BCITORGB wrote:
TnT says:
========
JC goes to Washington, and I am His news media spokesman. You ask me
what He is up to, and I with my inside info try to keep you informed.
Does this work for you?

If so, Why don't you start the first chapter. TnT
===========

In essence, we've strarted the first chapter. I asked about JC's
position on capital punishment. What I'm curious about, heathen that
I
am, can we find anything in the bible which shows JC to have been for
or against capital punishment. My impression is that advocating for
capital punishment would inconsistent with everything (very little, I
admit) I've ever read about JC.

So, you're the Christian, you tell me.

frtzw906

This being JC's first day in Washington, and having not even got His
office established, He is immediately faced with the difficult issue of
capital punishment, and whether it should be allowed or not, for civil
authorities to condemn men to death, and execute them.

JC being a part of the inner circle of the Godhood, and being privvy to
the inner workings, and being present and actively involved at the time
of the Creation, Loves His Creation with an Infinite Love. It
greviously distresses Him to see men killing men. Whether on the
battlefield, or the back alley, or the abortion table, or the death row
cell. That we can justify spending billions to build a new nuclear
submarine that can pack more destructive energy inside its own hull
than was dropped in the entirety of the second world war, and yet
cannot see our way clear to build more and bigger wharehouses to store
individuals who have proved their inability to live peaceably with
their neighbor, seems contraditory!

JC hates killing, and in particular the kind that is called murder. As
a state legislator He even wrote laws to that effect, "Thou shalt not
murder!". Now as a congressmen in Washington, everyone is watching to
see what he will advocate, and do, to solve the perplexing issues that
Washington faces.

His general position is well known, and referred to as the "higher
laws," though that is a bit nebulous, it has a nice ring to it. All
politicians, being politicians, love to appear to take the high road,
and to not be accused of taking the low road through life. Ironically,
most all politicians have taken the low road to get to Washington! JC
being the only unigue example in recorded history to have, in fact,
done so by actually taking the High road.

Most politicians also recognize the advantage of being able to say that
JC is on their side, and supports their cause. Because of His sterling
reputation, many various lobbist and special interest groups are
putting a lot of pressure on Him to make a decision regarding capital
punishment that would support their cause.

Those who are interested in building bigger boats want the limited
money spent on their pet projects, instead of building bigger
wharehouses. This gives them ample opportunity to pocket a little on
the side. Sometimes they shadow their interest with the diversion, that
these individual that are beyond reformation, should just be
eliminated, and so save a bunch of the taxpayers money. Ironically all
of the various lobbist, have their special interest, and it eventually
always comes down to money, and where it should be spent, and where it
should be cut. But all the money will be spent, and the taxpayers will
not save any money after all.

Very few are actually interested in penal reform, or concern for the
inmate on death row. Many of those who are infavor of building bigger
and better wharehouses, are not so much interested trully in the
inmate, as in maintaining their own cushy job of spending a lot of
money on their own pet projects, whereby a certain amount finds itself
into their pockets as well. However it does make them feel better to
say they care!

JC having created every living soul, and knowing their very heart,
knows that each of these individuals that are being held on death row
are not beyond reformation, and knowing that the very lobbist and
politicians that are protesting and advocating certain actions, some
for and some against, have all kinds of ulterior motives.

Their hearts are no better than the heart of these murders. The
politicians, possibly even having committed murder to get to the very
hallowed halls from which they now jostle each other! The only
difference being they did not get caught! Like a bunch of wild
animals, willing to devour each other, if someone only gets in their
way. However even the animals don't kill without cause, usually because
they are hungry, and none of these fatcat politicians look very hungry!

JC sat down near the end of the day, knowing that He had to make a
decision, and contemplating what he should do. In light of the sorry
state of the legal system, which is another issue for another chapter,
it currently takes twenty years for a deathrow inmate to exhaust all of
his appeals, JC came up with the following law.

"For each inmate on death row, and for all those who are concerned
about a specific inmate, each must visit the particular inmate every
day for the twenty, 20 years of his detention while waiting for
appeals, and get to know the inmate intimately. After these 20 years,
those who meet the requirement of having been there every day during
the 20 years, and having made the effort to get to know the inmate
intimately, will be given the opportunity to present their case to the
rest of those who have as well met the above criteria.

Then they will all vote as to whether the inmate, having lost his
appeals, will be put to death if the simple majority of those who care
enough to have met the above criteria, decide that this would be best
for society at large, and the call for justice in general.

Be it understood, that JC, though He is very busy with His hectic
schedule in Washington, being God, plans to meet with each inmate on
death row, each day of their 20 year internment, and will not only act
as their attorney through out the appeal process, but at the required
meeting after 20 years of all other trully concerned parties, in which
He will act as an advocate for grace and forgiveness, toward the
inmate. Since He knows the inmate intimately and has been working in
the inmates heart to change the thoughts and intents of the inmates
heart, the inmate knows that he has the opportunity to change the
direction of his life, and often infact there is evidence of a
miraculous change in the inmate that is obvious to all.

Be it also understood that JC will be working everyday for those 20
years, in the hearts of all the truly concerned parties, who in most
cases are not much different than the inmate. To change their hearts
and minds, and to fill them with compassion and understanding toward
all their fellow men, and specifically, forgiveness toward the death
row inmate who offended them so grieviously.

IF after all this, the vote is to put the inmate to death, the
authorities are ordered to exercise the civil law, and order the
capital punishment of the inmate!

This expression of the Higher Law should be put into effect
immediately, and all men subject to its enforcement. "

JC having had a busy day of interacting with all the various politician
and lobbist, and having totally exhausted his staff, encouraged us all
to go home and rest, because we have a busy day tomorrow.

However for Himself, being full of energy, and with His great
compassion, set it upon Himself to go out and check on the wellfare of
all the current inmates in all the jails in all the world, as well as
all the current concerned parties, and unconcerned parties, and all
other individuals in the whole world as well. He having made this His
practice since the beginning of time anyway, does not find the
enforcement of the Higher law puts any overwhelming strain or burden on
His regimen. Actually He is glad to get more people actively involved
in this work of reforming mens hearts, and truly concerned about those
who have been lost in the hopelessness of prison.

JC is now looking forward to His next day in Washington, knowing that
good and God will prevail!

This report is filed by TnT 3/5/05

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
===============
KMAN, the chess game was up, did you or did you not concede? Will you
restate your concession to match ricks resonable requests; you
address
rick directly, remove all the overburden, no whining, and though he
acceptted the part about the Data, please simply restate the error of
your ways. I am sure this will be difficult, but having done so once
================

Nice try Tink, but if you're thinking of a career as a mediator, I'd
say "Don't quit your day job." Mediation does not include pointing at
any side and saying "Now admit you lost!"

Tink, Tink, Tink.... it just doesn't work that way. Does the
expression
"Bull in a chinashop" mean anything at all? LOL

frtzw906

Well I definitly don't plan on quitting my day job, and you are more
than welcome to the mediating one. Now it will be my turn to laugh!
TnT

Tink on behalf of JC opines:
============
For each inmate on death row, and for all those who are concerned
about a specific inmate, each must visit the particular inmate every
day for the twenty, 20 years of his detention while waiting for
appeals, and get to know the inmate intimately. After these 20 years,
those who meet the requirement of having been there every day during
the 20 years,...
==================

Hey, Tink, that's an interesting twist. I'm not sure it's quite in the
spirit of my proposition to you (I was hoping to keep the answers a bit
more "clinical": you cite the scripture that you hope to use to make
JC's case for him.).

Nonetheless, as I said, a twist. I've always maintained that, if a
society is going to permit capital punishment, then the "hangman" ought
to be chosen, at random, from the citizenry. My point, if you really
think you, chosen at random from the citizenry, could look the convict
in the eyes, while pulling the switch at an electrocution, then you'd
vote for capital punishment. Those who could not, themselves, do the
job, would vote against capital punishment. But, that's another issue.

But back to our "story" Tink: let's keep it simple by not assuming
lengthy appeals. What then? Where's the scripture we need to make this
decision?

frtzw906

in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM:


snip same old crap

that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest
scumbag and you owe me an apology.
==================
No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would,
liarman. Where's yours?

Huh? You claimed I said no one in Canada waits for treatment.
================================
Yes, you did

Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits for treatment."

Go ahead, cowardly scum.

Otherwise, admit you are a lying scum and apologize!

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:14 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 5:36 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

There are lots of communities in the world where no one has a gun. And
amazingly, no one gets shot there!

Prove it. Show me one community that you can certify does not have a gun
in
it, and then show me how you can prevent a gun from being brought into
that
community from outside.

I never said some whackjob like yourself couldn't bring a gun into a place
with no guns.

Thanks for admitting that your utopian argument is nonsense.

I'm not making a utopian argument.

Of course you are, you're just too ignorant to understand it. And you're
trying to evade the issue as well. You said,"There are lots of communities
in the world where no one has a gun. And amazingly, no one gets shot there!"

You were challenged to supply even ONE example of such a utopian community.

Sigh. What I'm really talking about is communities that don't have the type
of nutty gun culture that gets hearts pumping for freaks like you. I've
lived in Ottawa most of my life and never seen a gun that did not belong to
a member of a police force. Have people been shot here? Yes. Is it uncommon?
Also Yes. Would be safer if gun loving was a more popular part of our
culture? Not. Nobody moves away from here because they think they'd be safer
somewhere where guns were more prevalent. You'd have to be totally insane to
think like that.

You were unable to do so. Your implicit thesis is that if a community
doesn't have guns in it, nobody will be shot. The first failure in your
logic is the fallacious presumption that just because a community does not
have a gun in it NOW, it will never have a gun in it. Your second failure is
in assuming that the only way people can be injured, killed or victimized by
violent criminals is with a gun. Even in Japan, where guns are tightly
restricted, people still get killed. Sometimes with butcher knives, or
swords or any number of other weapons...and sometimes with guns.

Mhmm.

How does that happen, pray tell? How is it that guns are used in Japan to
commit crimes? Japan has very strict laws forbidding private ownership of
guns, particularly handguns, and yet handgun crimes still occur...and the
number is rising.

How can that be? Can you explain this dichotomy?

For one thing, it's so damned easy to pick up a gun in the USA! You can buy
a wicked assault weapon like you are buying a pack of gum. And then smuggle
it into a country like Japan where the people choose not to worship guns
like they are the second coming of jesus christ.

Thinking that everyone having a gun is the path to non-violence is beyond
utopian, it is evidence of a sick mind.

Thinking that the path to non-violence can be walked without a gun is
evidence of a sick mind. Unless you LIKE being a martyr to non-violence like
Gandhi. If that's what works for you, fine.

Geezus you are a loser. You think Gandhi was some sort of wimp, wherease
some asshole with a basement full of assault weapons is hot ****?

Me, I'll achieve peace through
superior firepower. There's a lot of violent people out there hiding in the
bushes alongside your path. Best of luck with your journey.

ROFL.

The myth of the violent stranger in the bush.

That's not who is going to kill you.

You and your big rack of guns are more likely to get turned on a member of
your own family - or on yourself. Or you'll put a big hole in some person
you've mistaken for an attacker because you are so damned eager to have your
chance to be a hero gunslinger.

in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:22 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Michael Daly wrote:
On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose, how
would
you
know
that it is God that did this

If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If it
was
something
that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a
person or
any
other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I don't
know
that
"God" would be my first guess.

Mike

Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose, I
suspect
you
would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your
first
guess.
Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would do
if He
confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the nose?
TnT

He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with
Tinkerntom for
this
long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt so
much I
tried
to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit, to
such an
extent
that I can't even do myself in!"

I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick on
the
other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And it
goes on
forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the rest
of us!
TnT

So, work your magic!

All I said was that - in my opinion - the people in
Newfoundland were not waiting 2 /12 years for treatment. They
were receiving treatment as mentioned by the doctor in the
article. But, whatever you think about those good folks in
Newfoundland, I never said that no one in Canada ever waits for
treatment as rick is alleging, and continue to insist upon,
despite his total inability to demonstrate otherwise. And for
that, he IS a scumbag.
========================

snip tired old crap

as I have explained to you, mu opionion is that the doctor
in the article does not know what the boys problem is, and needs
the test to determine his course of treatment. That you continue
to be so jingoistic in defence of the indefencable is what is
truly amazingly willful ignorance.

Whatever you take from that article, I never said that no one in Canada
waits for treatment. You are a liar, a scumbag, and a coward for refusing to
admit that your accusation is false and apologize.

in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM:


"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

KMAN wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...

Michael Daly wrote:
On 3-Mar-2005, "Tinkerntom" wrote:

Mike, if God walked up and punched you in the nose,
how would
you
know
that it is God that did this

If He was in the form of a person, I wouldn't know. If
it was
something
that could punch me in the nose but didn't look like a
person
or
any
other common critter, I'd be suspicious. However, I
don't know
that
"God" would be my first guess.

Mike

Fair enough, I agree that if He punched you in the nose,
I
suspect
you
would be within the bounds of reason if God was not your
first
guess.
Do you have any thoughts or guesses about what God would
do if
He
confronted you face to face, if not punch you in the
nose? TnT

He'd say: "How the hell could you talk about god with
Tinkerntom
for
this
long! I was reading the thread and my head started to hurt
so much
I
tried
to kill myself, but as you know, I'm an omnipotent spirit,
to such
an
extent
that I can't even do myself in!"

I can see that lake of fire now, Kman on one side, and rick
on the
other, yelling at each other. Liarman!!!!! Scumbag!!!!! And
it goes
on
forever and ever and ever! Now that would be hell for the
rest of
us!
TnT

So, work your magic!

All I said was that - in my opinion - the people in
Newfoundland were
not
waiting 2 /12 years for treatment. They were receiving
treatment as
mentioned by the doctor in the article. But, whatever you
think about
those
good folks in Newfoundland, I never said that no one in Canada
ever
waits
for treatment as rick is alleging, and continue to insist
upon,
despite his
total inability to demonstrate otherwise. And for that, he IS
a
scumbag.

I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands
what you
said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and
modified,
and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to
acknowledge
your first apology,
========================
LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing an
apology.

That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and showing what a
coward you are for refusing to apologize for your deliberate false
accusations.

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:29 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself KMAN wrote:

in article , Scott Weiser at
wrote on 3/1/05 10:01 PM:

A Usenet persona calling itself Nisarel wrote:

Scott Weiser wrote:

The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.

That's not a decision you get to make. That's a decision that
society as a whole makes, through the representative democratic
process.

So if the USA 'society' decides that all firearms must be registered, you'd
go
along with it?

I would object to it, because it's a very, very bad idea.

So is discrimination based on sexuality. No better than discrimination based
on race.

Interesting thesis, inapplicable analogy.

Totally applicable.

While discrimination based on sexuality may interfere with someone's
pleasure, it's hardly the same thing as denying someone the tools for
defending their very lives.

?

If you (as I am sure you dream) were the leader of a country and you
declared that homosexuals have the status of slave, could you then see that
parallel?

If black people were not allowed to get married, that would be
discrimination.

Why is it different for gay people?

Then again, one of the justifications put forward for banning homosexual
sodomy is that such acts are dangerous to the public health. The AIDS
epidemic among homosexuals lent credence to this justification in the eyes
of those who make the laws.

How does gay marriage increase the spread of AIDS? My gawd you can be an
idiot. Yes, let's reduce the spread of AIDS by ensuring that gay people
continue to be marginalized and their relationships considered second class.
That will help promote safe sex for sure!

As to racial discrimination, that falls into a different category. Race and
sex anti-discrimination laws are "status" based laws. People cannot choose
not to be black or choose not to be of one sex or the other. Thus, the law
says, it is wrong to discriminate against someone for something they cannot
help or control.

Or, you are one of these freaks who thinks people "choose" to be gay. Yeah,
that's an attractive option, being gay in America. I'm sure every homosexual
in America woke up one day and said "Yeah, that's a good idea, I think I'll
choose my sexuality based on my best chance of being discriminated against
as a matter of routine, and possible getting my skull bashed by some
neurotic redneck who blames gay people for turning the girl he liked into a
lesbian." LOL. Yes, I'm sure being gay is a choice big big sneer.

Anti-sodomy laws are not "status" laws. They regulate *behavior.* One may
not be able to help being homosexual (which is to say sexually attracted to
someone of the same sex), but one CAN control what one DOES about that
attraction. Thus, it is the behavior...the physical acts associated with
those sexual feelings...that the law proscribes.

ROFL. Well, I don't hear you promoting lesbian marriage!!!

Anti-sodomy laws are based
in the same legal theory as laws which proscribe sexual activity between
adults and children. A pedophile may argue that he is being "discriminated"
against because he is sexually attracted to children, but that does not
preclude the state from proscribing the act of having sex with children.
Being sexually attracted to children is not a crime, nor is being attracted
to someone of the same sex. It is what one DOES about that attraction that
is within the purview of the law.

Only two gay people are consenting adults, thus making your analogy to a
pedophile insultingly ridiculous and irrelevant.

I hope I don't need to point out to you that there are some heterosexual
couples that engage in anal sex, and some homosexual couples that do not.
You do realize that, right?

So, your comparison between race and sexual orientation is inapplicable.

No, it isn't in the least.

Now, if you grant that the state does have the power to proscribe SOME
sexual behavior (such as pedophilia or rape) then you implicitly agree that
the state has the power to decide WHICH sexual behavior it wishes to
control.

There is no relevant comparison between pedophilia, rape, and homosexuality.
This is totally illogical.

On the other hand, if you argue that the state has no authority to
regulate ANY sexual conduct, then you authorize child sex and rape.

On the other hand, if you argue that two consenting adults, whether of the
same sex or opposite sex, should have the right to get married, this has
nothing to do with authorizing child sex and rape, and renders the entire
hypothesis the ridiculous piece of crap that it is.

Then
again, it's rational to make a distinction between forcible and consensual
sex, so let's do so. Let's say that while the state has the power to
proscribe non-consensual sexual behavior, we have yet to determine whether
the state has the power to proscribe consensual sexual behavior.

What, if any, limitations on consensual sexual behavior would you recognize
as legitimately within the sphere of state control?

The state can't to a thing to limit consensual sexual behaviour. I don't
think law enforcement has the resources to go busting into the nation's
bedrooms and doing sniff tests to see who has been porking whom.

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:04 PM:


snip same old crap

that in no way substantiates your false claim that I said
no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment. You are a dishonest
scumbag and you owe me an apology.
==================
No, I don't. And, I'm not the one that claimed they would,
liarman. Where's yours?

Huh? You claimed I said no one in Canada waits for treatment.
================================
Yes, you did

Post a quote from me where I said "no one in Canada waits for
treatment."
=====================
It has been fool, many times now. that you have now admitted
your lie has already beem determined. Now, how about the rest of
your lies about wait lists, liarman?


Go ahead, cowardly scum.
================
LOL This from the liarman afraid to review the facts enough to
try to provide any refutation.



Otherwise, admit you are a lying scum and apologize!
===========================
Nope, no need. However, you have yet to keep your word about an
apology. But then, we know what your word is worth, eh liarman?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/4/05 10:23 PM:


snip...

I understand what you said! The rest of the world understands
what you
said! The only one who will not accept what you meant, and
modified,
and clarified 25 times, is rick, and he may never choose to
acknowledge
your first apology,
========================
LOL What apology was that? I never saw anything nearing an
apology.

That's because you are too busy being a supreme scumbag and
showing what a
coward you are for refusing to apologize for your deliberate
false
accusations.
======================
No foll, it's because you weren't man enought o post it to me,
liarman. You buried it in a post to TnT, and even then was
really only apologizing for your ignorant 'wording.'
You are the dishonest one here, liarman...