Hello Everyone

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='zwergel88' post='992484' date='May 29 2006, 04:53 PM']
Dude, its a little late for that, although I was saying the same thing. I even wrote letters to Schwartzenegger telling him to comute William's sentence. I hate the death penalty.
[/quote]

I definitely agree with the death penalty. I find it a perfectly legitimate punishment. Just not for this particular situation.

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='992483' date='May 29 2006, 04:52 PM']
[b][size=5]Whether it is lawful to kill sinners?[/size][/b]

[font="System"][size=4][color="#FF0000"]Objection 1[/color]. It would seem unlawful to kill men who have sinned. For our Lord in the parable (Matthew 13) forbade the uprooting of the cockle which denotes wicked men according to a gloss. Now whatever is forbidden by God is a sin. Therefore it is a sin to kill a sinner.

[color="#FF0000"]Objection 2. [/color]Further, human justice is conformed to Divine justice. Now according to Divine justice sinners are kept back for repentance, according to Ezech. 33:11, "I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live." Therefore it seems altogether unjust to kill sinners.

[color="#FF0000"]Objection 3.[/color] Further, it is not lawful, for any good end whatever, to do that which is evil in itself, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii) and the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 6). Now to kill a man is evil in itself, since we are bound to have charity towards all men, and "we wish our friends to live and to exist," according to Ethic. ix, 4. Therefore it is nowise lawful to kill a man who has sinned.

[color="#FF0000"]On the contrary,[/color] It is written (Exodus 22:18): "Wizards thou shalt not suffer to live"; and (Psalm 100:8): "In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land."

[color="#FF0000"]I answer that, [/color]As stated above (1), it is lawful to kill dumb animals, in so far as they are naturally directed to man's use, as the imperfect is directed to the perfect. Now every part is directed to the whole, as imperfect to perfect, wherefore every part is naturally for the sake of the whole. For this reason we observe that if the health of the whole body demands the excision of a member, through its being decayed or infectious to the other members, it will be both praiseworthy and advantageous to have it cut away. Now every individual person is compared to the whole community, as part to whole. Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since "a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump" (1 Corinthians 5:6).
[color="#FF0000"]
Reply to Objection 1.[/color] Our Lord commanded them to forbear from uprooting the cockle in order to spare the wheat, i.e. the good. This occurs when the wicked cannot be slain without the good being killed with them, either because the wicked lie hidden among the good, or because they have many followers, so that they cannot be killed without danger to the good, as Augustine says (Contra Parmen. iii, 2). Wherefore our Lord teaches that we should rather allow the wicked to live, and that vengeance is to be delayed until the last judgment, rather than that the good be put to death together with the wicked. When, however, the good incur no danger, but rather are protected and saved by the slaying of the wicked, then the latter may be lawfully put to death.

[color="#FF0000"]Reply to Objection 2.[/color] According to the order of His wisdom, God sometimes slays sinners forthwith in order to deliver the good, whereas sometimes He allows them time to repent, according as He knows what is expedient for His elect. This also does human justice imitate according to its powers; for it puts to death those who are dangerous to others, while it allows time for repentance to those who sin without grievously harming others.

[color="#FF0000"]Reply to Objection 3.[/color] By sinning man departs from the order of reason, and consequently falls away from the dignity of his manhood, in so far as he is naturally free, and exists for himself, and he falls into the slavish state of the beasts, by being disposed of according as he is useful to others. This is expressed in Ps. 48:21: "Man, when he was in honor, did not understand; he hath been compared to senseless beasts, and made like to them," and Prov. 11:29: "The fool shall serve the wise." Hence, although it be evil in itself to kill a man so long as he preserve his dignity, yet it may be good to kill a man who has sinned, even as it is to kill a beast. For a bad man is worse than a beast, and is more harmful, as the Philosopher states (Polit. i, 1 and Ethic. vii, 6).[/size][/font]
[/quote]


Hmm, you must not have followed my points back then as I NEVER argued against the death penalty.

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='992981' date='May 30 2006, 01:00 PM']
i know. it's from Goldenchild's Profile, i was just commenting on it, because i think it's stupid.
you're not the only one.
[/quote]

doh! You're right. I need to go and switch that. I haven't looked at my profile in so long.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

if anyone deserves to die it's a Killer.

[Seven77]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='993656' date='May 31 2006, 02:21 PM']
if anyone deserves to die it's a Killer.
[/quote]

combined with your avatar and sig that's kind of funny...

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Extra ecclesiam nulla salus' post='993656' date='May 31 2006, 02:21 PM']
if anyone deserves to die it's a Killer.
[/quote]

Okay. Since this is way over anyways and since the thread is about you, I don't see why you are changing the subject. Maybe

Technically what I believe about the situation is that he was being put to death for murder of about 4 people(if I remember right). I believe he was innocent of these 4 murders, and he upheld his innocence of this as well. I believe him to be guilty of starting the gang, but he was not being tried for this so should have had no bearing on the trial. I don't believe he was guilty of these murders, so I believe the charges were faulty and he was put to death on faulty charges.

Edited May 31, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

He deserved to Die for starting the gang. Frankly he was found guilty. unless you have inside information, you should probably not pretend you know that he is innocent.

[goldenchild17]

Maybe he did deserve to die for starting the gang. Unfortunately for your case he was NOT tried for that. He was tried for something else entirely. And it is that case I believe he was innocent of. No one said he didn't start the gang. But he was not convicted for that. That wasn't at all what the case was about. You might want to do more research first.

As far as the REAL case, when you read up on it, I don't claim any inside information. It's simply MY OPINION that he was innocent, as he maintained.

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

it does not matter. why would you support someone who deserved Death?

[goldenchild17]

I support a system of law that works. Whether he deserved to die for the gang is 100% besides the point. One CANNOT be punished for something they are not being tried for. If so, they do not recieve their fair trial and are thus denied their rights as an American. Such rights have been given to Saddam Hussein. What makes him better than Mr. Williams? I do not support corruption of the system of law. It undermines it and shows others that America cannot keep it's own laws in order. If they wanted to try him for his involvement in the gang then they would have. He admitted to do that so they would have a case for doing so. But they wanted him dead. So they tried him for something they could kill him for.

Edited to say that we ALL deserve death. Scripture tells us so. But in order to deserve death more than another person ACCORDING TO THE LAW, they must be convicted in a fair trial. He was convicted. Maybe it was a fair trial. From my reading on it, I believe it was not a fair trial. So that is my decision, I don't hold anybody else to it. Besides, I believe punishment for earthly crimes should be organized similar to how God punishes after death. Anybody who commits serious sin and dies without repenting of the crime goes to hell. So to should anyone who commits a serious crime and never repents of it, such a person should recieve the death penalty. Anyone who commits a serious sin but repents before death, God gives this person a chance to be saved possibly after a long time in Purgatory. So to should anyone who commits a serious crime but fully repents be given a chance to be spared the ultimate punishment. Should this person be set free? Probably not, but a lifetime in prison would certainly be a fair punishment. He repented of his involvement in the gang. EVEN IF he WAS being tried for this involvement WHICH HE WAS NOT then I believe the death penalty would be an unfair punishment, but life in prison would be perfectly legit in this situation. HOWEVER this itself is STILL not the case as he wasn't even being tried for that which you say he should be killed.

Edited June 1, 2006 by goldenchild17

[Thy Geekdom Come]

If you love Jesus Christ, come back to the Church He founded for your salvation. It can't be the same without you; but with you, it can only get better.

[brendan1104]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='991580' date='May 27 2006, 06:51 PM']
i knew this was going to happen..maybe phatmass should start being nicer to "rad trads". instead of treating them worse protestants and muslims.
[/quote]

[quote]"The declared enemies of God and His Church, heretics and schismatics, must be criticized as much as possible, as long as truth is not denied. It is a work of charity to shout: 'Here is the wolf!' when it enters the flock or anywhere else."[/quote] - St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III, Chapter 29

[qfnol31]

I think he was referring to how Traditionalists are treated on Phatmass by the general public, ridiculed excessively sometimes, for different things.

Not so much how Sam has been treated in this thread.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='prose' post='991576' date='May 27 2006, 05:38 PM']So basically, nothing has changed.[/quote] that's what i was gonna say
[quote name='brendan1104' post='991675' date='May 27 2006, 09:02 PM']Prose- go do something productive, and start bashing real non-Catholics, and stop hurling excommunications and insults at your brothers and sisters in the one, Catholic, apostolic Church.[/quote] cause what she said was 'bashing'
[quote name='Lilllabettt' post='991860' date='May 28 2006, 12:53 PM']On a serious note, Sam, I want to tell you about a specific practice of the shepherding profession.

When a little sheep keeps wandering away from the flock, the responsible shepherd will go looking for it everytime. And when the sheep wanders away one time to many, then when the shepherd finds it, he breaks the sheep's legs.

Mean huh? Hold on a second.

For the next several months, the shepherd carries around the sheep on his back, while its broken legs heal. Then, when the little sheep is all better, and ready to walk on its own, it never wanders away again. In fact, it stays closer to the shepherd then all the other animals. Why? Because the sheep has gotten to know the shepherd so well, and to depend on the shepherd for everything.

Moral to the story: sometimes God needs to break our legs. It hurts, but its for the best.
Maybe God is breaking your legs.[/quote]woah!


[quote name='hugheyforlife' post='992932' date='May 30 2006, 12:37 PM']I like how all the rad-trads point fingers at prose when she's done nothing wrong... it's kinda amusing.[/quote] agreed

on a serious note, this does not belong in open mic any longer

[Extra ecclesiam nulla salus]

yes we Rad Trads sure are dumb!

[Seven77]

[s]radtrads[/s] children of God deserve to be treated with charity.

[Ash Wednesday]

[quote]i knew this was going to happen..maybe phatmass should start being nicer to "rad trads". instead of treating them worse protestants and muslims. [/quote]

I don't know what Sam did to get suspended, but apparently the mods had their reasons at the time and I doubt it was done without fair warning. We cannot pretend that some traditionalists come wandering in here like innocent little lambs free from desire of confrontation.