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.
No, but you should conduct yourself appropriately.
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.
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.
The above is the epitome of your prowess at being deliberately idiotic.
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.
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:
To which you replied:
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:
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.
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:
To which you replied:
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?
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.
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.
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?
I don’t know if I’ve quoted anything “as if I believed it.” Even the devil can quote scripture.
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.
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.
: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, 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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?? …
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.
It is an indefensible position. It is not my position, so I don’t have to try and defend it.
Hell if I know!!!
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
I hadn’t realized you had so misunderstood MY position and this lead to my mutual misunderstand of yours. OK?
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.
I have no authority.
Agreed. But who gave you the authority to punish anyone?
Rhode Island? Wait, wait. Only kidding!!! Come back!!!
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? )
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.
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.
Nope - it’s your job. You. jmullaney and eleven of your peers. WHAT DO YOU DO?
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?
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.
)