"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:16 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:49 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:40 AM:


"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...

Sorry you didn't care for the apology.
==============
Because as I see it, it wasn't an apology to me.

Yes, it was.
=====================
LOL Only in your delusional, willfully ignorant brain,
liarman.

You are the only one who is confused about it.

And it was not an apology for deliberate wrongdoing, it was
an
apology
because that was what I offered as an outcome if you could
meet
the burdern
of proof in response to a question.
==========================
See, you did not apologize as you promised.

Yes, I did.

snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation. You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined.

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of
people in
Newfoundland.
====================
Keep trying to tell yourself that liarman. maybe someday even
you will believe it. That reply was not at the time I posted the
link. The discussion was all about waiting for treatment in
Canada, ou claimed then that that did not happen. You have
since changed your tune.



Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote
as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for
treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that
makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined. Now, how
about the rest of your lies about wait lists, liarman?

snip tired old crap

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:14 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:44 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM:


snip



But I much
prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or
minorities get
inferior treatment to rich and/or white people.
===========================
Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in
Canada
that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either.

Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort of
asking the KKK
for information on immigration policies.
===================
No fool, there are many sites I have found out that discuss
the
problems of your health care system.



But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the
system
is eroding,
and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot of
will to turn
that around, and I think that will be the direction of
things.
The vast
majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where
something as basic
as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged.
======================
Yet you are getting some of that, dispite your wishes.



snip tired old crap

FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is
interesting to discuss.
==================
Not until you admit the rest of your lies about wait lines
in
Canada.

No lies have been told.
=====================

snip tired old crap

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
==================
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman.

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of
people in
Newfoundland.
=============
Already been done, liarman. many times...


Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote
as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for
treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that
makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined. Now, how
about the rest of your lies about wait lists, liarman?

"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:12 PM:


snip..

as stupid and ignorant as
ever, but
it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well. So,
unlike you, I
did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize.
==================
LOL No, you dishonestly took the route of apologizing to
soembody else, not to me.

It was an apology to you, but apparently you were confused
about that.
===================
LOL In a post to somebody else, and never addressing me. OK, if
that's your definition of an honest apology, so be it, liarman.
You still seem to be claiming that no one dies waiting for
treatment though.



snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation.
================
No, I have not.

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================\\\
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of
people in
Newfoundland.
======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.


Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote
as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for
treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that
makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined. Now, how
about the rest of your lies about wait lists, liarman?

in article , rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:04 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:16 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:49 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
t,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 1:40 AM:


"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...

Sorry you didn't care for the apology.
==============
Because as I see it, it wasn't an apology to me.

Yes, it was.
=====================
LOL Only in your delusional, willfully ignorant brain,
liarman.

You are the only one who is confused about it.

And it was not an apology for deliberate wrongdoing, it was
an
apology
because that was what I offered as an outcome if you could
meet
the burdern
of proof in response to a question.
==========================
See, you did not apologize as you promised.

Yes, I did.

snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation. You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined.

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of
people in
Newfoundland.
====================
Keep trying to tell yourself that liarman. maybe someday even
you will believe it. That reply was not at the time I posted the
link. The discussion was all about waiting for treatment in
Canada, ou claimed then that that did not happen. You have
since changed your tune.



Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote
as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for
treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that
makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined. Now, how
about the rest of your lies about wait lists, liarman?

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

in article , rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:05 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:14 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:44 AM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
,
rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 2:12 AM:


snip



But I much
prefer what we have to a system where poor people and/or
minorities get
inferior treatment to rich and/or white people.
===========================
Really? Some of the sites I read talk about a systenm in
Canada
that isn't always seen as 'fair' to all either.

Not the Frasier Institute again I hope! LOL. That's sort of
asking the KKK
for information on immigration policies.
===================
No fool, there are many sites I have found out that discuss
the
problems of your health care system.



But yes, there are concerns that the universality of the
system
is eroding,
and I would agree with that. But there seems to be a lot of
will to turn
that around, and I think that will be the direction of
things.
The vast
majority of Canadians don't want to live in country where
something as basic
as health care becomes the domain of the priveleged.
======================
Yet you are getting some of that, dispite your wishes.



snip tired old crap

FYI, the above is the sort of thing that would be/is
interesting to discuss.
==================
Not until you admit the rest of your lies about wait lines
in
Canada.

No lies have been told.
=====================

snip tired old crap

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
==================
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman.

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of
people in
Newfoundland.
=============
Already been done, liarman. many times...

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

in article t, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 11:08 PM:


"KMAN" wrote in message
...
in article
et, rick at
wrote on 3/6/05 9:12 PM:


snip..

as stupid and ignorant as
ever, but
it's not your fault I didn't work the question very well. So,
unlike you, I
did not take the scumbag route and refuse to apologize.
==================
LOL No, you dishonestly took the route of apologizing to
soembody else, not to me.

It was an apology to you, but apparently you were confused
about that.
===================
LOL In a post to somebody else, and never addressing me. OK, if
that's your definition of an honest apology, so be it, liarman.
You still seem to be claiming that no one dies waiting for
treatment though.

It could happen in any health care system. When my wife got sick in Miami
with kidney stones and was writhing in agony with an as yet undiagnosed
problem, she was initially refused treatment because the administrator could
not get through on the phone to the insurance company.

I haven't seen any evidence that makes me long for a different type of
health care system. Every Canadian knows that there are problems with
certain types of specialized tests and providing service to remote areas. We
all want to improve those situations and there is a national will to do so.

snip tired old crap

You, on the other hand, have made a deliberate false
accusation.
================
No, I have not.

You claimed
that I said no one in Canada ever waits for treatment. I
never
said that.
You are a liar and a scumbag and a coward for continuing to
insist that I
did.
=====================\\\
Yes, you did, and I showed you where and how, liarman

You showed part of a quote where I said "No one is waiting for
treatment"
which was a response to your babble about a particular group of
people in
Newfoundland.
======================
that's what you claimed, liarman.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

Even the most twisted interpretation could not see that quote
as evidence
that I stated or believe that no one in Canada waits for
treatment. It is
only your deliberate dishonesty as a liar and a scumbag that
makes it
possible for you to insist upon what you know to be untrue.
=====================
It has been shown that you did fool, many times now. that you
have now admitted your lie has already been determined.

I have not lied about anything.

This is the only reference you have made in support of your false
accusation:

====

in article , KMAN at
wrote on 2/20/05 2:14 PM:

in article t, rick at
wrote on 2/20/05 1:18 PM:

Another strawman, I see. We aren't talking about their
'convenience', we're talking about the convenience of the medical
systam. When that 'poor' person arrives at a medical facility in
need, then yes, I'm saying that they will not wait 2 1/2 years
for treatment.

No one is waiting for treatment. It's about a specific type of scan in a
specific geographic area and the waiting is for non-emergencies.

====

As we've already reviewed a dozen times, in the above I'm responding to your
interpretation of the article about Newfoundland and your assertion that the
people in the story were waiting 2 1/2 years for treatment. Whether you
agree with what I said or not (and what I said is supported by one of the
doctors quoted in the article) clearly I am not making a statement that no
one in Canada ever has to wait for treatment.

This is the only reference you have made to anything I have said on the
subject, and yet you continue to lie about it and insist that I claimed no
one in Canada ever waits for treatment.

Stop being a scumbag and apologize. You know I never said any such thing,
nor do I believe any such thing.

BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before the
Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us
all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel, etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from
that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical
figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY). If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment
issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement, and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense, and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past, opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at least
clarifying scripture. TnT

in article , Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before the
Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us
all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel, etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from
that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical
figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY). If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment
issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began? We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement, and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense, and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past, opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction and that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder would be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from "revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is nothing but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment. Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to kill, not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

BCITORGB wrote:
KMAN says:
=============
I take it you haven't reviewed Leviticus lately?
==================

No, but the CBC program "Ideas" had an interesting feature on
Wednesday
(to be finished this coming Wed) about Karl Polanyi. Since wednesday,
I've been reading some of his stuff (see Karl Polanyi Institute for
Political Economy at Concordia University). Useful in trying to
understand globalization.

Leviticus? I'm sure Tink can give me a precis. [Hey Tink, keep it to
precis length, OK?]

Cheers,
frtzw906

No problem!

God Loves you with His Infinite Eternal Love. TnT

KMAN wrote:
in article ,
Tinkerntom
at wrote on 3/6/05 11:27 PM:


BCITORGB wrote:
Tink says:
=============
And if this is so, and Jesus
is God, the same Holy God of the Old Testement, and even before
the
Old
Testement, the time of Cain and Abel, how could He not destroy us
all?
=============

I had a funny feeling I ought not t have gotten into this. I
wanted
JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand it, in
the
New Testament). I have no desire to hear from Moses, Cain, Abel,
etc
and all those guys in the Old Testament. Can we not just hear from
that
hippy-dude JC?

I have no desire to play back-to-the-future and other games that
put
Genesis in the mouth of JC. I want to acknowledge an historical
figu
JC. I want to examine HIS teachings (and his specific words ONLY).
If
we can't do that, and if, somehow, this discussion has to go
before
Christmas Day, all bets are off.

Anyway, with what you've said to date, on the capital punishment
issue,
I'm happy to concede to you and fade off into the sunset with the
conclusion that this religion stuff is even creepier than I
imagined.
Evil. Mean-spirited. Vengeful. YIKES! Get me out of here!

frtzw906

frtwz, Do you fade so quickly from the race, the game just began?
We
are still figuring out the rules of the game.

I shared initially how JC handled the situation when the religious
people tried to trap Him into denying the civil law, and
specifically
the death penalty for the woman caught in adultery. He endorsed the
death penalty when he said " Let the stones fly", or something to
that
effect! That was from his mouth as a historical figure.

I also shared that His submission to the Roman civil law
illustrated
His compliance to the demand for justice by submitting to
crucification, which was the Roman way of exercising the death
penalty.
A tacit approval, but neverless approval.

Is there any other specific teaching of JC regarding capital
punishment
during his historical life that you are familiar with, and that I
am
missing, that you wanted to discuss. You say the New Testement,
and
then limit it further to His historical life, which would primarily
restrict the discussion to the 4 Gospels. . When you say "His
specific
word only", you seem to be wanting to get to a specific point. I
don't
know what that point is, so if you are, it would help if you would
make
it known.

If I am still missing the question, I apologize for being so dense,
and
can only encourage you to see if you can ask your question again. I
truly am not trying to deceive you, and would desire nothing more
than
to clearly understand your question, so that I could answer you as
clearly.

I tried playing JC in Washington now, and that was not what you
were
after either, so I am totally miffed as to how you want to play the
game.

As we quickly discovered, playing in the future, and in the past,
opens
up way to much of the playing field. So if you could restate your
questions with whatever limits you choose to put on it, I will see
what
I can come up with as an answer. No promises!

I was rereading your post, and read the following statement that
may be
a hint of where the block lies.

"I wanted JC's position on these issues (explained, as I understand
it,
in the New Testament)."

I don't know what you understand JCs position on these issues to
be, as
explained in the New Testament, and certainly not knowing your
understanding of the New Testament. Maybe if we started from your
position, and trying to understand what you say you understand the
New
Testament teaches that Jc's position is on these issues. Then I
could
either provide supporting evidence, contradictory evidence or at
least
clarifying scripture. TnT

Tinkerntom, ignoring the fact that the bible is a work of fiction and
that
only whackos look to use literal interpretations to inform real world
decisions, it was also written for the times. In the days of the Old
Testament, the idea that only the person who committed a murder would
be put
to death was very progressive, given that putting that person's
entire
family to death would not have been uncommon.

The New Testament takes things a step further and moves away from
"revenge"
as a central theme of justice.

In 2005 we have the ability to incarcerate someone for life, which
means
that state-sanctioned murder (known as capital punishment) is nothing
but an
act of vengeance/revenge.

If people feel the need to create mythology around deities, they
should at
least be honest about issues as important as capital punishment.
Anyone who
supports state-sanctioned murder does so because they want to kill,
not
because they think it is what "god" wants. If god wants to strike
someone
dead, surely he will manage it, without need of a human system of
justice
that favours poor people and minorities as its murder victims.

I suppose you will be forth coming with some evidence to support your
currently unsubstantiated statements and propositions? Understanding
how important it is to be making substantiated claims! TnT