our brains makes us superior to the rest of animal life on earth,,but only in a limited sense.. .
with our minds we can think, plan, work out problems and such,, but would not the mind be a much more useful tool if it could just be honest?
why if our brains are so developed,,why is it we can't be honest with ourselves?
Hi Frankie,
Who says our minds are dishonest? Some are, and some arn't. Most of us are somewhere in between. As for our emotions ... they are an important balance to our logical minds. Emotions make us human ... they are our heart. I prefer to stay as we are with our emotions, our flaws, and a few white lies here and there to compliment quest for truth.
the situation as some now see it
.
by alan brain at november 2004 am | trackback .
I live in the US of Canada ... but I am thinking about moving to JesusLand.
the situation as some now see it
.
by alan brain at november 2004 am | trackback .
as scott peterson's mother exited the courthouse, where she heard the jury pronounce her son guilty of murder, the crowd moved in on her, jeered and booed her, and some spit at her.. scott certainly appears guilty and the jury who heard the evidence thought so.
i believe in the death penalty, but not in purely circumstantial cases like scott peterson's.
so, i favor life in prison, to give him opportunity either repent and pay his punishment, or to prove his innocence ... if he can.. however, to stand outside a court house to cheer at the verdict seems rather inane and ludricris.
Funkyderek,
If the evidence is only circumstantial, then he shouldn't have to prove his innocence. He should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
He didn't have to prove his innocence, as he was presumed innocent, before trial. However, once a jury decides he is guilty based on the evidence presented to them, then the burden of proof shifts after trial. Now the onus is on Scott to sit in jail and if he can, prove his innocence.
Juries are allowed to convict on circumstantial evidence, though it is a hard case for a prosecutor to nail down. The problem is that Scott Peterson had a lot of circumstantial evidence against him, plus his attorney, Mark Gerrigos may not have properly defended him.
For example: Long before they found Laci's body, tt was well known in the media that Scott had been to the marina to go fishing. If she was murdered by someone else, then they could have easily taken her body there to make Scott look guilty. Scott's attorney never introduced that possibility to the jury or offered an alternative theory to the prosecution's theory.
Unfortunately, for Scott, his behavior and recorded phone calls, where he made some stupid inferrences, badly hurts his own case, making himself look guilty. All of this weighed on the jury and they found him guilty.
He will now have a much harder time to prove he is not guilty and get his conviction overturned on appeal. What will help him are the weird things that happened on the jury, including the forman who was removed. The former jury forman now states that he was threatened by the other jurers. This and other jury problems will likely cause the conviction to be thrown out. If that happens, Scott can retain new counsel, and get a new trial, where once again, the burden of proof will be on the State and not Scott.
as scott peterson's mother exited the courthouse, where she heard the jury pronounce her son guilty of murder, the crowd moved in on her, jeered and booed her, and some spit at her.. scott certainly appears guilty and the jury who heard the evidence thought so.
i believe in the death penalty, but not in purely circumstantial cases like scott peterson's.
so, i favor life in prison, to give him opportunity either repent and pay his punishment, or to prove his innocence ... if he can.. however, to stand outside a court house to cheer at the verdict seems rather inane and ludricris.
As Scott Peterson's mother exited the courthouse, where she heard the jury pronounce her son guilty of murder, the crowd moved in on her, jeered and booed her, and some spit at her.
Scott certainly appears guilty and the jury who heard the evidence thought so. I believe in the death penalty, but not in purely circumstantial cases like Scott Peterson's. So, I favor life in prison, to give him opportunity either repent and pay his punishment, or to prove his innocence ... if he can.
However, to stand outside a court house to cheer at the verdict seems rather inane and ludricris. But, then to spit on the guy's mother seems cruel and heartless. She has a triple burden to bear. She lost her daughter-in-law, whom she loved. She will lose her son to prison or execution. And she will, in a way, be shamed because of his guilt. I see no point in spitting on her. - Jim W.
the real issue
i know james is away, but this is not just for him.
he argued that human sin was responsible for the many evils that i pointed out about catholicism, and he held that the church was still doing christ's bidding.
I debated Jim Penton on the issue of Christians participating in war at the NW Conference in Wenatchee, Washington, October 21st, 2004. We conducted the dabate for 3 hours, including taking questions from the audience. What forum did Jim make his comments? Was it Channel C? If so, I will go there and add some comments. - Jim Whitney
PS: I found Jim Penton's posts on Channel C. I think that it would be good to post Vinoverita's (James) rebuttal comments. He too makes good sense, and brings balence to to Jim's views. I understand and to some extent agree with Jim Penton on this ... but, the view he holds ignores some issues which are not easily reconciled. Jim W.
i haven't posted for a while.
i'm starting to really lose my cool.
i'm angry all the time, it seems at everyone.
Hi Mrs Horton,
You made a note of something that I can help you with:
i noticed alot of people read my post and didn't reply. i guess there's alot of unfeeling people out there after all. thanks alot guys. some support group or maybe you just don't know what to say, or just don't care to sayI find that almost any thread I start has about a 20 to 1 response ratio. People don't answer for all kinds of reasons. Some have not had an experience like yours and so feel that they can't really contribute. Some take a long time to think through what they want to say, so as to make sure they give good comments. Unfortunately, at times, bad or misguided advice gets posted and causes trouble. I think that most care, but for various reasons don't respond. In my own case, I went through a divorce, but my circumstances were very different. I am still on very good terms with my ex. And it is possible that she and I will reconcile. So, I am reluctant to give advice on such an important subject where my knowledge is limited. However, like many here, I do care, and hate to see any fellow ex-JW suffer any more pain and trouble. I am sorry that marriage counseling and therapy are not helping you. In time, if you and Mr. Horton are not able to work things out, then you will eventually heal and move on ... even though right now it seems so very bleak. However, keep hope alive that you and he can work things out ... time also has a way of allowing people to rekindle the fires that first caused them love. The pain is in the waiting. It is a judgment call when to hold and wait, and when to cut loose and move on. It is this uncertain and uncontrollable aspect of real life that makes it so very hard. Whatever the case, keep sharing your feelings on the board. Because in time different posters will share and you will get some very good perspectives. All together, you may get some very good insight shared. And please trust that most here care, whether they comment on every thread or not ... and most here understand pain and are here for you ... either in word or in silent prayer for you. Jim W.
i've been out for 8 years, and for the first time in my life i am doubting.. not big doubts, but little ones.
it's all the middle east and the "peace and security" talk.
i feel like armageddon is coming.. the brainwashing never ends.
Hi
Joyzabel noted: "Armegedon Delayed" by James Penton.
The correct name of the book is: Apocalpyse Delayed. It is excellent, as are Crisis of Conscience and Gentile Times Reconsidered.
Please don't let Watchtower prophetic gymnastics or stressful world events get to you. Before I became a JW, the Society predicted that armageddon would arrive by 1914, then revised it to 1915, then 1918, then 1925 ... but, no armageddon. Then the JWs were all hyped up during World War II fulling believing that it was the time ... however, no armageddon. Then by 1970 I was a JW and I recall 1975, and all the prophetic hype from the Society ... how mature ones were serving Jehovah by being out door-to-door selling magazines ... in the few months or weeks rermaining ... that was nearly 30 years ago ... somehow there was no armageddon. I remember the push for peace and security in the late 1980s to the mid-1990s as the Soviet Union collapsed ... yet no armageddon. I recall how we were to see the end before the generation of 1914 would die off ... or within a generation of 70 or 80 years (Ps. 90:10). Yet, 80 years after 1914 arrived in 1994 ... still no armageddon. Then 9-11 happened and JWs were all excited once more as they surely thought armageddon was nigh ... once more, no armageddon. We are now ten more years past the end of 80 years in 1994 ... and there is no armageddon in sight.
Deut. 18:18-22 tells us not to be afraid of false prophets. For what they speak does not come true precisely because it does NOT come from God. - Jim W.
The Watchtower says that 'sin' is missing the mark ... being off target from perfection, that is.
The Bible says that 'sin' is transgression against the Law ... the old law of Moses, that is.
Under the law of love in the Christian era, God forgives our sins by not holding us under judgment to the old Law of Moses, provided we have faith in Jesus Christ as our savior. We still transgress God's laws, but since they are not in force and Jesus sacrafice covers any possible transgression, then we are off the hook.
What is transgression against the Law? Here they are in a nutshell:
Ex. 20:3-17 defines God's law, and thus transgression against it is sin:
Jim W.
.
i guess i'll always believe in god and his creation no matter what.. how about you, which side do you lean on...creation or evolution?
I like the way LittleToe stated it: "Both." As far back as the 1950s or before, the Catholic Church acknowledged that God could have used the evolutionary process to create humans.
Also, evolution is an established fact. It is not something to "believe in" or not. The term "theory" is misused by many creationists to imply that science is not certain of evolution. Whereas in science the term "theory" is used to identify the basic process. For example, there is "electrical theory," but no one questions the existence of electricity. In the same way there is mechanical theory, legal theory, chemical theory, etc. All of these topics and more are proven. Likewise, evolution is proven.
The modern Christian must find a way to harmonize his/her faith with what science has proven, or begin the process of seriously questioning the basis of their faith. I have gone through these cycles, and have settled on harmonization between faith and science. However, were I to set aside Chrstianity, I would lean toward agnosticism rather than atheism.
Jim W.
