009/09/23 13:07:51
    xphile
    +2
    Thank you I agree
  • BienvenuJDC 2009/09/23 12:50:14
    Yes, please explain
    BienvenuJDC
    +2
    I think that it should be used as a deterrent. As far as punishment...we can inflict no punishment as great as God can...of course we CAN usher people to God's punishment more quickly. As far as the Bible goes, I cannot justify using the Law of Moses given to the Israelites, but the law given to Noah upon exiting the ark applies to all men.

    Genesis 9:5-7, "Surely for your lifeblood I will demand a reckoning; from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man. From the hand of every man’s brother I will require the life of man.

    6 “ Whoever sheds man’s blood,
    By man his blood shall be shed;
    For in the image of God
    He made man.

    7 And as for you, be fruitful and multiply;
    Bring forth abundantly in the earth
    And multiply in it."
  • xphile Bienven... 2009/09/23 13:04:27
    xphile
    +2
    Thank you very much I like to get the bible's perspective on it. However I am not too good with verse, does it say that we are required to serve punishment? The bible also states we are to obey the laws of the land. I wrote a paragraph on religion in my answer. This is an actual question in my classes I am taking.
  • Bienven... xphile 2009/09/23 13:08:31
    BienvenuJDC
    +1
    If you have ANY questions about what the Bible might say...feel free to ask. I am fairly well versed and understand much of the contexts of the passages as well.
  • xphile Bienven... 2009/09/23 13:14:09
    xphile
    +2
    I know that is why I am glad you joined the discussion. Thanks
  • Bienven... xphile 2009/09/23 13:14:14
    BienvenuJDC
    +1
    As far as you question goes on requirement...this is for the Law of Moses (not applicable to anyone but the Israelites except in principle).

    King David committed adultery with Bathsheba (a crime punishable by death...Leviticus 20:10), but God chose NOT to implement this punishment (2 Samuel 12:1-15). There is ALWAYS room for mercy depending on the lawbreaker's repentance.
  • xphile Bienven... 2009/09/23 13:21:04
    xphile
    +2
    Oh. I get it thanks!!
  • Jester 2009/09/23 12:47:16
    No, please explain
    Jester
    +2
    I only support state sponsored execution in the most extreme of circumstances.
  • xphile 2009/09/23 12:41:38
    Yes, please explain
    xphile
    +1
    When I began to research the role of capital punishment in our society today my search spit back dozens upon dozens of research conducted and aimed against the practice. Most of the research is based on capital punishment being against religion, and how it is discriminatory against certain races. In my opinion, with out researching further at this point which I will do in a following post, is that one: the main practiced religion in our great country is Christianity. In the bible it does say thall shalt not kill. Modern day religious programs have reinterpreted this to mean thall shalt not murder, meaning one who kills another with intent and pre-planning. The bible it also states that we are all expected to obey the laws of our land. In the day of Christ people were not only put to death for minor crimes but they were tortured. Two: I would be willing to bet the only reason capital punishment may seem discriminatory in nature is because there is a higher percent of minority offenders in the system. It is what it is.

    Now with all of this in mind, my first question or argument would be, what would God expect us to do? In examining this question we must first examine what it says in the Bible. If the Bible says we must all obey the laws of our land than it is assumed that it is...





    When I began to research the role of capital punishment in our society today my search spit back dozens upon dozens of research conducted and aimed against the practice. Most of the research is based on capital punishment being against religion, and how it is discriminatory against certain races. In my opinion, with out researching further at this point which I will do in a following post, is that one: the main practiced religion in our great country is Christianity. In the bible it does say thall shalt not kill. Modern day religious programs have reinterpreted this to mean thall shalt not murder, meaning one who kills another with intent and pre-planning. The bible it also states that we are all expected to obey the laws of our land. In the day of Christ people were not only put to death for minor crimes but they were tortured. Two: I would be willing to bet the only reason capital punishment may seem discriminatory in nature is because there is a higher percent of minority offenders in the system. It is what it is.

    Now with all of this in mind, my first question or argument would be, what would God expect us to do? In examining this question we must first examine what it says in the Bible. If the Bible says we must all obey the laws of our land than it is assumed that it is up to society to discontinue the offender’s allowance of free roaming will. I know yet another argument in the name of religion is that it is up to God to judge. I agree with the argument; however we are not taking God’s judgment process. God does not judge on weather or not a person lives or dies. He only judges on weather or not the offender will go to heaven or hell. We must also examine the practicality of considering how many more inmates we would have in the correctional system if we had never sentenced inmates to death. Not pretty if you ask me. The way humans live, meaning our currency and how it plays a role in our society, in my opinion there is no practicality in allowing inmates to live off the expense of the American tax payers.

    I have researched countless murder cases since and even before I started my degree in Criminal Investigations. I am now an MP in the U.S. Army and a Private Investigator as a Civilian. I have read many books on how the FBI has infiltrated the minds of some of our nation’s most notorious serial murderers and I have studied hundreds of actual crime scene photos. Some of things I have read about and seen with my own eyes are so monstrous I will never be able to get them out of my mind. I can only imagine how the FBI agents, civilian police officers, crime scene technicians and medical examiners can live a mentally healthy life with these images burnt into their minds on daily basis. The most credible argument against the practice of capital punishment seems to be the proverbial “two wrongs, don’t make a right.” The only thing that comes to my mind to counter that argument would be I honestly do not think for one second your mother truly, in her heart of hearts would ever have meant it to that extreme when she said it for a moment when you stole your friends bike for stealing your skateboard when you were 10 years old. I don know that if your mother had to see your dead body on a slab in the city mourge at the same age, raped and decapitated she would want blood. A mother’s connection to her child is strong, and any one that does not want to give that woman justice after seeing that, I just will never understand.

    How, can we, as a society give more rights to the offender that goes through life killing with impunity? He knows right from wrong, he has no respect for life itself, except for his own when it is in jeopardy in a court of law after being caught. The criminal justice system strives for fairness, if that is even possible, and more often than not the true victims do not get the fair end of the deal. The offender will get his/her 10 thousand appeals and will most likely sit on death row for 20 years before being sentenced finally. In which case the victims families finally get the closure they have needed for years.

    I wish to address the final argument against capital punishment, because I know it will be asked of me once everyone reads this. Have I ever witnessed a punishment of death being dealt to an offender, and do you know what happens to the offender? He bites off his tongue, he pees himself, he smokes from the head and sometimes may even catch fire, assuming we are using the electric chair such as in Ted Bundy’s case. With lethal injection and/or the gas chamber you would most likely witness the offender getting sick, but usually the poison is so strong you witness him falling asleep. So my answer would be NO, I have not witnessed it. If I could find out how I could, I would be all over it. My counter to this argument is although I have not seen an offender die in prison as a result of his crimes, I have seen police officers murdered in cold blood for no reason and then left on the side of the road to slowly die all the while having to listen to their screams and their slowly dieing breaths. After being forced to watch these videos for training purposes I can honestly tell you after everything I have seen, after knowing what these people have done to their victims that they get the easy way out, and no I don’t care. I only care that we as a society can not punish these offenders in an equal manner to how they chose to punish humanity.
    (more)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

Living

2014/07/30 11:00:33

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals