|
Post by huh on Nov 15, 2004 18:21:48 GMT -5
Scott Peterson is finally going to pay his dues for killing his wife and children after a soap opera trial, a la' OJ Simpson. Scott will cry like a baby if he fries but he won't think about the pain his ex-wife endured. What goes around comes around.
|
|
|
Post by Scotswoman on Nov 16, 2004 0:00:12 GMT -5
Scott Peterson has been found guilty only of killing his wife and unborn child. I did not read that he is guilty of killing his children. Is this a fact that the media did not have access to? How many children did he kill?
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 17, 2004 10:24:40 GMT -5
Scott Peterson is finally going to pay his dues for killing his wife and children after a soap opera trial, a la' OJ Simpson. Scott will cry like a baby if he fries but he won't think about the pain his ex-wife endured. What goes around comes around. Quite the vindictive, hurtful attitude for someone who only has a "spectator" connection to the Peterson case. Please correct me, of course, if you do in fact have a personal connection that might warrent such a attitude. andy
|
|
|
Post by huh on Nov 17, 2004 11:16:44 GMT -5
Andy, so you are saying Scott Peterson is an honorable guy? HE IS A KILLER for crying out loud! I guess I need to raise me voice SCOTT PETERSON IS A DAMNED MURDERER!!
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 17, 2004 17:24:11 GMT -5
huh, You should be a politician. You turned my statement, which had absolutely nothing to say about Scott Peterson's character, into suggesting that I think Scott is honorable. Well, on second thought, you'd make a horrible politician. You'd have to refine what you said so that it wouldn't be so blaitantly inaccurate and would make me sound like I'm blaitantly inaccurate. Yes, the jury found Scott Peterson guilty. Should he pay for his crimes? Yes. I did not follow the case, so I don't know the facts about it. But, to come along and outrightly say that someone should "fry" would be just as wrong as what Scott did. Very vengeful, unforgiving, hostile, spiteful, hateful... cold-blooded. Rather, boiling-blooded, which is worse because there is a clear purpose, conscious will, and maniacal drive behind boiling-blooded. I admit, I too get vindictive toward some people who have harmed either me or something/someone that I am very close to. I find myself thinking about how I could painfully inflict my vengeance on the person. It never invovles outright killing the person. Although, I'm not saying that painfully torturing someone is necessarily better than killing. However, I never act on my thoughts, and I rarely suggest it. If I ever do suggest it, it would be in a joking manner, to let off some steam. My imagination is still (semi)productive enough to think of creatively painful punishments. But, even better, I can think of creative sentencing. Most deal with helping. Helping other people, cleaning up litter, etc. Something productive. A more appropriate punishment might be to do some (highly supervised) community service (with the nights in a prison for safe keeping) for at least 15-20 years. THEN, review his status and decide what to do next. I believe prisons are just a warehouse and a crime school for criminals. The prison idea is basically saying that criminals are, and always will be criminals. That there is no thought that these criminals are human beings. I believe otherwise. I believe that prison should be reserved for the absolute worst offenders, those who have proved themselves to be devoid of functioning as anything except extremely harmful people. Of course, that is subjective and often variable depending on the sentencer. I believe that the vast majority of criminals did do something wrong to begin with, and they are able to correct that wrong through other actions, but not through prison time nor death. A productive sentence is by far more beneficial to everybody than simply locking someone up or killing them. Let Scott repay his crimes by cleaning up trash in a parking lot for 15-20 years. Let him mow lawns for the elderly. Build houses for the poor. Build homeless shelters!! Work in soup kitchens. There are many more alternatives to "frying" Scott. andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 17, 2004 21:59:25 GMT -5
Andy,
Thanks for your own opinion of what you think should be done to Scott as an alternative to the death penalty. I am sure if I talked to 100 people about it, I would get 100 variations. I wonder what would be your basis for suggesting that your "opinion" is superior to the next guys. There is a simple answer for those of us who believe God's law to be fair and just concerning the penalty for murder. There is such a peace that comes with faith in Gods word, as it takes our individual opinions and "feelings" out of the equation.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 18, 2004 12:40:43 GMT -5
Robb, Yes, faith can bring a peace. For me, the peace was the closest thing I could imagine to having a lobotamy. I became mindless, my brain, which 'god' supposedly gave me to use, became mush and relatively non-functioning on the intellectual level. I had peace in the sense that I didn't have to think about anything. I didn't have to form any kind of opinion because it was already fed to me. I was a robot, functioning based on a set of inputted commands and not based on the actual human capability. A big problem with relying on god's word when it comes to death penalty junk is that there is no personal accountability when it comes to faith. You are very true that you will get many variations regarding a course of action with Scott Peterson. That is because people are actually using their brains to sort things out. My opinions are backed by actual research I learned about in various classes I've taken, namely a Criminology course. Every research regarding being much more personally intensive on rehabilitation is far more successful than prison time alone, and killing. Of course, there is no rehab possible with killing. andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 18, 2004 15:49:14 GMT -5
I can see that you misunderstand "peace" which is ironic for someone who apparentlty considers himself more intellectual or enlightened now. The peace that I am speaking of is what comes when a person accepts God as Creator and Lord over all. This eliminates the conflict that one faces as they wrestle with the core question that ultimatly reveals the illogic of their humanistic worldview... "by what standard"?
Btw, would you condsider men like C.S. Lewis, Edwards, Bunyan, Calvin, etc to be "mindless"? Or is it just that they hold to a Christian worldview which includes a standard that is above human thoughts and emotions?
Why should any more consideration be given to your opinion than to Hitlers? Reseach of facts is a funny thing because it too is bound to our own presuppositions. That is why one person can research the same facts another, yet one will interpret the "research" to support Creation, the other Darwinism.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 19, 2004 0:42:18 GMT -5
I don't know who these people are. I have no opinion regarding them. Why shoudl any more consideration be given to a Buddhist's, Muslim's, Atheist's, Christian's, etc's opinion than to Hitler's? Hitler was a very smart man, and did have some decent ideas. Research is not just reading up on someone's ideas and stuff. It also deals with different studies and experiments and their findings. In terms of the findings I mentioned before, it is hard to refute, or even misinterpret, the drastically lower recidivism rates for people who have had the intensive rehabilitation in which the released prisoner had very close attention from a "rehab-er". When you have someone with you several days per week, for several months or longer, helping you rehab back into society, that is by far more effective than letting a prisoner go on parole/probation with relatively infrequent visits from their parole/probation officer. That is not just someone's opinions, but actual results from studies and experiments. The problem with it is that it costs more money than just incarceration initially to institute such a program of rehabilitation. So, people see the initial price tag and are scared off. However, what people are missing by looking away is the fact that with fewer people being put back in jail after being rearrested sometime later, that means less money being spent on the fewer people in jail. It is a long term benefit, not a quick-fix that people seem to want. andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 19, 2004 9:29:52 GMT -5
Andy,
Using your own post modern thinking it would seem that you have no basis for suggesting that rehabilitation should be the goal of the criminal justice system. I would suggest that the goal of the criminal justice system is... justice. This idea is based upon a biblical worldview of law, not my opinion. Andy, it seems like we have little basis for continuing this conversation since you cannot seem to identify the source of your standard of truth. Failing to answer this important question leaves me to conclude that you in fact consider yourself to be your standard of truth... a standard which I must reject.
I would strongly recommend reading any of the following works by CS Lewis: The Screwtape Letters, Mere Chistianity, The Problem of Pain, The Abolition of Man.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by whatever on Nov 20, 2004 1:37:02 GMT -5
Why just killed?
Why not inflected with thousands of tiny cuts? skin flayed. Ripped limb from limb. Drawn and quartered as it were. In a public square. Bring the children and make them watch. It didn't work in the past but what the hell, let's try it again. One thing kids need is more blood and gore. They learn so much from it and since it does nothing to reduce the crime rate there will continue to be an ample supply of people to be offered to the God fearing masses. Every cloud has it's silver lining.
Roger
|
|
|
Post by Amen Brother on Nov 20, 2004 1:48:52 GMT -5
There is such a peace that comes with faith in Gods word, as it takes our individual opinions and "feelings" out of the equation. That is why Bush is at peace. God is using him. Working through him. Slaughtering the infidels. We can all just listen to Bush. Follow mindlessly. God speaks and works through him for us.
|
|
|
Post by To Robb K on Nov 21, 2004 1:52:22 GMT -5
What should people use as their standard of truth if they were raised without knowledge of the bible?
|
|
|
Post by One word changed on Nov 21, 2004 3:04:45 GMT -5
Reseach of facts is a funny thing because it too is bound to our own presuppositions. Reseach of the bible is a funny thing because it too is bound to our own presuppositions.
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 21, 2004 16:54:13 GMT -5
Certainly a sad condition to be in. Like most of us, many of them have likely never considered the problem or the consiquences that result from a lack of an objective standard and therefore do not see a problem with believing/doing what they have been told to by the culture. If they have considered this question and are honest with themselves then these people are deeply conflicted since they lack a firm standard of truth. Maybe such a state would cause them to cry out the the Author of life and truth.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by Robb Klaty on Nov 21, 2004 17:04:45 GMT -5
I must agree with your statement. That is what accounts for the multitude of biblical interpretations. For example, when I was part of the f&w fellowship, I applied my presuppositions of God and His "way" at the time to it. Now, since I have a totally different worldview, I interpret the Bible differntly. Of course we as Chrsitians need to attempt to eliminate as many presuppositions as possible when reading Scripture, knowing that ultimatly we will be unable to totally do so. We trust that God will be able to reveal to us His will dispite our lack. It has been helpful for me to actively consider my own presuppositions and thier roots when I am studying the Bible.
Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 22, 2004 13:27:39 GMT -5
Robb, Yes, it seems we have different standards to which we stand. To me, religion brings very skewed, judgemental standards. Jesus taught compassion. Yet, many Christian people feel otherwise. I feel that we are all humans. Everybody is brought up different, but the common bond that ties us all together is that we are all humans. I don't agree with your hardcore religious principles, Robb. Heck, I don't agree with many softcore religious principles. But, I have the same respect and interest for you as I do for anybody else, including Scott Peterson. He should be punished according to the law, not according to people's rash, knee-jerk reactionary emotions. I was not advocating in any way letting Scott go easily. I would not consider doing community work for 15-20+ years after prison time easy. It can be dirty, nasty, unrewarding (monetarily), but can also instill a deep appreciation and compassoin for the fellow human being. As the Scorpions sing... "We all live under the same sun". Andy
|
|
|
Post by Robb not logged in on Nov 22, 2004 16:40:11 GMT -5
Why do you have respect for anybody? Where does this idea of respect come from? Isn't the idea of respect just a "religious principle"s?
Which law Andy? Should we follow God's law found in the Bible (which is the basis for civil law in the US) or should we follow the "law" devised out of people's rash, knee-jerk reactionary emotions?
Andy, I am sorry that you cannot see that you and I are equally religious... just in different ways. One does not have to serve God to be religious. The Bible says that a person either worships the creature or the Creator. Both are therefore religious in this sense of the word.
Robb
|
|
Robb not loggin in again
Guest
|
Post by Robb not loggin in again on Nov 22, 2004 16:50:36 GMT -5
Yes this is very true about Darwinism, feminism, and humanism, etc. It is also true about Christianity (if you remove the word "skewed"). Yes, all belief systems are judgemental since all belief systems advance certain standards to the exclusion of others (even when the standard is that there are no standards). I see even you make a judgemental statement about "religion". I guess I just don't agree with your "hard core religious principles", Andy. Robb
|
|
|
Post by botany on Nov 23, 2004 0:37:57 GMT -5
*sigh* Ok, Robb. *shrugs shoulders* andy
|
|