Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 567
Results 61 to 68 of 68
  1. #61  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,335
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    So what your saying is - one strike you get a do over - second strike you want full penalties.
    Where did you get the idea that I stated one strike and then full penalties? Did you actually read what I wrote?

    Yes. He does. He wants us to be merciful in our individual dealings one with another. Between you and me - mercy. The state has other obligations. The state has the obligation of justice.
    Then why does He give authority to the state as is stated in Romans 13:1-6 and yet the state is not penalized when it shows mercy from time to time? The state as the obligation to do what is right and sometimes the right thing is to show mercy.

    He still would have driven them from the temple though.
    Perhaps he would have and then again maybe he wouldn't have.

    NO what Christ did was not a violation of the Mitzvot. He might have violated Talmudic interpretation of the law - but not the law itself. If he had - they would have had him up on charges. You are also overlooking a very basic concept here - the one that got Him all fired up in the first place - injustice. The money changers were using God and the obligations we owe to Him to make themselves rich.
    I didn’t over look that. Again you attribute to me something that I didn't state or even imply. No wonder you and I have such a hard time agreeing on things. In this one post you have twice misrepresented my views when you restated them to me. What I related what I understand of the behind the scenes history confirms exactly what you just wrote above and you say that I overlooked it. Please go back and review my posts and you will confirm that I didn't overlook what got Jesus fired up and that I never stated I was for one strike and then full penalties.

    Another thing I think that you have misunderstood is that I was not calling for mercy in all cases. I was stating that some cases are not cut and dry and should be judged on their own merits. When I entered this thread I was bemoaning the fact that Donte Stallworth got off light for the crime he committed. I wasn't inclined for the court to show him mercy after his particular act. I guess I shouldn't have commented on you statement of blanket punishment for all because that seems to be were all the misunderstandings started. I was not nor have I been saying that mercy should be shown to all by the court system but in some cases it might be appropriate. Most criminal cases that go to court are pretty cut and dry but for the cases that may have some type of mitigating circumstances I have no issues with a judge who wants to show mercy.

    We are each entitled to our opinions and fortunately opinions are neither right nor wrong. They are just opinions. I value your input in all the discussions that you participate in and I respect you as a person. Sometime I agree with you, sometimes I don't but that is the nature of opinions and these forums are all about sharing opinions.

    Maybe I'll start a thread and everyone can state their personal theology and it might save some confusion in the future and it would most certainly be an interesting (and probably heated) discussion. What you and I are tossing back and forth is one of those debatable matters that Paul references in Romans!

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #62  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    We are just never going to agree on things. We're not coming at this issue - or just about ANY issue from the same angle. We both see a need to have mercy and justice - we just completely disagree on when each is called for and who should administer each. The church should bring mercy - and the state should stand for justice. When the two get confused we end up with people who think that the government should be dealing in charity and that deviancy in doctrine is worthy of death. :(

    You and I and the body of Christ should be ready and willing to forgive any repentant soul - there should still be some measure of restitution - but forgiveness and mercy should be the rule of our lives. The state however should stand strong and uncompromisingly for justice. The state itself should never advocate for anything less than justice. And the way the laws are written currently with regards to driving under the influence - are NOT written to attain justice. Excuses are written right into the law and these laws need to be changed. There is no justice for the victims of drunk drivers - and when someone says that we need justice that person is accused of wanting revenge.

    People have no problem driving drunk because people have no concern over the penalties that they might face if caught. This case is a prime example. Kill someone while driving drunk and you can expect a slap on the wrist.
    Last edited by PoliCon; 06-22-2009 at 04:22 PM.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #63  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,335
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    We are just never going to agree on things. We're not coming at this issue - or just about ANY issue from the same angle. We both see a need to have mercy and justice - we just completely disagree on when each is called for and who should administer each. The church should bring mercy - and the state should stand for justice. When the two get confused we end up with people who think that the government should be dealing in charity and that deviancy in doctrine is worthy of death. :(

    You and I and the body of Christ should be ready and willing to forgive any repentant soul - there should still be some measure of restitution - but forgiveness and mercy should be the rule of our lives. The state however should stand strong and uncompromisingly for justice. The state itself should never advocate for anything less than justice. And the way the laws are written currently with regards to driving under the influence - are NOT written to attain justice. Excuses are written right into the law and these laws need to be changed. There is no justice for the victims of drunk drivers - and when someone says that we need justice that person is accused of wanting revenge.

    People have no problem driving drunk because people have no concern over the penalties that they might face if caught. This case is a prime example. Kill someone while driving drunk and you can expect a slap on the wrist.
    Hey we both agree on this! :D Hey I do respect your opinion and a look forward comparing notes on other things, but this one seems to have run its course. At any rate I appreciate picking your brain on stuff like this.

    Oh, perhaps I can give you some insight on the addicted mind. For some people (addicts like me) it isn't t a matter of not being concerned over the penalties of drinking and driving. I was very concerned about what would happen and I was even more fearful of the potential consequences like what happened to your loved ones. However, once a drug has control of someone the need for the drug overrides all that. The desire for a drug becomes a physical need with physical consequences for not getting the drug. It's like being a person dying of thirst. An addict will do whatever it takes to get the drug including risking imprisonment or death.

    Peace and blessing,
    Gary

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #64  
    Senior Member Space Gravy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    1,435
    Per this report it sounds like this guy walked right in front of Stallworth's car. Given this information I can understand the lenient sentence. Who knows, even if he hadn't been drinking he might have hit the guy anyway.

    The contents of the video apparently had a significant impact on the ultimate plea deal. Though the 30-day prison term and two years of house arrest light have triggered significant criticism, the ultimate question for a jury would have been whether the evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Stallworth caused or contributed to the death of Mario Reyes. At a minimum, the contents of the tape, as they have been described to us, indicate that a reasonable jury could have found reasonable doubt.
    http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/...orth-accident/
    2009 CU Pro Football Pick'em Champ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #65  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    Hey we both agree on this! :D Hey I do respect your opinion and a look forward comparing notes on other things, but this one seems to have run its course. At any rate I appreciate picking your brain on stuff like this.

    Oh, perhaps I can give you some insight on the addicted mind. For some people (addicts like me) it isn't t a matter of not being concerned over the penalties of drinking and driving. I was very concerned about what would happen and I was even more fearful of the potential consequences like what happened to your loved ones. However, once a drug has control of someone the need for the drug overrides all that. The desire for a drug becomes a physical need with physical consequences for not getting the drug. It's like being a person dying of thirst. An addict will do whatever it takes to get the drug including risking imprisonment or death.

    Peace and blessing,
    Gary
    I understand the addiction aspect - but we're not talking about getting a fix - we're talking about doing things once you've got that fix.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #66  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by Space Gravy View Post
    Per this report it sounds like this guy walked right in front of Stallworth's car. Given this information I can understand the lenient sentence. Who knows, even if he hadn't been drinking he might have hit the guy anyway.



    http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/...orth-accident/
    Possibly - but more likely the jury came to an emotional decision rather than a rational one.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #67  
    Senior Member Space Gravy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    1,435
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Possibly - but more likely the jury came to an emotional decision rather than a rational one.
    It was a plea. It never went to trial.

    It's still a tragedy but it's not like he mowed this guy down on the sidewalk.
    2009 CU Pro Football Pick'em Champ
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #68  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,335
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    I understand the addiction aspect - but we're not talking about getting a fix - we're talking about doing things once you've got that fix.
    Perhaps you don't understand addiction as well as you believe. Your making an assumption that all people get sober between drinks or that crackheads come down from their high. Addicts go and get their drugs or booze long before they need a new fix. Once addicted they have to keep a constant supply in their system. In short, some alcoholics never completely sober up and drug addicts are always high or going through withdrawal. When I drank the scariest thing I could imagine was looking in my fridge and seeing less than a 12 pack. Do you wait to run out of food before you go shopping?

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •