# jmullaney -- what's the deal? **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 5, 2000, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187 "2000-12-05T22:14:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/101 "2000-12-06T20:52:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > One more time. “If I were of person-type X, I’d want bad-thing Y to be done to me, so it is OK to do Y to people of type X” is a strawman, period. You can justify doing _anything_ if that is the rule you want to live by. I never used such an argument. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > I’ve never pretended to be devout. No? Isn’t quoting chapter and verse as if you believed it pretending to be devout? You claim one moment that you believe it and the next that you waffle. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > So I should lie about what is right, right? No, but you should conduct yourself appropriately. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > You mean where someone said, Paul said it was good to submit to authority, and I said, yes, it is good to submit to authority, and they said, ah ha – see, you are waffling, and I asked, what do you mean, I’m agreeing with you? See your post 12.05.00 at 4:42 PM. See **Gaudere’s** post at 12.05.00 at 4:52 PM. You are aware that there is support which is contradictory within the Bible. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > Monk escapade? Someone asked a question, and I gave them an honest answer. You led people to believe you had been a monk. You lied. Wether your intentions were to be derisive, argumentative or solely misleading, your conduct was reprehesible and continues to be as is exemplary in this thread. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > Well, I wish you would make up your mind. \*\* The above is the epitome of your prowess at being deliberately idiotic. ---
**Author:** ![Tymp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Tymp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tymp)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/102 "2000-12-06T21:07:08Z")
Joel, It’s tough enough for me to subject myself to your insane, idiotic chatter once though. Don’t ever suggest I do that to myself twice. Thank you _so_ much for suggesting I need to though. Perhaps you can come up with yet another way to insult me in addition to your lies, your hypocrisy and your arrogance. Unfortunately, you failed to answer my most important question. What the fuck are you babbling about? To rephrase and make it easier for you: What is your point? Do you actually have any beliefs of your own or are you just and empty shell of arrogance and ego fed only by constant condemnation and insult of all others that have an underlying personality or purpose? Please advise. ---
**Author:** ![Nen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Nen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nen)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/103 "2000-12-06T21:15:20Z")
All hail Master Tymp! ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/104 "2000-12-06T21:32:09Z")
JMULLANEY – I’ll be damned if I’ll let you get away with your non-responsive, intellectually dishonest, and evasive style of “debating.” I said: > [@](#): > > You’re intellectually dishonest. Rather than think for yourself and come up with reasoned explications for why you hold the views you do, you simply assert they are Biblically mandated – when you don’t follow the Bible yourself. To which you replied: > [@](#): > > Everything I hold to be right I can show from two basic axioms: 1) the Golden Rule. 2) the ends never justify the means. If someone by virtue of being bad can’t discern what is right, then I assure you we are all screwed. Totally nonresponsive to the passage you quoted, so I’ll repeat it: **You’re intellectually dishonest. Rather than think for yourself and come up with reasoned explications for why you hold the views you do, you simply assert they are Biblically mandated – when you don’t follow the Bible yourself.** I said “that is certainly a simplistic code, isn’t it?”, to which you replied: > [@](#): > > Love your neighbor as you love yourself? I suppose so. But it’s simplicity should not imply it’s inferiority compared to other codes. Except that it isn’t the code I was talking about, as you must know unless you have the brains of a trout. The code I was referring to is your extrapolation from the golden rule to the axiom that no crime, no matter how henious, should ever be punished. This is an indefensible position, though I invite you to attempt to defend it, if you think you can do so without again pretending to misunderstand it. > [@](#): > > I think if people repent they should be forgiven. Our system of justice does not allow for that, so I can not support it. So what do you think should happen to the unrepentant criminal? This is a direct question and should be hard for even you to misconstrue. I said: > [@](#): > > I’ve never heard such a retarded and indefensible thing. Oh, and if you are not in fact the only thinking person on the face of God’s green earth who ascribes to that believe, point me towards ONE other that does. To which you replied: > [@](#): > > One other person who believes in the Golden Rule. I would not think that would be so difficult. Except that I wasn’t talking about the golden rule, but rather your extrapolation from it that no crime, no matter how henious, should ever be punished. As you must know unless you have the brains of a trout. Do I begin to repeat myself? Perhaps you could take a crack at addressing the points I _do_ raise, rather than misconstruing them or pretending disingenuously that you don’t understand them. I asked “How do you know what God would want, seeing as how you only believe in Him when it suits you to do so?” to which you responded “I would not want to be punished if I were to repent, therefore I don’t.” Totally nonresposive and evasive, so I’ll ask again: **How do you know what God would want, seeing as how you only believe in Him when it suits you to do so?** I asked, “Who are you, who admittedly lives in unrepentant sin and does not try to do otherwise, to tell the rest of us what God wants?” to which you replied “I am not telling you anything you should not be able to figure out for yourself, Jodi.” Totally nonresponsive and evasive, so I’ll ask again: **Who are you, who admittedly lives in unrepentant sin and does not try to do otherwise, to tell the rest of us what God wants?** > [@](#): > > So should I lie and say obsesity isn’t bad for the heart? If you are morbidly obese, you should worry about your OWN weight and your OWN heart before presuming to concern yourself with mine. And spare me the confusie-faces; they only make me think you’re an idiot. > [@](#): > > No Jodi. You don’t get to pick and choose you your neighbors are. It is not “us” versus “them.” If you say people can pick and choose who I want to love, then you open the door to all manner of evil. Agreeing as a society that certain reprehensible behavior is not tolerated is not “picking and choosing between your neighbors.” It isn’t as if Neighbor A gets to murder or rape or abuse children but Neighbor B does not. NOBODY can legally do these things. And you can certainly love the person and not their actions. You do not have to accept henious actions in order to love your neighbors. By the way, if you willfully misunderstand me again, or evade the issue by posting something non-responsive and tangental, I will have no choice but to follow the advice given by others more wise (or less masochistic) then I and consign you to Coventry. Then, once you’ve reached a point where no one is even talking to you, you can tell yourself you’ve won the argument. ---
**Author:** ![magdalene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@magdalene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magdalene)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/105 "2000-12-06T21:33:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > \*Originally posted by andros \* > > You’re actually saying that we should allow serial murderers to continue killing unchecked. > > I say if they repent, you should forgive them. If they do not repent you shouldn’t. Our system of justice has no forgiveness so I can’t support it. Sorry. \*\* GAK! ARRRRGGGHHHHHH! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR! So now we are back to square fucking one! jmullaney, picture if you will a murder trial. A serial killer. The prosecustion’s case proves beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant stalked, tortured, and killed multiple victims. HE IS UNREPENTANT, PROUD OF WHAT HE IS DONE, AND SWEARS HE WILL KILL AGAIN IF RELEASED. **1) What would jmullaney do, if he were on that jury? 2) What should society do, if anything, to protect itself from the defendant?** Remember, this is a profoundly unrepentant danger-to-society here. I’m not interested in any out-of-context Bible quotes or quasi-witnessing, and I’m definitely not interested in any more information about your personal philosophy. Answer the questions above. Please. Pretty please? Sugar on top? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/106 "2000-12-06T21:36:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Nen \* > I never used such an argument. Not you, pal! At least some people know better. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > Isn’t quoting chapter and verse as if you believed it pretending to be devout? I don’t know if I’ve quoted anything “as if I believed it.” Even the devil can quote scripture. > [@](#): > > you should conduct yourself appropriately. Wait a minute, weren’t you an anarchist? But you are carrying around federal reserve notes in your pockets, right? OK, so now I’m being a jerk. But if you just mean I should be more patient with people, etc., yeah, OK – you are probably right. > [@](#): > > See your post 12.05.00 at 4:42 PM. See **Gaudere’s** post at 12.05.00 at 4:52 PM. You are aware that there is support which is contradictory within the Bible. I saw that, and I didn’t get a chance to respond since **Gaudere** seemed to be basically agreeing with me. I don’t think just because Matthew 7:1-2 and Matthew 7:3-5 follow eachother in the Bible they should be taken as a lump sum. Matthew 7:1-2 says you should not judge others, or you will be judged. Matthew 7:3-5 says you should not presume to know what is right and think that your brother is obviously a fool – you may simply not be able to see what he can see. No, that doesn’t mean I must be wrong, and everyone else is right, or even vice versa. And it can’t possibly mean that everything is morally relevant since it says it is possible to see clearly. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > You led people to believe you had been a monk. You lied. :rolleyes: No, I was a monk – a mendicant to be more precise. You think only the Catholic Church has monks? I assure you they do not. [The Free Spirits](http://www.slip.net/~knabb/rexroth/communalism2.htm), founded by St. Francis of Assisi, have been around for about 800 years. It is not my fault if that wasn’t what the OPer in that thread had in mind, but there was no way for me to know he only meant Catholic Orders. ---
**Author:** ![ren](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ed655f/32.png) [@ren](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ren)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/107 "2000-12-06T21:36:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Do I think people who die in a state outside of divine bliss or Nirvana or whatever you want to call it might just continue to suffer separated from God? It seems possible. Buddha taught that. Last time I checked Buddha didn’t have much to say about God. And since, in Buddhism, suffering is an internally generated state, there’s no real theme of relieving it by communing with some external entity or state. Perhaps you need to put down that bible for a while and bone up on some other religions. It might help give you some perspective on your obvious confusion as well. ---
**Author:** ![Tymp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Tymp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tymp)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/108 "2000-12-06T21:45:09Z")
**WWJD?** What would jmullaney do? Goodness! The mind reels! What exactly **would** jamullaney, the man, the individual responsible for his own actions, do? What does he do when there is no audience for which to perform? What does he do when there are no innocents to be deceived? What does he do when no one gives a flying radioactive rhino fuck what he thinks of himself or anyone else? What would jmullaney do if he were suddenly, unexpectedly exposed to reality? How many licks does it take . . ? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/109 "2000-12-06T21:49:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tymp \* > Do you actually have any beliefs of your own or are you just and empty shell of arrogance and ego fed only by constant condemnation and insult of all others that have an underlying personality or purpose? Ugh, see, I think I’m just an idiot. The Patriots suck this year. Is that a good start? Now is that really my own belief? I don’t know – maybe I just heard it somewhere and it sounded good. If a linebacker showed up here I’d deny I ever said any such thing though. But, that probably isn’t what you mean. If I say the earth is round, that isn’t a statement which means I’m arrogant or ego fed. Do I think Love is better than hate? Yes. Is that arrogant? I hope not. Do I love as much as I should? No. Should I hop on a few less threads? Yeah, probably. I hope I haven’t insulted anyone. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/110 "2000-12-06T21:55:51Z")
> [@](#): > > No, I was a monk – a mendicant to be more precise. You think only the Catholic Church has monks? I assure you they do not. The Free Spirits, founded by St. Francis of Assisi, have been around for about 800 years. The medievalist in me is not going to let you get away with this malarky. **THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MENDICANT MONK** Monks must observe the law of _stabilitas_. Stabilitas is a fundamental component of the monastic vows of every order. Francis of Assisi did not found the Free Spirits. He founded the order of Franciscan _FRIARS_, accepted by the Laterian council of 1215. Mendicant friars are not monks under any stretch of the definition. They are all Catholic. This kind of intellectual dishonesty, as Jodi puts it, is what makes discussing serious issues with you so incredibly frustrating. ---
**Author:** ![Tymp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Tymp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tymp)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/111 "2000-12-06T21:59:46Z")
> [@](#): > > monk \Monk, n. [AS. munuc, munec, munc, L. monachus, Gr. ?, fr. ? alone. Cf. Monachism.] 1. A man who retires from the ordinary temporal concerns of the world, and devotes himself to religion; one of a religious community of men inhabiting a monastery, and bound by vows to a life of chastity, obedience, and poverty. ``A monk out of his cloister.’’ --Chaucer. > > Monks in some respects agree with regulars, as in the substantial vows of religion; but in other respects monks and regulars differ; for that regulars, vows excepted, are not tied up to so strict a rule of life as monks are. --Ayliffe. > > 1. (Print.) A blotch or spot of ink on a printed page, caused by the ink not being properly distributed. It is distinguished from a friar, or white spot caused by a deficiency of ink. > > 2. A piece of tinder made of agaric, used in firing the powder hose or train of a mine. > > 3. (Zo["o]l.) (a) A South American monkey (Pithecia monachus); also applied to other species, as Cebus xanthocephalus. (b) The European bullfinch. Unless a member of your religious community can offer a statement that you have, at some point in your life, been a monk, I’m going to have to run with the assumption that you actually believed yourself to be a South American monkey. Such a belief on your part would be pretty much in line with the nature of your reasoning exhibited in this thread and some others that come to mind. Forgive me if I’m completely unwilling to take your word for the fact that you were ever a monk in the sense that the rest of us seem to understand. Please stop the lies. ---
**Author:** ![Tymp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Tymp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tymp)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/112 "2000-12-06T22:06:06Z")
> [@](#): > > I don’t know – maybe I just heard it somewhere and it sounded good. If a linebacker showed up here I’d deny I ever said any such thing though. See? Now there’s your problem. You seem incapable of honesty. You seem incapable of any conviction. That sucks, man. Get some help. ---
**Author:** ![magdalene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df788c/32.png) [@magdalene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magdalene)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/113 "2000-12-06T22:06:38Z")
jmullaney, yo! Over here! Am I invisible or something? Answer my questions. No one is interested in any more of your personal issues or beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/114 "2000-12-06T22:35:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jodi \* > **You’re intellectually dishonest. Rather than think for yourself and come up with reasoned explications for why you hold the views you do, you simply assert they are Biblically mandated – when you don’t follow the Bible yourself.** > > I said “that is certainly a simplistic code, isn’t it?”, to which you replied: > > > [@](#): > > > > Love your neighbor as you love yourself? I suppose so. But it’s simplicity should not imply it’s inferiority compared to other codes. > > Except that it isn’t the code I was talking about, as you must know unless you have the brains of a trout. Fuck you, Jodi. Fuck you very much. You are the very first person I’ve ever heard call the Bible “a simplistic code.” But wait, maybe you mean I base everything I think on the Gospels. If that’s what you meant, then my reply makes perfect sense. But wait, is this really what you mean?? … > [@](#): > > The code I was referring to is your extrapolation from the golden rule to the axiom that no crime, no matter how henious, should ever be punished. I never said crime should not be punished. I said it was up to God to judge. The Golden Rule makes absolutely no sense if you do not think there is a God – and I’ve argued that point before [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=38249). > [@](#): > > This is an indefensible position, though I invite you to attempt to defend it It is an indefensible position. It is not my position, so I don’t have to try and defend it. > [@](#): > > what do you think should happen to the unrepentant criminal? _Hell_ if I know!!! 😛 > [@](#): > > I wasn’t talking about the golden rule, but rather your extrapolation from it that no crime, no matter how henious, should ever be punished. As you must know unless you have the brains of a trout. And you should know that is not my position unless you have the brains of a turnip. **I can see gears in your head, spinning, but alas, the gears are made out of FRUIT LOOPS** > [@](#): > > take a crack at addressing the points I _do_ raise I hadn’t realized you had so misunderstood MY position and this lead to my mutual misunderstand of yours. OK? > [@](#): > > How do you know what God would want, seeing as how you only believe in Him when it suits you to do so? His will, if done, would be his kingdom come. My God is Love. Therefore, God wants us to love eachother. Why don’t you find this a valid answer? I know there is a leap of logic in there, but is it very slight. > [@](#): > > Who are you, who admittedly lives in unrepentant sin and does not try to do otherwise, to tell the rest of us what God wants? I have no authority. > [@](#): > > And you can certainly love the person and not their actions. You do not have to accept henious actions in order to love your neighbors. Agreed. But who gave _you_ the authority to punish anyone? > [@](#): > > and consign you to Coventry. Rhode Island? Wait, wait. Only kidding!!! Come back!!! ---
**Author:** ![Gaudere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e495f1/32.png) [@Gaudere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gaudere)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/115 "2000-12-06T22:37:36Z")
> [@](#): > > Matthew 7:1-2 says you should not judge others, or you will be judged. It does not either say simply “don’t judge”. It says you will be judged by the standards by which you judge others. So, be careful how you judge, but once you have removed the plank from one’s eye, then one may cast out the speck from your neighbor’s. If you’re not supposed to be doing _any_ judging at all, Jesus is rambling on pretty uselessly about how we will be judged and removing specks from our neighbor’s eyes. “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” And what of this, where Jesus commands us to judge–judge righteously, yes, but judge: **John 7:24** Judge not according to the appearance, but _judge righteous judgment_. (You know, Christians, this would be easier if your Deity would write a little more clearly. Ya wanna talk to Him about it, maybe? 😃 ) ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/116 "2000-12-06T22:40:09Z")
Sorry, magdalene! I’m trying to keep up!! > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by magdalene \* > HE IS UNREPENTANT, PROUD OF WHAT HE IS DONE, AND SWEARS HE WILL KILL AGAIN IF RELEASED. OK, but he is not pleading guilty??? You don’t plead innocent and swear you’ll kill again if released – it just doesn’t make any sense. If he says he’s guilty, I have no problem with agreeing with him. I’d have to pass the buck to the judge on that one. ---
**Author:** ![Cantrip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/9f8e36/32.png) [@Cantrip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cantrip)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/117 "2000-12-06T22:48:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jmullaney \* > OK, but he is not pleading guilty??? You don’t plead innocent and swear you’ll kill again if released – it just doesn’t make any sense. Yes it does; it’s called “putting the prosecution to its proof”. Remember, the government has to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This thug rolls the dice that the government won’t be able to. I mean, if he pleads guilty, he’s definitely going to jail for the rest of his life, so why not take a chance on that the jury is comprised of at least one person LIKE YOU. So he pleads “not guilty”, and there is evidence that is NOT before the jury indicating that he is unrepentant and will kill again if acquitted. > [@](#): > > If he says he’s guilty, I have no problem with agreeing with him. I’d have to pass the buck to the judge on that one. Nope - it’s your job. You. **jmullaney** and eleven of your peers. WHAT DO YOU DO? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/118 "2000-12-06T22:52:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Maeglin \* > **THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MENDICANT MONK** So Webster’s is wrong? Then that isn’t my mistake. > [@](#): > > Main Entry: 1monk > Pronunciation: 'm&[ng]k > Function: noun > : a man who is a member of a religious order and lives in a monastery; > **also : FRIAR** Looking up **Friar** : > [@](#): > > Main Entry: fri·ar > Pronunciation: 'frI(-&)r > Function: noun > : **a member of a mendicant order** Please follow the link to [Webster’s Customer Service Department](http://m-w.com/service/service.htm) and file a complaint. > [@](#): > > Francis of Assisi did not found the Free Spirits. Sure he did. Try reading the link. I’m not saying it is an authority, but if I’m wrong I’m not alone: > [@](#): > > St. Francis was aware of what had happened and as he was dying he wrote a testament insisting on the preservation of the literal principles of the original rule and forbidding any appeal to the pope to change them. … He was no sooner dead than the order did appeal to the pope and his testament was set aside and poverty was defined in purely symbolic, legalistic terms. … Then began a struggle which would last for two generations within the order, and then be continued outside of it, and finally outside of the Church, to restore the original life of mystical poverty. > > ``` > The faction that wished to restore obedience to St. Francis’s original rule and testament were known as Zealots or Spirituals. > > ``` See? > [@](#): > > intellectual dishonesty Honest disagreement. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tymp \* > \*\* > > > [@](#): > > > > monk \Monk, n. [AS. munuc, munec, munc, L. monachus, Gr. ?, fr. ? alone. Cf. Monachism.] 1. A man who retires from the ordinary temporal concerns of the world, and devotes himself to religion; > > … I’m going to have to run with the assumption that you actually believed yourself to be a South American monkey. … > > Please stop the lies. **Tymp** – please do me the honor of at least reading what you are writing. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/119 "2000-12-06T22:55:54Z")
Wow. It seems every thread I wander into lately has cosmic repercussions. If it’s not foreskins, it’s God’s love and forgiveness. jmullaney, I’m a father. I’ve got three children of my own, and one stepchild whom I love as my own. All the kids know the rules they should follow. Occasionally one of them breaks a rule, either intentionally or not. I punish them accordingly, and my punishment is harsher when I’ve repeatedly warned them about something and they do it anyway. Does it mean I don’t love them? Nope, in fact it means I love them enough to show them the difference between right and wrong. That is what punishment is designed to do. On a societal scale, there must be some punishment that can be meted out. And there is a level of forgiveness in that, as well. Someone who commits a murder isn’t required to spend their entire life in prison. If we truly embraced an “eye-for-an-eye” mentality, murderers would not be released from prison after 10, 15 or 20 years. Yet this happens on a fairly routine basis. Why? Because we say that person has “paid their debt to society.” They’ve been punished, but now they’re free to continue to live their lives. That’s a specific type of mercy. I understand your rationale, but it simply doesn’t work in the real world. Even Jesus got hacked at how people acted sometimes – remember the situation with the moneychangers in the temple? ---
**Author:** ![jmullaney](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/85e7bf/32.png) [@jmullaney](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jmullaney)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2000, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187/120 "2000-12-06T23:00:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Gaudere \* > (You know, Christians, this would be easier if your Deity would write a little more clearly. Ya wanna talk to Him about it, maybe? 😃 ) Yeah, amen. Yes, you need to be able to judge what is right and what is wrong. But you are not supposed to condemn anyone. I don’t think this scripture supports the idea of condemnation. Everyone, I hope, knows that murder is wrong. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jmullaney-whats-the-deal/44187.md?page=7)