You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   41-65   66-90   91-115   116     
 
Author Message
25 new of 116 responses total.
sabre
response 66 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 28 19:37 UTC 2003

russ...I will end this absurd notion of yours with one statement

The Holy Spirit is called the "pneumas"

Do you think that means Holy "breath"?

 The action that God took in creating Adam was imparting the "spirit of 
life"
 
You are mislead by the english translation. THAT IS THE POINT.
You cannot use that verse to justify your position on when life begins.
THAT IS THE POINT

"And thanks for
proving my point about your intellect or lack thereof."

WHAT...can't you even READ? You are in  dire need of knowledge.



tod
response 67 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 28 19:50 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

tpryan
response 68 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 28 20:05 UTC 2003

        Back in the 50's, my mom had a pregnancy that ending with
a stillborn.  Never took a breath.  Never named, No funeral, no
burial, no Catholic ceremony.  Just one that did not make it.
        I think the attitude of the church has changed.
sabre
response 69 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 28 20:06 UTC 2003

RE#67
wayipach baapaayw nishmat chayiym wayhiy haa'aadaam inepesh chayaah

(Hebrew characters are transliterated in english)
I'm sure one of the great minds here will verify this.
polytarp
response 70 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 28 20:32 UTC 2003

Stop speaking that language.
lynne
response 71 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 28 22:26 UTC 2003

My rum is holy and is referred to as such.
polytarp
response 72 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 28 22:45 UTC 2003

Yeah.
tod
response 73 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 28 23:33 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

pvn
response 74 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 30 07:39 UTC 2003

"We the People" would have been understood to be in the context of
"Endowed by Creator" in the first place and not at all separate from it.

How do those who oppose tacking extra penalty on crimes that result in
the death of a fetus feel about "hate crimes" which tack on extra
penalty for crimes involving those victims deemed worthy of such?
tod
response 75 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 30 20:09 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

jaklumen
response 76 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 30 20:55 UTC 2003

It always seemed like shooting oneself in the foot to me: murder for 
so-called murder, if that was the rationale.
tod
response 77 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 31 14:40 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

jaklumen
response 78 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 31 22:52 UTC 2003

And yet such an ironic comparison: these are the nuts that pretty much 
think that those 'towel-heads' should convert to Jeez-us or die.
(Sorry, I couldn't hold back the disdain there.)
gull
response 79 of 116: Mark Unseen   Aug 31 23:07 UTC 2003

I'm not big on hate-crime laws, either.
happyboy
response 80 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 1 01:19 UTC 2003

re77:  by giving them something to live for.

like a bigmac 'n fries!
russ
response 81 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 1 14:22 UTC 2003

I believe I'm on record as opposing hate-crime laws; if there
is no separate crime of conspiracy, a given crime ought to be
punished the same.
bru
response 82 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 2 16:36 UTC 2003

I agree.  I even think it is wrong to offer more severe sentences to those
who kill police.  In my opinion, police are no more important than anyone
else.  Our job isn't even more dangerous than some others out there.

And you generally have to hate someone to murder them.
tod
response 83 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 2 16:51 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

bru
response 84 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 2 19:36 UTC 2003

most officers never have to drawa gun and shoot in the line of duty.  Most
psychological damage to officers comes from having to deal with the after
effects of a crime on the survivors.  alcoholism only exacerbates the problem.

Stress is not what we are dealing with here.  WE are dealiing with the value
of a human life.   No life is more omportant than any other life, adn the
punishment should be the same under the same circumstances.
tod
response 85 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 2 20:01 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

bru
response 86 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 3 00:33 UTC 2003

All crime attacks the basic infrasturcture of society.  Why is the clerk at
the Holiday Inn with three kids and a husband worth less than the 50 year old
divorced alcoholic cop?

She isn't.
Both deserve justice.

Now, who should decide what justice is?  Should it not be the same as what
they committed?  If they killed someone, then death.  OR, at the behest of
the family that lost the loved one, life in prison.
jmsaul
response 87 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 3 02:46 UTC 2003

If you're a believer in deterrence, the argument for stronger penalties for
crimes against certain people is that there's more temptation to attack those
people, so more deterrence is required to dissuade potential attackers.  That
applies pretty well to cops, since their job requires them to interfere with
violent people.
rcurl
response 88 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 3 05:39 UTC 2003

Re #86: no, it should not be "the same as what they committed". There is
an enormous range of culpability for any crime, which must be taken into
consideration in a civilized society. If someone runs down a person
wandering on the highway on a dark and stormy night, should they be run
down in turn?  If you shoot a mugger, should you be shot? Once you admit
that an absolute "eye for an eye" is not right, then you are having to
draw distinctions and make judgements and discover your own morality and
not necessarily adopt the morality of a criminal.

bru
response 89 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 3 21:55 UTC 2003

the problem with an eye for an eye is that it is a limit, not a goal.
tod
response 90 of 116: Mark Unseen   Sep 3 22:09 UTC 2003

This response has been erased.

 0-24   25-49   41-65   66-90   91-115   116     
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss