French Use of Just Death Penalty
Rev. Don Kool
As different methods of justly executing proven murderers come up
on this newsgroup from time to time, I thought I would share this
picture of the way the french used to do it.
http://members.home.net/oldno7/French_Justice.jpg
We can all remember this the next time one of the european posters
tries to describe American use of the just Death Penalty as
"barbaric".
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
gate...@albany.net
<371B7B00...@home.com> wrote:
>
> As different methods of justly executing proven murderers come up
>on this newsgroup from time to time, I thought I would share this
>picture of the way the french used to do it.
What the grim reaper fails to mention is that the French, having
become civilized since then, no longer kill prisoners.
I Wonder when Kool will also come to his senses.
Rev. Don Kool
gate...@albany.net wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> > As different methods of justly executing proven murderers come up
> >on this newsgroup from time to time, I thought I would share this
> >picture of the way the french used to do it.
> >
> > http://members.home.net/oldno7/French_Justice.jpg
> >
> > We can all remember this the next time one of the european posters
> > tries to describe American use of the just Death Penalty as
> > "barbaric".
> What the grim reaper fails to mention is that the French, having
> become civilized since then,
So since the beginning of time the french were 'uncivilized' and
suddenly when they stopped using the gillotine in 1981 they became
"civilized". It would seem that someone forgot to inform the french
of that little trick.
> no longer kill prisoners.
Yes, and for a time Americans weren't allowed to drive over 55MPH
either. Generally governments recognize their mistakes and correct
them;
From the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights (IHF)
1998 Annual Report:
"The death penalty appeared to receive increasing support. Although
it was abolished by some countries (e.g., Ukraine and Georgia)
under
pressure from the Council of Europe, discussions were
underway in
several states for its reinstatement."
Civilization my yet return to perpetually war-torn europe but it
may be years away. As usual, france will most likely be brining up
the rear.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Desmond Coughlan
> > As different methods of justly executing proven murderers come up
> >on this newsgroup from time to time, I thought I would share this
> >picture of the way the french used to do it.
> What the grim reaper fails to mention is that the French, having
> become civilized since then, no longer kill prisoners.
>
> I Wonder when Kool will also come to his senses.
Difficult to do, considering that he has none.
--
Desmond Coughlan |Restez zen ... Linux peut le faire
des...@cybercable.fr
[www site under construction]
gate...@albany.net
<371BBAB3...@home.com> wrote:
>[...] Generally governments recognize their mistakes and correct
>them; [...]
We can only hope and pray that those governments that
still kill prisoners will soon recognize that mistake and
correct it.
Rev. Don Kool
gate...@albany.net wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> >[...] Generally governments recognize their mistakes and correct
> >them; [...]
> We can only hope and pray that those governments that
> still kill prisoners will soon recognize that mistake and
> correct it.
And that those that still suffer proven murderers to live soon
recognize that mistake and begin to justly execute them.
Yours in Christ,
GBur940099
>Subject: Re: French Use of Just Death Penalty
>From: Desmond Coughlan <nospam_...@cybercable.fr>
>> > As different methods of justly executing proven murderers come up
>> >on this newsgroup from time to time, I thought I would share this
>> >picture of the way the french used to do it.
>
>> What the grim reaper fails to mention is that the French, having
>> become civilized since then, no longer kill prisoners.
They simply have not learned their lesson yet. Amerika made the same mistake
in 1972 and then rectified it later. Time has not run out yet, EVEN the French
can learn from their mistakes.
>> I Wonder when Kool will also come to his senses.
>
>Difficult to do, considering that he has none.
Coming straight from the sensible man himself.....boy that hurt........
necromancier
>"Grim Reaper Don Kool" <old...@home.com>, in article
><371B7B00...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> As different methods of justly executing proven murderers come up
>>on this newsgroup from time to time, I thought I would share this
>>picture of the way the french used to do it.
>
>What the grim reaper fails to mention is that the French, having
>become civilized since then, no longer kill prisoners.
Naw. They are much more humane. They keep you in prison for seventeen
months without a trial, then they hold your trial in secret. You get
one appeal, and not attorney.
Then they make you watch Jerry Lewis reruns and drink bad wine until
you would cut your own threat with a rusty razor blade.
necromancer
gate...@albany.net
>
>
>gate...@albany.net wrote:
>> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>
>> >[...] Generally governments recognize their mistakes and correct
>> >them; [...]
>
>> We can only hope and pray that those governments that
>> still kill prisoners will soon recognize that mistake and
>> correct it.
>
> And that those that still suffer proven murderers to live soon
>recognize that mistake and begin to justly execute them.
An eye for an eye, eh Kool?
> Yours in Christ,
You wouldn't recognize a Christian thought if it bit you in the ass,
Kool.
> Don
Rev. Don Kool
gate...@albany.net wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> >gate...@albany.net wrote:
> >> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >[...] Generally governments recognize their mistakes and correct
> >> >them; [...]
> >> We can only hope and pray that those governments that
> >> still kill prisoners will soon recognize that mistake and
> >> correct it.
> > And that those that still suffer proven murderers to live soon
> >recognize that mistake and begin to justly execute them.
> An eye for an eye, eh Kool?
No, Justice for murderers and their victims.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Rev. Don Kool
gate...@albany.net wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> >gate...@albany.net wrote:
> >> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >gate...@albany.net wrote:
> >> >> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> >> >> >[...] Generally governments recognize their mistakes and correct
> >> >> >them; [...]
> >
> >> >> We can only hope and pray that those governments that
> >> >> still kill prisoners will soon recognize that mistake and
> >> >> correct it.
> >
> >> > And that those that still suffer proven murderers to live soon
> >> >recognize that mistake and begin to justly execute them.
> >
> >> An eye for an eye, eh Kool?
> >
> > No, Justice for murderers and their victims.
>
> I would have hoped that you would be more of a .... well, Christian.
>
> But I should ahve known better.
Justice is very Christian, my son.
Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
gate...@albany.net
gate...@albany.net
> Justice is very Christian, my son.
Killing prisoners is about as far from the philosophy as you can get.
But I bet you knew that.
Rev. Don Kool
Well I know it's not true. The Bible is quite explicit in saying,
"He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to
death." It's fairly cut-n-dried. It is also quite irrelevant to
the Justice system of the United States which is forbidden by law
from mixing Church and State.
Yours in Christ,
gate...@albany.net
hahahahahha. I knew it. Kool doesn't know his new testament from his
old. He also is one of those fundamentalists who prefer a translation
written by Old English poets to one written by 20th century
theologians.
> It's fairly cut-n-dried.
Indeed it is, Grim Reaper, indeed it is... It's called the Sermon
on the Mount - but I don't suppose you would understand.
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone
strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone
wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if
anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile."
"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and
hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for
those who persecute you,"
Rev. Don Kool
"New Testament"?? Leave it to the goyim.... LOL!!
> He also is one of those fundamentalists who prefer a translation
> written by Old English poets to one written by 20th century
> theologians.
As a "20th century theologian" myself, my understanding of this
issue is quite complete, my son. As there is a Constitutional
prohibition against mixing Church and State, I also realize that it
is irrelevant to this discussion, child. If you want to learn more
about religion on-line, go to one of the religious newsgroups.
[...lay theology snipped...]
Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
G EddieA95
Regarding your photo of a headless Frenchman as a moral slam against France,
What's next? A photo of Ted Bundy's charred forehead? Charlie Brooks' swollen
chest after he gasped to death on the injection slab? Joseph Hill with bullet
holes in his body? Or maybe the long-necked body of one of the recent hanging
victims?
Capital punishment is supposed to look bad. Taking a healthy human being's
life is NOT a nice process. And the guillotine is no worse than lying tied to
a slab while your limbs are searched for large veins, then choking for breath
in front of twenty gawking spectators.
Make your points; don't insult other countries or their people.
David Proctor
>hahahahahha. I knew it. Kool doesn't know his new testament from his
>old. He also is one of those fundamentalists who prefer a translation
>written by Old English poets to one written by 20th century
>theologians.
Actually, the Old Testament is just as valid as the New Testament, except
from where it has been specifically abrogated by teachings in the New
Testament.
That is why, when you go to a Roman Catholic mass, there will be three
readings - the first reading is from the OT, the second from the NT, and the
third is from the Gospel. Surely the Roman Catholic Church would not be
using the OT as a text if it was not still valid?
>> It's fairly cut-n-dried.
>
>Indeed it is, Grim Reaper, indeed it is... It's called the Sermon
>on the Mount - but I don't suppose you would understand.
>
>"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
>tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone
>strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone
>wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if
>anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile."
And where is it listed there that people should not be punished for their
actions?
>"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and
>hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for
>those who persecute you,"
And where is it listed there that people should not be punished for their
actions?
DaveP
gate...@albany.net
<7fki6q$gp2$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au> wrote:
>gate...@albany.net wrote in message <373816cd....@news.albany.net>...
>
>>hahahahahha. I knew it. Kool doesn't know his new testament from his
>>old. He also is one of those fundamentalists who prefer a translation
>>written by Old English poets to one written by 20th century
>>theologians.
>
>Actually, the Old Testament is just as valid as the New Testament, except
>from where it has been specifically abrogated by teachings in the New
>Testament.
Except we were talking about Christ and Kool quoted the old testament.
Validity has nothing to do with it.
>That is why, when you go to a Roman Catholic mass, there will be three
>readings - the first reading is from the OT, the second from the NT, and the
>third is from the Gospel. Surely the Roman Catholic Church would not be
>using the OT as a text if it was not still valid?
You misunderstand greatly. The Law/Gospel issue is more complex than
you would make it.
>>> It's fairly cut-n-dried.
>>
>>Indeed it is, Grim Reaper, indeed it is... It's called the Sermon
>>on the Mount - but I don't suppose you would understand.
>>
>>"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a
>>tooth. But I say to you, Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone
>>strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also; and if anyone
>>wants to sue you and take your coat, give your cloak as well; and if
>>anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile."
>
>And where is it listed there that people should not be punished for their
>actions?
Where have I said they shouldn't be?
>>"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and
>>hate your enemy.' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for
>>those who persecute you,"
>
>And where is it listed there that people should not be punished for their
>actions?
Where have I said they shouldn't be?
gate...@albany.net
[...]
> As a "20th century theologian" myself, my understanding of this
>issue is quite complete, my son.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahah. Kool is nothing if not hilarious.
>As there is a Constitutional
>prohibition against mixing Church and State, I also realize that it
>is irrelevant to this discussion, child. If you want to learn more
>about religion on-line, go to one of the religious newsgroups.
Tsk tsk. Poor Kool. Not only does he not understand religion he is
also clueless about the Constitutional Law.
And did you notice how he snipped direct quotes from the Gospel of
Matthew (NRSV) and called it "lay theology?"
What a moron.
David Proctor
>Except we were talking about Christ and Kool quoted the old testament.
>
>Validity has nothing to do with it.
And Christ did not not abrogate the parts in the OT that provided for the
DP.
>>That is why, when you go to a Roman Catholic mass, there will be three
>>readings - the first reading is from the OT, the second from the NT, and
the
>>third is from the Gospel. Surely the Roman Catholic Church would not be
>>using the OT as a text if it was not still valid?
>
>You misunderstand greatly. The Law/Gospel issue is more complex than
>you would make it.
Not at all - most people anti's say things along the lines of "but what
about forgiveness, what about compassion" - I agree, we can forgive the
murderers, but we still have to punish them.
>>And where is it listed there that people should not be punished for their
>>actions?
>
>Where have I said they shouldn't be?
Your insistence that they should not be executed seems to suggest that they
not be properly punished.
>>And where is it listed there that people should not be punished for their
>>actions?
>
>Where have I said they shouldn't be?
UIn your insistence that they not be executed - which is the only "proper
punishment" for some people.
DaveP
David Proctor
>Tsk tsk. Poor Kool. Not only does he not understand religion he is
>also clueless about the Constitutional Law.
He is an American, after all!
>And did you notice how he snipped direct quotes from the Gospel of
>Matthew (NRSV) and called it "lay theology?"
Direct quotes? I do not recall seeing any Greek in here.
>What a moron.
Who? Kooky? Or Desmond? Or both?
DaveP
Sharpjfa
>From: gate...@albany.net
>Date: 4/21/99 8:20 AM EST
>Message-id: <371dcfbb....@news.albany.net>
gatehouse may misunderstand the eye for an eye text.
Matthew 5:38-39: "You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye, and a
tooth
for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist who is evil; but whoever slaps
you on
your right cheek, turn to him the other also." Strangely, opponents cite this
as
proof of Jesus’ abandonment of capital punishment by the governing authority.
There is no reference to the governing authority or to capital punishment in
this
text or in the broader context of the discussion. Furthermore, if one were to
assume that this text referenced the actions of the governing authority and not
individual obligations, then we find that government could not enforce any law
which sought to protect the lives and property of its law abiding citizens.
Therefore, all wrongdoers, be they robbers, serial rapists, pedophiles or mass
and serial murderers could act repeatedly, with impunity, if the text was an
obligation on the governing authority. Examples: John Wayne Gacy and Ted
Bundy, both serial rapists/murderers, would still be actively torturing and
murdering our sons and daughters. Hardly a Christian proposition. This text is
directed at individuals and has no application to the governing authority or
its
right and duty to execute (Carey, ibid F.18, pg. 122).
One should note that the first of the balanced punishment/crimes of
that Exodus passage - "Life for life" - was excluded from the Matthew 5
reference. "Life for life" was the most profound punishment mandated by God.
"Life for life" was discussed throughout many chapters of the Old Testament.
Its importance cannot be overestimated. Would Jesus have recited all balanced
punishments - "eye for eye, tooth for tooth" - from the Exodus text and just
overlooked or forgoten the most profounf of all those - "Life for life"?
Furthermore, both opponents of and advocates for capital punishment
often misinterpret the "An eye for an eye" text as a call for bloodlust and
revenge. Such interpretation reveals a fundamental error in biblical
interpretation - taking a verse out of its context [see (2), below]. In truth,
the
"Life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . . " passage (Exodus 21:23-24)
is a
directive from God that punishments should be proportionate to the crime, as
opposed to the excessive punishments of the past. It is a call for fairness,
balance
and justice - the punishment should be appropriate to the crime. While the text
specifically supports capital punishment for the crime/sin of murder ("Life for
life"), that is not the subject of the passage (see Helen Prejean’s writings on
this
subject in Dead Man Walking, as well as true theological studies dealing with
these passages).
sharpjfa
Sharpjfa
>From: gate...@albany.net
>Date: 4/21/99 8:20 AM EST
>Message-id: <371dcfbb....@news.albany.net>
>
>And did you notice how he snipped direct quotes from the Gospel of
>Matthew (NRSV) and called it "lay theology?"
some analysis of Matthew for you gatehouse:
There are 20 chapters, within the 28 chapters of Matthew, which discuss
destruction, hell, unquenchable fire, and/or differing forms of punishment and
exclusion by God (see Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:22, 29-30; 8:12; 10:28;
11:23-24; 12:30-32; 13:38-43, 48-50; 18:8-9; 22:2-14; 23:1-36; 24:40-51;
25:1-46; 26:24) and/or honor the Law of the Hebrew Testament (see specific
references in Matthew 5 & 15). "For this you know with certainty, that no
immoral or impure person has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and
God." Ephesians 5:5. "When the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from Heaven with
His mighty angels in flaming fire, dealing out retribution to those who do not
know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. And these
will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord
and from the glory of His power." 2 Thessalonians 1:7b-9. And so it is
throughout the Gospels and all of the New Testament. See also Mark 3:29;
9:42-50; 16:15-16; Luke 13:23-28; John 5:24-47, 15:6; 2 Peter 2:4-9; Jude
1:5-15; Revelation 13:10, etc. And none of this conflicts with the perfect
mercy
of God.
sharpjfa
>
gate...@albany.net
>gate...@albany.net wrote in message <371dcfbb....@news.albany.net>...
>
>>Tsk tsk. Poor Kool. Not only does he not understand religion he is
>>also clueless about the Constitutional Law.
>
>He is an American, after all!
>
>>And did you notice how he snipped direct quotes from the Gospel of
>>Matthew (NRSV) and called it "lay theology?"
>
>Direct quotes? I do not recall seeing any Greek in here.
Hahahahah. But I did cite the NRSV, which is, of course, in English.
>>What a moron.
>
>Who? Kooky? Or Desmond? Or both?
Why Kool, of course.
gate...@albany.net
>gate...@albany.net wrote in message <371fd141....@news.albany.net>...
>
>>Except we were talking about Christ and Kool quoted the old testament.
>>
>>Validity has nothing to do with it.
>
>And Christ did not not abrogate the parts in the OT that provided for the
>DP.
Of course he did.
>>>That is why, when you go to a Roman Catholic mass, there will be three
>>>readings - the first reading is from the OT, the second from the NT, and
>the
>>>third is from the Gospel. Surely the Roman Catholic Church would not be
>>>using the OT as a text if it was not still valid?
>>
>>You misunderstand greatly. The Law/Gospel issue is more complex than
>>you would make it.
>
>Not at all - most people anti's say things along the lines of "but what
>about forgiveness, what about compassion" - I agree, we can forgive the
>murderers, but we still have to punish them.
If your conscience allows you to advocate the killing of prisoners
that is your business. I think you should do a little more reflection
though if you think it is not against the teachings of the new
testament.
>>>And where is it listed there that people should not be punished for their
>>>actions?
>>
>>Where have I said they shouldn't be?
>
>Your insistence that they should not be executed seems to suggest that they
>not be properly punished.
Your assumption not mine. And the fact that you make that assumption
tells us a lot about the level of your thought process.
>>>And where is it listed there that people should not be punished for their
>>>actions?
>>
>>Where have I said they shouldn't be?
>
>UIn your insistence that they not be executed - which is the only "proper
>punishment" for some people.
How nice of you to be able to determine the "proper punishment."
Killing prisoners is wrong. Always. Justified or not - fair or not -
it is always wrong.
gate...@albany.net
<19990421142641...@ng11.aol.com> wrote:
[...]
>gatehouse may misunderstand the eye for an eye text.
>
>Matthew 5:38-39: "You have heard that it was said, ‘an eye for an eye, and a
>tooth
>for a tooth.’ But I say to you, do not resist who is evil; but whoever slaps
>you on
>your right cheek, turn to him the other also." Strangely, opponents cite this
>as
>proof of Jesus’ abandonment of capital punishment by the governing authority.
Nothing strange about it.
>There is no reference to the governing authority or to capital punishment in
>this
>text or in the broader context of the discussion.
So? Do you think Christians are supposed to act like heathens when
they are outside of church?
>Furthermore, if one were to
>assume that this text referenced the actions of the governing authority and not
>individual obligations, then we find that government could not enforce any law
>which sought to protect the lives and property of its law abiding citizens.
>Therefore, all wrongdoers, be they robbers, serial rapists, pedophiles or mass
Not at all. Christian Theologians have long realized that government
has the authority to use force and violence to protect the lives and
safety if the public. Extending that privlege to killing prisoners is
a stretch that only the most right wing among us choose to make.
Since the remainder of your argument proceeds from this same mistake
I have deleted it.
gate...@albany.net
<19990421142855...@ng11.aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Joke of the month
>>From: gate...@albany.net
>>Date: 4/21/99 8:20 AM EST
>>Message-id: <371dcfbb....@news.albany.net>
>>
>snip
>
>>And did you notice how he snipped direct quotes from the Gospel of
>>Matthew (NRSV) and called it "lay theology?"
>
>some analysis of Matthew for you gatehouse:
Really? Where did I call it lay theology?
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> What's next? A photo of Ted Bundy's charred forehead? Charlie
> Brooks' swollen chest after he gasped to death on the injection
> slab? Joseph Hill with bullet holes in his body? Or maybe the
> long-necked body of one of the recent hanging victims?
Nah ... Don keeps those photos under his bed in a plain brown
envelope.
[snip]
poo...@my-dejanews.com
> As a "20th century theologian" myself,
Bwahahahahahahahahah ha ha ha heh heh eh heh.
> my understanding
BWAHAHAHAHA HA HA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHHA HA HA HA HA!!!
Hope this helps,
J
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
R Maixvez
Just Death Penalty" said but it is wrong because France has no death penalty.
Glad to have cleared this up for you.
David Proctor
>>And Christ did not not abrogate the parts in the OT that provided for the
>>DP.
>
>Of course he did.
*sigh* - here we go again. No he didn't.
>>Not at all - most people anti's say things along the lines of "but what
>>about forgiveness, what about compassion" - I agree, we can forgive the
>>murderers, but we still have to punish them.
>
>If your conscience allows you to advocate the killing of prisoners
>that is your business. I think you should do a little more reflection
>though if you think it is not against the teachings of the new
>testament.
As someone with a B.Th. (Bachelor of Theology) I have no problem reconciling
the use of the death penalty with the teachings of the New Testament - and
neither does any theologian of repute.
>Your assumption not mine. And the fact that you make that assumption
>tells us a lot about the level of your thought process.
Not at all - for some crimes, the death penalty is the only appropriate
punishment. You advocating less than death is the same as advocating a less
than appropriate punishment.
>How nice of you to be able to determine the "proper punishment."
It is obvious in some cases.
>Killing prisoners is wrong. Always. Justified or not - fair or not -
>
>it is always wrong.
Your opinion - nothing more. It hsa equal value as my opinion that it is
valid.
DaveP
Sharpjfa
>From: gate...@albany.net
>Date: 4/21/99 2:44 PM EST
>Message-id: <37202968...@news.albany.net>
This right wing comment goes to your lack of credible arguement. As you know,
the Roman Catholic Church supported executions from about 300 AD through 1995.
It islikelythatyou may beunaware of this fact which may be why you
rpresentation is so inaccurate.
>
>Since the remainder of your argument proceeds from this same mistake
>I have deleted it.
Hardly a mistake.It goes to your ignorance, which is easily curable.
Good luck,
sharpjfa
>
>
>
>
>
>
David Proctor
>Not at all. Christian Theologians have long realized that government
>has the authority to use force and violence to protect the lives and
>safety if the public. Extending that privlege to killing prisoners is
>a stretch that only the most right wing among us choose to make.
Actually, Christian theologians have long recognised that the state also has
the right to carry out the death penalty.
>Since the remainder of your argument proceeds from this same mistake
>I have deleted it.
Beating you, was he?
DaveP
gate...@albany.net
>gate...@albany.net wrote in message <37202968...@news.albany.net>...
>
>>Not at all. Christian Theologians have long realized that government
>>has the authority to use force and violence to protect the lives and
>>safety if the public. Extending that privlege to killing prisoners is
>>a stretch that only the most right wing among us choose to make.
>
>Actually, Christian theologians have long recognised that the state also has
>the right to carry out the death penalty.
Yawn. Once again you folks do not understand. Where have I said the
state does not have the authority to carry out the death penalty?
I simply state that to kill prisoners is wrong. And that mainline
christian theology agrees with that statement. I have yet to see
anything from you folks to the contrary.
gate...@albany.net
>gate...@albany.net wrote in message <37232bea...@news.albany.net>...
[...]
>As someone with a B.Th. (Bachelor of Theology) I have no problem reconciling
>the use of the death penalty with the teachings of the New Testament - and
>neither does any theologian of repute.
Hahahahahahah. What a joke. I suppose you define "theologian of
repute" as anyone who agrees with your old testament view of the
gospel, eh?
[...]
gate...@albany.net
<7flga8$doq$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au> wrote:
[...]
>As someone with a B.Th. (Bachelor of Theology) I have no problem reconciling
>the use of the death penalty with the teachings of the New Testament - and
>neither does any theologian of repute.
Here's just a few of the many links that disprove the above statement
of "B.Th. David Proctor:"
http://www.pcusa.org/pcusa/info/cappun.htm
http://www.ucc.org/headline/facdp.htm
http://www.elca.org/dcs/death.html
http://listserv.american.edu/catholic/church/us/nybish.death
Sharpjfa
>Message-id: <371f770d...@news.albany.net>
The Christian opposition to the death penalty is social, not theological
unlessyou wish to present something to thecontrary.
One example,for you:
St. Thomas Aquinas finds all biblical interpretations against executions
"frivolous",
citing Exodus 22:18, "wrongdoers thou shalt not suffer to live". Unequivocally,
he states," The civil rulers execute, justly and sinlessly, pestiferous men in
order
to protect the peace of the state." (Summa Contra Gentiles, III, 146.) It also
appears that the timing of punishment was quite relevant. "Because the sentence
against an evil dead is not executed quickly, therefore the hearts of the sons
of
men among them are given fully to do evil." Ecclesiastes 8:11, NAS.
sharpjfa
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sharpjfa
In 1997, the Roman Catholic Church decided to amend the 1992 Universal
Catechism to reflect the writings of Pope John Paul II in his 1995 encyclical,
The Gospel of Life (Evangelium Vitae). Therein, the Pope finds that the only
time executions can be justified is when they are required "to defend society"
and that "as a result of steady improvements . . . in the penal system that
such cases are very rare if not practically non existent." The Pope is
misinformed. Such cases are not at all
rare. Furthermore, contrary to the Church’s belief that such proposed changes
represent a tougher stance against the death penalty, the opposite is true.
In this context, "to defend society" means that the execution of the murderer
must save
future lives. We know that murderers murder again, often time and time again -
in prison, after escape, after release, and, of course, after we fail to
capture or incarcerate them. In fact, had the Pope correctly evaluated the
penal system, using the "defending society" standard, he would have called for
an increase in executions.
Two additional concerns may have escaped the Church’s consideration.
First, if the Church decides that general deterrence doesn’t exit and,
therefore, chooses not to execute, and they are wrong, this will sacrifice
innocent lives. If we choose to execute, believing in the deterrent effect, and
we are wrong, we are executing our worst human rights violators. It appears
that, if the Church’s judgment is in error regarding general deterrence, a
moral imperative
exists to execute and to, therefore, err on the side of protecting innocent
lives and not to err on the side of sacrificing innocent lives. Under these
circumstances, it is ethically impossible to err on the side of saving innocent
life. Will the Church err on the side of saving innocent life or on the side of
sacrificing it?
Secondly, the Church’s position is not based upon biblical principles, but is
now
dependent on social science. If such science concludes that executions do deter
murders, then the Church must call for increased executions. It is unlikely
that the Church foresaw such a possibility. In fact, we know that executions
are a deterrent. Therefore, this "defending society" standard
already calls for an increase in executions.
We know that some criminals don’t murder because of their fear of execution.
Unquestionably, the incapacitation effect and the individual deterrent effect
both exist and they both "defend society." Furthermore, individual deterrence
assures us that general deterrence must exist, because individual deterrence
could not exist without it. Executions save lives. Therefore, a
"defending society" standard calls for an increase in executions. Needless to
say, it is unlikely, in this context, that the Church will adhere to their own
standards.
Even though Romans 13:4 and additional writings do reveal a "defending society"
consideration, such references pale in comparison to the mandate that execution
is the required punishment for murder, regardless of any consideration "to
defend society." Both the Noahic covenant, in Genesis 9:6 ("Whoever sheds the
blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed."),
and the Mosaic covenant, throughout the Pentateuch (Ex.: "He that smiteth a man
so that he may die, shall be surely put to death." Exodus 21:12), require
execution as the punishment for unjustifiable/intentional homicide, otherwise
known as murder. For those who erroneously contend
that Jesus abandoned the Law of the Hebrew Testament, He states that He has
come not "to
abolish the law and the prophets . . . but to fulfill them." Matthew 5:17-22.
While there is honest debate regarding the interpretation of Mosaic Law within
a Christian context, there seems little doubt that the Noahic Covenant is still
in effect and that Genesis 9:6 deals directly with the sanctity
of life issue.
Furthermore, Saint Pius V reaffirms this mandate, in the church’s previous
Catechism, the Roman Catechism of the Council of Trent (1566), stating that
executions are acts of "paramount obedience to this (Fifth) Commandment."("Thou
shalt not murder," sometimes improperly translated as "kill" instead of
"murder"). And, not only do the teachings of Saints Thomas Aquinas
and Augustine fully concur, but both saints also find that such punishment
actually reflects charity and mercy by preventing the wrongdoer from sinning
further.
The relevant question is "What biblical and theological teachings, developed
from 1566
through 1997, provide that the standard for executions should evolve from
"paramount obedience" to God’s eternal law to a civil standard reflecting
"steady improvements . . . in the penal system?".Of course, such teachings
hadn't changed. The Church's position is social, not biblical or
theological. The Church's position on the use of the death penalty has been
consistent from 300AD through 1995 AD. The Church has always supported the use
of executions, based on biblical and theological principles. Until 1995, says
John GraBowski, associate professor of Moral Theology at Catholic University, "
. . . church teachings were supportive of the death penalty. You can find
example after example of Pope's, of theologians and others, who have supported
the right of the state to inflict capital punishment for certain crimes and
certain cases." Grabowski continues:
"What he (the Pope) says, in fact, in his encyclical, is that given the fact
that we now have the ability, you know, technology and fascilities to lock up
someone up for the rest of their lives so they pose no future threat to society
- given that question has been answered or removed, there is no
longer justification for the death penalty." (All Things Considered, NATIONAL
PUBLIC RADIO, 9/9/97).
The Church's position is now based on the state of the corrections system - a
position neither biblical nor theological in nature. Furthermore, it is a
position which conflicts with the history of prisons. Long term incarceration
of lawbreakers in Europe began in the 1500's. Of course, long
term incarceration of slaves had begun thousands of years before, something
that both Moses and God were very much aware of. Since it's inception, the
Church has issued numerous pronouncements, encyclicals and the previous
Universal Catechism (quoted above). Had any biblical or theological principle
called for a replacement of the death penalty by life inprisonment,
one would think that Moses and/or God may have revealed such mandate long
before 1995. In fact, the biblical writings are clear that there is a mandate
for execution under specific circumstances.
There is, finally, a most disturbing reality regarding the Church’s standard.
The "defending society" standard requires that the moral concept of justice
becomes irrelevant. Capital punishment can be used only as a vehicle to prevent
future crimes. The moral/biblical rational - that capital punishment is the
just and required punishment for murder - is no longer relevant to the
sin/crime of murder. The biblical standards of atonement, expiation, and
justice have, necessarily, been thrown away, if "defending society" is the
standard. Capital punishment no longer has any connection to the harm done or
to the imbalance to be addressed. Such connection has always been, until now,
the Church’s historical perspective on this sanction. In fact, under a
"defending
society" standard, the injury suffered by the murder victim is no longer
relevant.
Executions can be justified solely upon that punishments ability to prevent
future harm by the murderer. Therefore, when considering executions in regard
to capital murder cases, a "defending society" standard renders justice
irrelevant.
As the distinguished Christian writer C. S. Lewis observes: "Some enlightened
people would like to banish all conception of retribution or desert from our
theory of punishment and place its value wholly in the deterrence of others or
the reform of the criminal himself. They do not see that by doing so they
render all punishment unjust. What can be more immoral than to inflict
suffering on me for the sake of deterring others if I do not deserve it?"
In fact, the Church would never accept a "defending society" standard for
use of the death penalty, unless the Church believed that such punishment was
just and deserved, as well. The Church has never questioned the authority of
the
government to execute in "cases of extreme gravity," nor does it do so with
these
recent changes. The Church believes that rape and murderer are cases of
extreme gravity. Properly, the Church does not challenge the biblical and
theological support for capital punishment. In fact, the Church concurs that
executions represent just punishment for some crimes. The Church has only
amended its belief as to the proper application of that penalty. And a strange
amendment it is.
sharpjfa
necromancier
>In article <371D1A7D...@home.com>,
> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
><snip>
>> As a "20th century theologian" myself,
>
>Bwahahahahahahahahah ha ha ha heh heh eh heh.
>
>> my understanding
>
>BWAHAHAHAHA HA HA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
>AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHHA HA HA HA HA!!!
>
>
>Hope this helps,
You bet it does.
Ready for New Testament Survey 101 again? Are you ready to concede
that it said exactly what I said it did and that your not terribly
good at research?
necromancer
poo...@my-dejanews.com
a mi no acid wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 23:42:51 GMT, poo...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> >In article <371D1A7D...@home.com>,
> > "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> As a "20th century theologian" myself,
> >
> >Bwahahahahahahahahah ha ha ha heh heh eh heh.
> >
> >> my understanding
> >
> >BWAHAHAHAHA HA HA AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
> >AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHHAHHA HA HA HA HA!!!
> >
> >
> >Hope this helps,
>
> You bet it does.
>
> Ready for New Testament Survey 101 again?
Always.
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away."
Matthew 24:35
Mark 13:31
Luke 21:33
> Are you ready to concede
> that it said exactly what I said it did and that your not terribly
> good at research?
Anyone who has done real research knows what IBID means, for one. For
another, they can spell and use English correctly.
I have three quotes to your one. You say it was Mosaic law, whereas Jesus
merely said "the prophets", which could mean the prophesy of the Messiah.
Jesus made it very clear, as did Matt, Mark and Luke whose law was the
ultimate law.
gate...@albany.net
<19990422064702...@ng-fp1.aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Joke of the month
>>From: gate...@albany.net
>>Date: 4/21/99 8:13 PM EST
>>Message-id: <371f770d...@news.albany.net>
>>
>>"David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com>, in article
>><7flp5p$aqi$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>gate...@albany.net wrote in message <37202968...@news.albany.net>...
>>>
>>>>Not at all. Christian Theologians have long realized that government
>>>>has the authority to use force and violence to protect the lives and
>>>>safety if the public. Extending that privlege to killing prisoners is
>>>>a stretch that only the most right wing among us choose to make.
>>>
>>>Actually, Christian theologians have long recognised that the state also has
>>>the right to carry out the death penalty.
>>
>>Yawn. Once again you folks do not understand. Where have I said the
>>state does not have the authority to carry out the death penalty?
>>
>>I simply state that to kill prisoners is wrong. And that mainline
>>christian theology agrees with that statement. I have yet to see
>>anything from you folks to the contrary.
>
>The Christian opposition to the death penalty is social, not theological
>unlessyou wish to present something to thecontrary.
I have already done so. And just what do you suppose Christian
social policy is based on?
It doesn't appear as if you wil ever comprehend the situation.
gate...@albany.net
>gate...@albany.net wrote in message <371f770d...@news.albany.net>...
>>"David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com>, in article
>><7flp5p$aqi$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>gate...@albany.net wrote in message
><37202968...@news.albany.net>...
>>>
>>>>Not at all. Christian Theologians have long realized that government
>>>>has the authority to use force and violence to protect the lives and
>>>>safety if the public. Extending that privlege to killing prisoners is
>>>>a stretch that only the most right wing among us choose to make.
>>>
>>>Actually, Christian theologians have long recognised that the state also
>has
>>>the right to carry out the death penalty.
>>
>>Yawn. Once again you folks do not understand. Where have I said the
>>state does not have the authority to carry out the death penalty?
>>
>>I simply state that to kill prisoners is wrong. And that mainline
>>christian theology agrees with that statement. I have yet to see
>>anything from you folks to the contrary.
>
>You have not stated WHY it is wrong to kill prisoners - all you have stated
>is some passages from the Bible - and we can turn it around and say why the
>Bible does NOT say it is wrong.
But it does. And I have already answered your questions. I can't
help your inablility to understand. Toodles.
>DaveP
>
george shewbart
Not long after his execution a photo of his head was published in one of
the tabloids...I don't remember which one but I do remember seeing it.
Later "Lowest of the Dead" related the incident blaming it on the right
wing undertaker who handled Ted;s burial arrangments. Perhaps Don has
a framed copy of the photo in his home chapel as an example of answered
prayer.
And, as Alex the Great once said "Let us walk off the map" in pursuit of
our dreams
David Proctor
>Hahahahahahah. What a joke. I suppose you define "theologian of
>repute" as anyone who agrees with your old testament view of the
>gospel, eh?
No - I define a "theologian of repute" as someone who is acknowledged by the
majority of Christendom as someone whose theological opinion is if merit.
DaveP
David Proctor
>"David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com>, in article
><7flp5p$aqi$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au> wrote:
>
>>gate...@albany.net wrote in message
<37202968...@news.albany.net>...
>>
>>>Not at all. Christian Theologians have long realized that government
>>>has the authority to use force and violence to protect the lives and
>>>safety if the public. Extending that privlege to killing prisoners is
>>>a stretch that only the most right wing among us choose to make.
>>
>>Actually, Christian theologians have long recognised that the state also
has
>>the right to carry out the death penalty.
>
>Yawn. Once again you folks do not understand. Where have I said the
>state does not have the authority to carry out the death penalty?
>
>I simply state that to kill prisoners is wrong. And that mainline
>christian theology agrees with that statement. I have yet to see
>anything from you folks to the contrary.
You have not stated WHY it is wrong to kill prisoners - all you have stated
is some passages from the Bible - and we can turn it around and say why the
Bible does NOT say it is wrong.
DaveP
necromancier
<daproc@spam_this.umpires.com> wrote:
>gate...@albany.net wrote in message <371f770d...@news.albany.net>...
>>"David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com>, in article
>><7flp5p$aqi$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>gate...@albany.net wrote in message
><37202968...@news.albany.net>...
>>>
>>>>Not at all. Christian Theologians have long realized that government
>>>>has the authority to use force and violence to protect the lives and
>>>>safety if the public. Extending that privlege to killing prisoners is
>>>>a stretch that only the most right wing among us choose to make.
>>>
>>>Actually, Christian theologians have long recognised that the state also
>has
>>>the right to carry out the death penalty.
>>
>>Yawn. Once again you folks do not understand. Where have I said the
>>state does not have the authority to carry out the death penalty?
>>
>>I simply state that to kill prisoners is wrong. And that mainline
>>christian theology agrees with that statement. I have yet to see
>>anything from you folks to the contrary.
That is funny.
He must mean Catholicism as practiced by John Paul II, not the rest of
the Church.
Many Christians make a distinction about that so you might want to be
a little more clear they Howze.
>
>You have not stated WHY it is wrong to kill prisoners - all you have stated
>is some passages from the Bible - and we can turn it around and say why the
>Bible does NOT say it is wrong.
Pooh bear got us going on that a while back. Seems he can't admit it
when he's wrong either. Must be an anti thing.
necromancer
>
>DaveP
>
>
Sharpjfa
>Message-id: <371f7e86....@news.albany.net>
>
>shar...@aol.com (Sharpjfa), in article
><19990422064702...@ng-fp1.aol.com> wrote:
>
>>>Subject: Re: Joke of the month
>>>From: gate...@albany.net
>>>Date: 4/21/99 8:13 PM EST
>>>Message-id: <371f770d...@news.albany.net>
>>>
>>><7flp5p$aqi$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au> wrote:
>>>
>>>>gate...@albany.net wrote in message
><37202968...@news.albany.net>...
>>>>
>>>>>Not at all. Christian Theologians have long realized that government
>>>>>has the authority to use force and violence to protect the lives and
>>>>>safety if the public. Extending that privlege to killing prisoners is
>>>>>a stretch that only the most right wing among us choose to make.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, Christian theologians have long recognised that the state also
>has
>>>>the right to carry out the death penalty.
>>>
>>>Yawn. Once again you folks do not understand. Where have I said the
>>>state does not have the authority to carry out the death penalty?
>>>
>>>I simply state that to kill prisoners is wrong. And that mainline
>>>christian theology agrees with that statement. I have yet to see
>>>anything from you folks to the contrary.
>>
>>unlessyou wish to present something to thecontrary.
>
>I have already done so. And just what do you suppose Christian
>social policy is based on?
One would hope biblical and theological evidence.But that does not appear to be
the case regarding the death penalty, a sanction
the church supportedfrom 300-1995.
>
>It doesn't appear as if you will ever comprehend the situation.
I am willing to learn, but you mus texplain it a bit more clearly.
sharpjfa
>
>
>
>
>
>
suzanne burrows
>>repute" as anyone who agrees with your old testament view of the
>>gospel, eh?
>
>No - I define a "theologian of repute" as someone who is
>acknowledged by the majority of Christendom as someone whose
>theological opinion is if merit.
ie. The Pope (who is anti-DP...)
Suzanne
>DaveP
skyb...@my-dejanews.com
"David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com> wrote:
> gate...@albany.net wrote in message <372077fa...@news.albany.net>...
>
> >Hahahahahahah. What a joke. I suppose you define "theologian of
> >repute" as anyone who agrees with your old testament view of the
> >gospel, eh?
>
> No - I define a "theologian of repute" as someone who is acknowledged by the
> majority of Christendom as someone whose theological opinion is if merit.
>
>
Not trying to tread on anyone's toes here, Dave, but could you tell us how
*you* establish what "the majority of Christendom" thinks?
JohnG
skyb...@my-dejanews.com
"David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com> wrote:
> gate...@albany.net wrote in message <371f770d...@news.albany.net>...
> >>
> >>>Not at all. Christian Theologians have long realized that government
> >>>has the authority to use force and violence to protect the lives and
> >>>safety if the public. Extending that privlege to killing prisoners is
> >>>a stretch that only the most right wing among us choose to make.
> >>
> >>Actually, Christian theologians have long recognised that the state also
> has
> >>the right to carry out the death penalty.
> >
> >Yawn. Once again you folks do not understand. Where have I said the
> >state does not have the authority to carry out the death penalty?
> >
> >I simply state that to kill prisoners is wrong. And that mainline
> >christian theology agrees with that statement. I have yet to see
> >anything from you folks to the contrary.
>
> is some passages from the Bible - and we can turn it around and say why the
> Bible does NOT say it is wrong.
>
>
Can't be sure about this, but I'd like to think that most people would agree
that un-necessary taking of human life should be avoided. Seeing as the
death-penalty effectively achieves nothing that properly enforced LWOP does
not - killing prisoners is wrong. Standard IMHO freely distributed throughout
apply.
David Proctor
<01be8d48$fd6a0ca0$311e...@eburrows.ucc.su.oz.au>...
>>No - I define a "theologian of repute" as someone who is
>>acknowledged by the majority of Christendom as someone whose
>>theological opinion is if merit.
>
>ie. The Pope (who is anti-DP...)
But if he wanted to make it Catholic doctrine, he would pronounce it
"ex-cathedra" - he has refused to do so, and as such, Catholics are free to
follow their consciences on this matter.
Also, the Bishop of Rome (aka The Pope) has the same theology degree as I
do)
DaveP
David Proctor
<7fpanj$ai2$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Not trying to tread on anyone's toes here, Dave, but could you tell us how
>*you* establish what "the majority of Christendom" thinks?
I use the same criteria as the medical profession.
There are some journals that have a certain reputation. Merely having an
article published in those journals adds a great deal of credibility to your
article.
I regard theologians who have achieved publication in those journals as
having achieved a certain level of repute.
DaveP
David Proctor
>>You have not stated WHY it is wrong to kill prisoners - all you have
stated
>>is some passages from the Bible - and we can turn it around and say why
the
>>Bible does NOT say it is wrong.
>help your inablility to understand. Toodles.
But you have NOT done so - you have said NOTHING to justify your position in
a Biblical context (and as you are using the Bible as your justification, it
needs to be in this context!)
DaveP
=========
Known spammers/idiots list - spambots, please take note, and do your stuff!
ahill...@aol.com , sa...@aitnet.net , Joe1...@aol.com , p...@syd.net.au ,
baby...@manawatu.gen.nz , rsh...@netspace.net.au
gate...@albany.net
<01be8de5$6a854a60$9a1b...@eburrows.ucc.su.oz.au> wrote:
>David Proctor <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com> wrote:
>>suzanne burrows wrote:
>>
>>>>No - I define a "theologian of repute" as someone who is
>>>>acknowledged by the majority of Christendom as someone whose
>>>>theological opinion is if merit.
>>>
>>>ie. The Pope (who is anti-DP...)
>>
>>But if he wanted to make it Catholic doctrine, he would pronounce
>>it "ex-cathedra" - he has refused to do so, and as such, Catholics
>>are free to follow their consciences on this matter.
>
>True, but surely his abolitionist position indicates that it is possible
>for a "theologian of repute" to interperet the Bible as being anti-DP.
I wouldn't try talking sense to these folks, suzanne. They don't want
to hear it.
suzanne burrows
>suzanne burrows wrote:
>
>>>No - I define a "theologian of repute" as someone who is
>>>acknowledged by the majority of Christendom as someone whose
>>>theological opinion is if merit.
>>
>>ie. The Pope (who is anti-DP...)
>
>But if he wanted to make it Catholic doctrine, he would pronounce
>it "ex-cathedra" - he has refused to do so, and as such, Catholics
>are free to follow their consciences on this matter.
True, but surely his abolitionist position indicates that it is possible
for a "theologian of repute" to interperet the Bible as being anti-DP.
Even if it isn't binding on anybody, it's hard to argue that the anti-DP
view is somehow an intellectually dishonest reading of the Bible when it
comes from the mouth of the Pope..
Suzanne
suzanne burrows
>"suzanne burrows" <suz...@moving.target.au wrote:
>>David Proctor <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com> wrote:
>>>suzanne burrows wrote:
>>>
>>>>>No - I define a "theologian of repute" as someone who is
>>>>>acknowledged by the majority of Christendom as someone
>>>>>whose theological opinion is if merit.
>>>>
>>>>ie. The Pope (who is anti-DP...)
>>>
>>>But if he wanted to make it Catholic doctrine, he would pronounce
>>>it "ex-cathedra" - he has refused to do so, and as such, Catholics
>>>are free to follow their consciences on this matter.
>>
>>True, but surely his abolitionist position indicates that it is possible
>>for a "theologian of repute" to interperet the Bible as being anti-DP.
>
>to hear it.
Well, at the end of the day, I'm not religious anyway. So though I am
coincidentally in agreement with the Pope, if he was pro-DP, it wouldn't
have any persuasive effect on me.
I'm always hearing about Christian charity, compassion, etc and yet some
Christians still want to execute people; even those who express remorse or
even convert to Christianity themselves. heh, it's a funny ole world! :)
Suzanne
Rev. Don Kool
David Proctor wrote:
> gate...@albany.net wrote...
> >>And Christ did not not abrogate the parts in the OT that provided for the
> >>DP.
> >Of course he did.
> *sigh* - here we go again. No he didn't.
Why bother, Davy? "gatehaus" obviously is more interested in
spouting his misunderstanding of the Bible's support for the just
Death Penalty than he is in learning.
> >>Not at all - most people anti's say things along the lines of "but what
> >>about forgiveness, what about compassion" - I agree, we can forgive the
> >>murderers, but we still have to punish them.
> >If your conscience allows you to advocate the killing of prisoners
> >that is your business. I think you should do a little more reflection
> >though if you think it is not against the teachings of the new
> >testament.
> As someone with a B.Th. (Bachelor of Theology) I have no problem reconciling
> the use of the death penalty with the teachings of the New Testament - and
> neither does any theologian of repute.
As someone with a Doctorate of Divinity and as a theologian of
repute, I also have no problem reconciling the use of the just
Death Penalty with the teachings of the New Testament.
> >Your assumption not mine. And the fact that you make that assumption
> >tells us a lot about the level of your thought process.
> Not at all - for some crimes, the death penalty is the only appropriate
> punishment. You advocating less than death is the same as advocating a less
> than appropriate punishment.
Exactly.
[...remainder of Davy's prose snipped as we agree...]
Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
Rev. Don Kool
G EddieA95 wrote:
> Dear Don:
>
> Regarding your photo of a headless Frenchman as a moral slam against France,
As I recall, it was a picture of a headless murderer, Eddie.
> What's next? A photo of Ted Bundy's charred forehead? Charlie Brooks' swollen
> chest after he gasped to death on the injection slab? Joseph Hill with bullet
> holes in his body? Or maybe the long-necked body of one of the recent hanging
> victims?
I realize that this is most likely before your time but perhaps a
picture of world famous and beloved aviation pioneer Col. Charles
Lindbergh's precious baby Charles Jr. (20 mo. old) before meeting
european child murderer Bruno Hauptmann;
http://members.home.net/oldno7/Lindbergh_Before.jpg
For your edification, below is a link to a picture of Charles Jr.
shortly after meeting the murderer Hauptmann;
http://members.home.net/oldno7/Lindbergh_After.jpg
Of course the ransom money that Hauptmann and his associates
demanded and got was obviously worth the unimaginable pain and
suffering that Charles Jr. suffered;
http://members.home.net/oldno7/Ransom_Money.jpg
And; as all the murderer lovers on this newsgroup will have no
trouble chanting aloud; we all know that the hollow rafter
containing the gun and ransom money that is pictured below just
magically appeared in the murderer Hauptmann's house.
http://members.home.net/oldno7/Hollow_Rafter.jpg
Yes siree; certainly looks like a natural phenomenon...
Thanfully like every other justly executed murderer, Bruno
Hauptmann has murdered no more babies since his just execution.
> Capital punishment is supposed to look bad. Taking a healthy human being's
> life is NOT a nice process. And the guillotine is no worse than lying tied to
> a slab while your limbs are searched for large veins, then choking for breath
> in front of twenty gawking spectators.
Capital punishment is not "supposed to look bad". That's the job
of the french. Capital punishment is "supposed" to justly punish
those who choose to murder thus preventing them from ever choosing
to murder again. At that it is a just punishment that has no equal.
[...trite ad hominem snipped...]
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
David Proctor
>True, but surely his abolitionist position indicates that it is possible
>for a "theologian of repute" to interperet the Bible as being anti-DP.
He is not a theologian of repute - he has had no major works published, he
is merely a bishop (although as Bishop of Rome, he is the most powerful, but
a mere bishop nonetheless).
>Even if it isn't binding on anybody, it's hard to argue that the anti-DP
>view is somehow an intellectually dishonest reading of the Bible when it
>comes from the mouth of the Pope..
I must admit that I do not have a lot of respect for the current Pope, on a
number of issues (which I will not go into) - I have respect for his
position and will follow whatever he says is doctrine, but I do not hold a
lot of respect for his views.
suzanne burrows
> suzanne burrows wrote in message
>
>>for a "theologian of repute" to interperet the Bible as being anti-DP.
>
>He is not a theologian of repute - he has had no major works published,
>he is merely a bishop (although as Bishop of Rome, he is the most
>powerful, but a mere bishop nonetheless).
But you defined "theologian of repute" as "someone who is
acknowledged by the majority of Christendom as someone whose theological
opinion is if merit". You believe the majority of Christendom belive the
Pope's opinion to be not of merit?
Suzanne
MJDANKO
>Christians still want to execute people; even those who express remorse or
>even convert to Christianity themselves. heh, it's a funny ole world! :)
>
I save my charity and compassion for the victims and their families.
Sharpjfa
>From: mjd...@aol.com (MJDANKO)
>Date: 4/24/99 10:16 PM EST
>Message-id: <19990424231650...@ng-fu1.aol.com>
But don't leave out the murderer.
>
In addition to the required punishment for murder and the deterrence standards,
both Saint Augustine and Saint Thomas Aquinas find that executing murderers
is also an act of charity and mercy. Saint Augustine confirms that " . . .
inflicting capital punishment . . . protects those who are undergoing capital
punishment from the harm they may suffer . . . through increased sinning which
might continue if their life went on."(On the Lord’s Sermon, 1.20.63-64.) Saint
Thomas Aquinas finds that " . . . the death inflicted by the judge profits the
sinner, if he be converted, unto the expiation of his crime; and, if he be not
converted, it profits so as to put an end to the sin, because the sinner is
thus
deprived of the power to sin anymore."(Summa Theologica, II-II, 25, 6 ad 2.)
sharpjfa
David Proctor
>But you defined "theologian of repute" as "someone who is
>acknowledged by the majority of Christendom as someone whose theological
>opinion is if merit". You believe the majority of Christendom belive the
>Pope's opinion to be not of merit?
It depends on what you believe to be "of merit". He has not had ANY major
thelogical papers published, and he does not have a reputation as a
theologian.
His position on women is an example. There is no theological impediment to
the ordination of women. And yet, John Paul II will not countenance their
ordination, because it does not fit into his personal value system.
There is also no impediment to married clergy - there were married Roman
Catholic priests up until about the 12the Century. There are married
Anglican priests who are converting to Catholicism being ordained as MARRIED
priests, and there are married men being ordained into the permanent
diaconate around the world. Also, the other Catholic rites (Maronite,
Melkite, etc.) allow for married clergy.
Yet the current Pope will not allow it. Why? His personal opinion, when
there is no theological reason.
Who is to say the DP is any different?
DaveP
gate...@albany.net
<19990425024121...@ng-ck1.aol.com> wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Theologians of Repute [Was:Re: French Use of Just Death Penalty]
>>From: mjd...@aol.com (MJDANKO)
>>Date: 4/24/99 10:16 PM EST
>>Message-id: <19990424231650...@ng-fu1.aol.com>
>>
>>>I'm always hearing about Christian charity, compassion, etc and yet some
>>>Christians still want to execute people; even those who express remorse or
>>>even convert to Christianity themselves. heh, it's a funny ole world! :)
>>>
>>
>>I save my charity and compassion for the victims and their families.
>
>But don't leave out the murderer.
NOW you understand. Finally.
[...]
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> >But if he wanted to make it Catholic doctrine, he would pronounce
> >it "ex-cathedra" - he has refused to do so, and as such, Catholics
> >are free to follow their consciences on this matter.
> True, but surely his abolitionist position indicates that it is possible
> for a "theologian of repute" to interperet the Bible as being anti-DP.
Nope. At least, not in the eyes of Emporer David. What surprises me
is that the Pope hasn't so far published his opinion on capital
punishment on this newsgroup, to try to 'change [David's] views'.
That is, after all, why we're all here.
[snip]
--
Desmond Coughlan |Restez zen ... Linux peut le faire
des...@cybercable.fr
[www site under construction]
Desmond Coughlan
> >I'm always hearing about Christian charity, compassion, etc and yet some
> >Christians still want to execute people; even those who express remorse or
> >even convert to Christianity themselves. heh, it's a funny ole world! :)
> I save my charity and compassion for the victims and their families.
Yeah, Einstein, and perhaps you could tell us how you're charitable to
a dead person.
David Proctor
>Nope. At least, not in the eyes of Emporer David. What surprises me
>is that the Pope hasn't so far published his opinion on capital
>punishment on this newsgroup, to try to 'change [David's] views'.
>That is, after all, why we're all here.
*yawn* - when will you get over this fixation you have on me, Desmond?
DaveP
Desmond Coughlan
> >Nope. At least, not in the eyes of Emporer David. What surprises me
> >is that the Pope hasn't so far published his opinion on capital
> >punishment on this newsgroup, to try to 'change [David's] views'.
> >That is, after all, why we're all here.
> *yawn* - when will you get over this fixation you have on me, Desmond?
ROTFLMAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <dcou...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> mjd...@aol.com (MJDANKO) writes:
> > >I'm always hearing about Christian charity, compassion, etc and yet some
> > >Christians still want to execute people; even those who express remorse or
> > >even convert to Christianity themselves. heh, it's a funny ole world! :)
>
> > I save my charity and compassion for the victims and their families.
>
> Yeah, Einstein, and perhaps you could tell us how you're charitable to
> a dead person.
Well young Coughlan, he begins by supporting the only just
punishment for the murderer that took his victim's life. With
Justice served, the victim can truly rest in peace.
Yours in Christ,
gate...@albany.net
<37232A7C...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>Desi Coughlan <dcou...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>> mjd...@aol.com (MJDANKO) writes:
>
>> > >I'm always hearing about Christian charity, compassion, etc and yet some
>> > >Christians still want to execute people; even those who express remorse or
>> > >even convert to Christianity themselves. heh, it's a funny ole world! :)
>>
>> > I save my charity and compassion for the victims and their families.
>>
>> Yeah, Einstein, and perhaps you could tell us how you're charitable to
>> a dead person.
>
> Well young Coughlan, he begins by supporting the only just
>punishment for the murderer that took his victim's life. With
>Justice served, the victim can truly rest in peace.
But real Christians would better rest knowing that a killing
will not take place in their name. The Declaration of Life
was created to allow people to witness their oposition to the Death
Penalty and live their lives knowing that people like Kool and his
gang will not be able to advocate killing prisoners in their name.
There are several web sites with information on the Declaration of
Life. Do a search or check out:
http://www.nonviolence.org/pcusa/declar.htm
Rev. Don Kool
gate...@albany.net wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> >Desi Coughlan <dcou...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> >> mjd...@aol.com (MJDANKO) writes:
> >> > >I'm always hearing about Christian charity, compassion, etc and yet some
> >> > >Christians still want to execute people; even those who express remorse or
> >> > >even convert to Christianity themselves. heh, it's a funny ole world! :)
> >>
> >> > I save my charity and compassion for the victims and their families.
> >>
> >> Yeah, Einstein, and perhaps you could tell us how you're charitable to
> >> a dead person.
> >
> > Well young Coughlan, he begins by supporting the only just
> >punishment for the murderer that took his victim's life. With
> >Justice served, the victim can truly rest in peace.
>
> But real Christians would better rest knowing that a killing
> will not take place in their name. The Declaration of Life
> was created to allow people to witness their oposition to the Death
> Penalty and live their lives knowing that people like Kool and his
> gang will not be able to advocate killing prisoners in their name.
That is not a "Declaration of Life", my child. It is a free pass
to allow murderers to do as they wish.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
gate...@albany.net
>
>
>gate...@albany.net wrote:
[...]
>> But real Christians would better rest knowing that a killing
>> will not take place in their name. The Declaration of Life
>> was created to allow people to witness their oposition to the Death
>> Penalty and live their lives knowing that people like Kool and his
>> gang will not be able to advocate killing prisoners in their name.
There are several web sites with information on the Declaration of
Life. Do a search or check out:
http://www.nonviolence.org/pcusa/declar.htm
> That is not a "Declaration of Life", my child. It is a free pass
>to allow murderers to do as they wish.
Kool is such a pathetic liar.
Rev. Don Kool
gate...@albany.net wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> >gate...@albany.net wrote:
[...snip...]
> > That is not a "Declaration of Life", my child. It is a free pass
> >to allow murderers to do as they wish.
> Kool is such a pathetic liar.
Your gratuatous ad hominem does nothing to change the fact that the
so-called "Declaration of Life" is nothing more than a free pass to
allow your beloved murderers to do as they wish.
Yours in the glory that is our Lord Jesus Christ,
p@u.c
David Proctor <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com> wrote:
>suzanne burrows wrote in message
><01be8ebd$4787d540$4e1b...@eburrows.ucc.su.oz.au>...
>
>>But you defined "theologian of repute" as "someone who is
>>acknowledged by the majority of Christendom as someone whose theological
>>opinion is if merit". You believe the majority of Christendom belive the
>>Pope's opinion to be not of merit?
>
>It depends on what you believe to be "of merit". He has not had ANY major
>thelogical papers published, and he does not have a reputation as a
>theologian.
What about _Fides et Ratio_?
--
Patrick Crotty
e-mail: prcrotty at midway.uchicago.edu
Desmond Coughlan
> >But you defined "theologian of repute" as "someone who is
> >acknowledged by the majority of Christendom as someone whose theological
> >opinion is if merit". You believe the majority of Christendom belive the
> >Pope's opinion to be not of merit?
> It depends on what you believe to be "of merit". He has not had ANY major
> thelogical papers published, and he does not have a reputation as a
> theologian.
Of course, a billion or so Catholics are wrong, and David
'It's-not-meant-to-be-a-deterrent' Proctor is right.
You still wondering why your posts generate such hilarity, David ..?
[snip]
gate...@albany.net
>
>
>gate...@albany.net wrote:
>> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>> >gate...@albany.net wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
[unsnip]
There are several web sites with information on the Declaration of
Life. Do a search or check out:
http://www.nonviolence.org/pcusa/declar.htm
>> > That is not a "Declaration of Life", my child. It is a free pass
>> >to allow murderers to do as they wish.
>
>> Kool is such a pathetic liar.
>
> Your gratuatous ad hominem does nothing to change the fact that the
>so-called "Declaration of Life" is nothing more than a free pass to
>allow your beloved murderers to do as they wish.
Kool lies once again. Is he that stupid or that dishonest?
Sharpjfa
>Date: 4/25/99 6:28 AM EST
>Message-id: <8790bhr...@lievre.coughlan.fr>
>
>mjd...@aol.com (MJDANKO) writes:
>
>> >I'm always hearing about Christian charity, compassion, etc and yet some
>> >Christians still want to execute people; even those who express remorse or
>> >even convert to Christianity themselves. heh, it's a funny ole world! :)
>
>> I save my charity and compassion for the victims and their families.
>
>Yeah, Einstein, and perhaps you could tell us how you're charitable to
>a dead person.
Charity, respect, preventing future harm to others.
sharpjfa
Sharpjfa
>Date: 4/25/99 11:50 AM EST
>Message-id: <37234575....@news.albany.net>
>>
>>> > >I'm always hearing about Christian charity, compassion, etc and yet
>some
>>> > >Christians still want to execute people; even those who express remorse
>or
>>> > >even convert to Christianity themselves. heh, it's a funny ole world!
>:)
>>>
>>> > I save my charity and compassion for the victims and their families.
>>>
>>> Yeah, Einstein, and perhaps you could tell us how you're charitable to
>>> a dead person.
>>
>>punishment for the murderer that took his victim's life. With
>>Justice served, the victim can truly rest in peace.
>
>will not take place in their name. The Declaration of Life
>was created to allow people to witness their oposition to the Death
>Penalty and live their lives knowing that people like Kool and his
>gang will not be able to advocate killing prisoners in their name.
>
>Life. Do a search or check out:
>http://www.nonviolence.org/pcusa/declar.htm
It is interecting that The Declaration of Life has no reference to parole and
probation, criminal justice practices used in our names, whereby up to 13,200
people are murdered by those so released every year.
sharpjfa
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Desmond Coughlan
> >> > That is not a "Declaration of Life", my child. It is a free pass
> >> >to allow murderers to do as they wish.
> >> Kool is such a pathetic liar.
> > Your gratuatous ad hominem does nothing to change the fact that the
> >so-called "Declaration of Life" is nothing more than a free pass to
> >allow your beloved murderers to do as they wish.
> Kool lies once again. Is he that stupid or that dishonest?
Well for a start, anyone who spells 'gratuitous' as 'gratuatous', is a
couple of sandwiches short of a picnic in any case. In Don's case,
however, the fact that he has created at least a dozen 'personae' on
this newsgroup, might go some way to answering your second question.
David Proctor
>Of course, a billion or so Catholics are wrong, and David
>'It's-not-meant-to-be-a-deterrent' Proctor is right.
Wrong Desmond - there are plenty of Catholics who are in favour of the DP -
if it was such a moral issue, why hasn't he spoken "ex-cathedra" and made it
doctrine?
Sharpjfa
>Date: 4/25/99 5:43 PM EST
>Message-id: <7g1i0c$pv0$1...@news.mel.aone.net.au>
>
>Desmond Coughlan wrote in message <87u2u41...@lievre.coughlan.fr>...
>
>>Of course, a billion or so Catholics are wrong, and David
>>'It's-not-meant-to-be-a-deterrent' Proctor is right.
>
>Wrong Desmond - there are plenty of Catholics who are in favour of the DP -
>if it was such a moral issue, why hasn't he spoken "ex-cathedra" and made it
>doctrine?
>
>DaveP
I think because it would be impossible to do so. It has nothing to do with
popular support of Catholics for dp. Biblically and theologically, the Pope
would be on extremely shakey ground to do so. That is why his statements limit
the application of the death penalty. He would not even voice this limited
application, unless the Church knew that capital punishment was just,
biblically.
sharpjfa
Desmond Coughlan
> >Of course, a billion or so Catholics are wrong, and David
> >'It's-not-meant-to-be-a-deterrent' Proctor is right.
> Wrong Desmond - there are plenty of Catholics who are in favour of the DP -
> if it was such a moral issue, why hasn't he spoken "ex-cathedra" and made it
> doctrine?
I wasn't referring to support for the death penalty _per se_, David,
but to the fact that the Pope is a 'learned theologian', 'theologian
of repute', call it what you will ...
george shewbart
Baltimore?
And, as Alex the Great once said "Let us walk off the map" in pursuit of
our dreams
necromancier
<nospam_...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>"David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com> writes:
>
>> >Of course, a billion or so Catholics are wrong, and David
>> >'It's-not-meant-to-be-a-deterrent' Proctor is right.
>
>> Wrong Desmond - there are plenty of Catholics who are in favour of the DP -
>> if it was such a moral issue, why hasn't he spoken "ex-cathedra" and made it
>> doctrine?
>
>I wasn't referring to support for the death penalty _per se_, David,
>but to the fact that the Pope is a 'learned theologian', 'theologian
>of repute', call it what you will ...
He also knows that the world is round thus allowing him to forgive
Christopher Columbu.
Really getting with the times this Catholic Church is. Why next thing
you know they might even forgive Martin Luther......NAAAAAH!
necromancer
Sharpjfa
>Date: 4/27/99 3:20 AM EST
>Message-id: <374a4a81....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>
>
>On 26 Apr 1999 15:43:04 +0200, Desmond Coughlan
><nospam_...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>
>>"David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com> writes:
>>
>>> >Of course, a billion or so Catholics are wrong, and David
>>> >'It's-not-meant-to-be-a-deterrent' Proctor is right.
>>
>>> Wrong Desmond - there are plenty of Catholics who are in favour of the DP
>-
>>> if it was such a moral issue, why hasn't he spoken "ex-cathedra" and made
>it
>>> doctrine?
>>
>>I wasn't referring to support for the death penalty _per se_, David,
>>but to the fact that the Pope is a 'learned theologian', 'theologian
>>of repute', call it what you will ...
>
>He also knows that the world is round thus allowing him to forgive
>Christopher Columbu.
>
>Really getting with the times this Catholic Church is. Why next thing
>you know they might even forgive Martin Luther......NAAAAAH!
Wasn't that done several years agop.
sharpjfa
David Proctor
>I wasn't referring to support for the death penalty _per se_, David,
>but to the fact that the Pope is a 'learned theologian', 'theologian
>of repute', call it what you will ...
And there are plenty of Catholics who disagree with him on a number of
issues, ranging from artificial contraception, ordination of women, married
clergy, etc.
DaveP
Desmond Coughlan
> >I wasn't referring to support for the death penalty _per se_, David,
> >but to the fact that the Pope is a 'learned theologian', 'theologian
> >of repute', call it what you will ...
> And there are plenty of Catholics who disagree with him on a number of
> issues, ranging from artificial contraception, ordination of women, married
> clergy, etc.
I daresay. Those who disobey the Pope on matters of faith and morals
(where he is, according to Catholic doctrine, infallible) are not
Catholics. A Catholic who supports the death penalty is no more
Catholic than the IRA.
Desmond Coughlan
> >I daresay. Those who disobey the Pope on matters of faith and morals
> >(where he is, according to Catholic doctrine, infallible) are not
> >Catholics. A Catholic who supports the death penalty is no more
> >Catholic than the IRA.
> And as I have repeatedly pointed out to you (and you repeatedly ignore) a
> Catholic is free to foolow his or her conscience on anything that is not
> doctrine - and until it is pronounced "ex-cathedra" it is NOT dictrine.
Nop offence, David. I'm not Catholic, but I think if I were, I'd
believe the Pope before I'd believe David Proctor. I'm sure you
understand.
Desmond Coughlan
> >Nop offence, David. I'm not Catholic, but I think if I were, I'd
> >believe the Pope before I'd believe David Proctor. I'm sure you
> >understand.
> Sure - but I would believe 1000 theologians with doctorates before I
> believe someone with a nothing more than a Bachelors degree.
Um, make that a Masters, puhleeze ! ;-)
Desmond Coughlan
> >> Sure - but I would believe 1000 theologians with doctorates before I
> >> believe someone with a nothing more than a Bachelors degree.
> >Um, make that a Masters, puhleeze ! ;-)
>
> You sure about that? I KNOW he does not have a D.Th. - wasn't sure about the
> Masters (although open to correction!)
Sorry, I thought you were referring to me. No, you're right: Don has
a BSc in chemistry from the University of Maryland.
Rev. Don Kool
Desi Coughlan <des...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
> "David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com> writes:
> > >> Sure - but I would believe 1000 theologians with doctorates before I
> > >> believe someone with a nothing more than a Bachelors degree.
> > >Um, make that a Masters, puhleeze ! ;-)
> > You sure about that? I KNOW he does not have a D.Th. - wasn't sure about the
> > Masters (although open to correction!)
> Sorry, I thought you were referring to me. No, you're right: Don has
> a BSc in chemistry from the University of Maryland.
Actually I have a BA in Chemistry but Davy was referring to the
credentials of the Pope with respect to what it takes to be a
"theologian of repute". Davy considers a "theologian of repute" to
be one that has published serious theological works. The current
Pope has not done this. Unless he specifically comes out against
the just Death Penalty ex cathedra, he is merely expressing his
personal views and Catholics are not bound to it as church doctrine.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
David Proctor
>I daresay. Those who disobey the Pope on matters of faith and morals
>(where he is, according to Catholic doctrine, infallible) are not
>Catholics. A Catholic who supports the death penalty is no more
>Catholic than the IRA.
And as I have repeatedly pointed out to you (and you repeatedly ignore) a
Catholic is free to foolow his or her conscience on anything that is not
doctrine - and until it is pronounced "ex-cathedra" it is NOT dictrine.
DaveP
David Proctor
>Nop offence, David. I'm not Catholic, but I think if I were, I'd
>believe the Pope before I'd believe David Proctor. I'm sure you
>understand.
Sure - but I would believe 1000 theologians with doctorates before I believe
someone with a nothing more than a Bachelors degree.
DaveP
David Proctor
>> Sure - but I would believe 1000 theologians with doctorates before I
>> believe someone with a nothing more than a Bachelors degree.
>
>Um, make that a Masters, puhleeze ! ;-)
You sure about that? I KNOW he does not have a D.Th. - wasn't sure about the
Masters (although open to correction!)
DaveP
David Proctor
>"David Proctor" <daproc@spam_this.umpires.com> writes:
>
>> >> Sure - but I would believe 1000 theologians with doctorates before I
>> >> believe someone with a nothing more than a Bachelors degree.
>
>> >Um, make that a Masters, puhleeze ! ;-)
>>
>> You sure about that? I KNOW he does not have a D.Th. - wasn't sure about
the
>> Masters (although open to correction!)
>
>a BSc in chemistry from the University of Maryland.
I was referring to the Bishop of Rome.
DaveP
necromancier
I think I prefer reading for myself and considering what somebody else
says a little better.
The guy up front is only there to help keep us in tune, not to do
anything that we can't do ourselves.
Could I interest you in 10,000 years remission from purgatory?
necromancer
>
>DaveP
>
>
>
David Proctor
<376d9de0....@news.ot.centuryinter.net>...
>I think I prefer reading for myself and considering what somebody else
>says a little better.
I agree - on matters that are not doctrine. But Catholics believe that the
Pope has the ability to proclaim doctrine, and is infallible when doing so -
the Pope has not done so on the matter of the DP, and it begs the question
as to why he has not done so.
Desmond Coughlan
> >I think I prefer reading for myself and considering what somebody else
> >says a little better.
> I agree - on matters that are not doctrine. But Catholics believe that the
> Pope has the ability to proclaim doctrine, and is infallible when doing so -
> the Pope has not done so on the matter of the DP, and it begs the question
> as to why he has not done so.
Lemme guess, David: he's a closet deathie ..?
David Proctor
>Lemme guess, David: he's a closet deathie ..?
And you wonder why YOU are the laughing stock of the newsgroup!
It is because the Pope realises that it is a matter of personal choice and
judgement.
DaveP