User	Comment
dilfreak	posted 25-Apr-2008 2:19pm   No the homeowner should not be charged with manslaughter. It is a shame that the firefighters died, but they were doing their job.
Melf	posted 25-Apr-2008 2:20pm   I thought manslaughter was involuntary already, but yeah, whatever. And charged for possession as well, of course.
LindaH	posted 25-Apr-2008 2:31pm   No. It was an accident. The same exact thing could have happened if he was growing tomatoes. The fact he was growing pot doesn't make him any more negligent.
Enheduanna	posted 25-Apr-2008 3:29pm   No, unless it's normal to charge someone with involuntary manslaughter in an accidental fire. Which I doubt it is. They could charge the person with illegally growing marijuana plants (assuming they didn't have a permit to grow marijuana), but the fire was accidental and the firefighters entered the building at their own risk. It's absurd to even think that you could trump up the charges this way because the fire was very tangentially related to an illegal activity.
they	posted 25-Apr-2008 6:14pm   I was outraged at the suggestion of this. Anyway, it turns out the pot plant lights didn't start the fire. They really were growing orchids as well as pot. The prosecuter showed much disappointment in the media that they couldn't connect the pot growing to the fire. He was perfectly willing to go after the homeowners somehow. This conservative city sucks. Really. If a candle catches fire, or a cigarette is left burning, or food is left on the stove... it wouldn't be the homeowner's fault. Usually, a community will pull together to help a family after a fire. This family has been shunned. Ben actually heard someone at work say that the homeowners should "burn in hell" because of the deaths of these firefighters. All because they grew a garden. Bullcrap.
ausfox	posted 25-Apr-2008 6:20pm   I don't think he should be charged.
Kristal_Rose	posted 26-Apr-2008 1:29am   No way. If that were the case all homeowners with fires killing firemen should likewise be charged, for instance in fires caused by pets or falling asleep with the oven on.. I thought this question was going to be more like about the bimbos who rig guns to their garage door. These grow lights were never intended as weapons, nor was their use directly the cause of the deaths. At worst, if the lamps weren't installed properly, they could be charged with negligence, and even then only if the average person could reasonably expect a dangerous risk from the setup.
Biggles	posted 26-Apr-2008 10:26am   The homeowner should be charged with drug offences, but not involuntary manslaughter. It's no more involuntary manslaughter than it would be if somebody had left a light on in the basement for any other (legal) reason.
RGirl	posted 26-Apr-2008 3:30pm   Yes because it occurred in the process of a criminal act, or as a result of a criminal act.
bill	posted 26-Apr-2008 6:27pm   it should be legal to grow pot in your own home
Kristal_Rose	(reply to RGirl) posted 27-Apr-2008 2:03am   But the intended criminal act wasn't manslaughter any more than a boating accident. Killing someone with a car is involuntary manslaughter whethar you were drunk (a crime) or not. I think they are shifting towards making it voluntary manslaughter, but only because, like waving a loaded pistol around, people should realize it's likely to cause bodily harm. That's not the case with using gardening lamps.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to bill) posted 27-Apr-2008 2:43am   Undeniably. It's bizarre to make cultivating a plant illegal, or to decree what plants people may ingest. Alas, it's a sliding scale between fermenting grapes and refining heroin poppies or coca leaves. I'm kind of thinking it should all be legal, but sales should not. But then that opens up the next slippery slope. If I want to grow a plant, but Darth is more of a green thumb than I, then why can't I pay him to do it for me? There is a line of discrimination, but it more ethical and less tangible, and that is whethar the motive of transactions is generous or self-interested. I think though that actually could be quantified, by making it illegal to 'profit' from production or distribution of drugs unless prescribed by a doctor. It would be tedious; Cops would have to ask all involved what you sold a nickel bag for, then inquire about about your costs for the original dime bag. It could be done though. A complaint tip from a neighbor might justify tapping your cell phone to determine if you were marking up goods. Even more so than making drugs cheap and legal, I think making them transparent and subject to no profit at all would reduce anyone's motive to propogate drugs, particularly one's they'd have no interest in being addicted to themselves. The law would be a heck of a lot easier to enforce by making any money-drug exchange with a minor illegal. Unfortunately possession or drug-testing is easiest of all to monitor. Still, the plan would work for the real problem, mass merchandisers. People would readily report their sources if possession alone was not a crime, and then the DEA in cahoots with the IRS would go up the line and finally ask, "fine, you're allowed a meth lab for personal use and charity, but show us how you paid for it". With such a plan I expect volunteer pot farms would show up on most every block, but things like coke, meth, and heroin would become rare experimental events with little opportunity of becoming addicted; and I think that's a positive result from where things stand now. If you have any pragmatic thoughts on the possibility, let me know. The illegal plant thing has been going on too long. Come to think of it, the easiest administratable equivalent of this outcome is simply to make growing a few plants legal, along with trivial posession.
bill	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 27-Apr-2008 7:48am   Well, whenever I think about it, I usually come to the conclusion that all drugs should be legal and unrestricted (even prescriptions). Yes, there will be some people who abuse them and get into trouble (even resulting in death). We'll have to be tough and stick to our guns, knowing that freedom is better than trying to control it. There's ample evidence that drug laws and "The War on Drugs" doesn't help and may cause some nasty side-effects (e.g. organized crime). While, at the same time putting tremendous burden on our legal system and costing billions in tax money. And, we still have all the problems we were trying to get rid of (addicts, death, etc.). I tend to jump to Libertarian solutions these days. Trying to devise a system to solve a social problem seems like a bad idea. We're tried that and it usually just causes more problem while burdening the public (taxes).
LJD	posted 27-Apr-2008 12:39pm   Yes. Even though a firefighter, accepts the dangers of his work, the homeowner should be held responsible, number one because the fire was caused by an illegal substance and caused the death of another.
LindaH	(reply to bill) posted 27-Apr-2008 2:12pm   If anything, there should be an easier way for the average person to pick and choose which drugs are suited for their own ailments. The way the system is now puts all control for curing/relief in the hands of doctors, except for the limited OTC choices we get.
Biggles	(reply to LindaH) posted 27-Apr-2008 2:32pm   That's because the average man on the street doesn't have the expertise to self-medicate with prescription-only drugs. *Doctors* don't have the knowledge to do that either, with anything that they don't commonly prescribe, which is why we have pharmacists who can give them advice. Unless you have a pretty detailed knowledge of physiology and potential drug interactions, there's no way it's safe to pick and choose what you want to take.
LindaH	(reply to Biggles) posted 27-Apr-2008 2:38pm   There should still be more choice. Patients should have more say. People who have done their research should be able to decide for themselves.
Biggles	(reply to LindaH) posted 27-Apr-2008 2:55pm   It doesn't matter if you've done your research or not - unless you have the level of specialist training that a doctor has, you won't be capable of making even decisions about the straightforward stuff and without the level of knowledge a pharmacist has you aren't going to have a hope of prescribing yourself anything more complicated or unusual. Why is it that specialists in most subjects are respected as having a greater degree of knowledge, but when people look at healthcare specialists they think "Anyone could do that"? People mess things up enough by self-medicating with OTC meds - making it a free for all with everything else would be really dangerous.
LindaH	(reply to Biggles) posted 27-Apr-2008 3:15pm   That's unfair to people who know what they are doing, though. A free-for-all would be dangerous, but there could be a middle ground somewhere. There's a whole lot of drugs that people are 'professionally' filtered from, because doctors are afraid to take any chances. People might know what will help them, but no doctor will prescribe it to them. A little more choice and freedom in that area would be nice. Meanwhile, people will self-medicate for pain, sleep, agitation, etc with alcohol or street drugs.
bill	(reply to LindaH) posted 27-Apr-2008 3:21pm   I think treatment is likely better with supervision, but I think the current system has a number of problems. An open system has appeal to me.
LindaH	(reply to bill) posted 27-Apr-2008 3:28pm   I can see how a lot of treatments are better with supervision.
RGirl	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 27-Apr-2008 5:47pm   Ok, so call it something else, but it should be a crime, I don't care if you call it goobity gonk.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to bill) posted 28-Apr-2008 8:15am   This is somewhat of a 'do the means jutify the end?' situations. Wouldn't libertarianism just amount to localizing the scale of social solutions? I'm sure most of talked this subject to death 20 years ago to no effect. But then we do finally have a Medical Marijuana law here in California, even if the DEA ignores it. We also have signs up in some places where people are likely to do drugs claiming certain drugs laws will be more heavily enforced (implying others are less so), counter-blanced by school zones doubling fines for any drug use. How's law and administration in your territory?
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 28-Apr-2008 8:19am   Whethar or not something is illegal should have no bearing on it being manslaughter or not. The two conditions are conceptually unrelated. That would be akin to redefining traffic laws depending on who's driving.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to Biggles, LindaH) posted 28-Apr-2008 8:35am   I used to do a lot of a pharmaceutical research as a patient which my psychiatrist would photocopy to pass along to her peers. In general I feel I am more informed at least on my own physiology and how to treat it than most of the doctors and dentists I visit. After two failures I had to devise a different method for filling one of my cavities (rounded underfill rather than smoothed overfill), and I also came up with a technique of installing a dental dam (a sanitary diaphragm-like tool) by using dental floss after suffering their own ineffective techniques for 45 minutes. My doctor found it preposterous that I had West Nile Virus one summer just because it was so uncommonly rare, however I found out later that my neighborhood was in fact an epicenter of breakouts during that time period. I'm also often finding that symptoms I've had are in fact journal documented side effects of drugs I've been on, even though doctors here seem to automatically discount drug side-effects as possible accounts for symptoms. If you ask me, most general practioners are wearing horse blinders. So yeah, I definitly agree with Linda on this one.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to RGirl) posted 28-Apr-2008 9:02am   But what if it were tomatoes? If you ask me, in respect to the deaths of the fireman, it would be more of a crime to use dangerously installed grow-lights on tomatoes than professionally installed grow-lights on cannabis plants. Are you by any chance also of the opinion that doctors should discriminate against serving people who have bad personalities, or got hurt doing something stupid when they should have known better? I'm not saying anything either way about prosecuting for growing plants. Considering the situation, I would expect a maximum penalty for that. I'm just saying the illegal choice of plants, and applying manslaughter charges to unintended deaths of firemen are principally unrelated. To repeat an illustration I just used, it would be like doubling traffic fines for driving uninsured. (or more like changing traffic laws for those driving unisured.) Separate things.
they	posted 28-Apr-2008 10:47am   I have to say... it's refreshing to hear the views of SC on this subject. Recently, it has been difficult to hear only the views of this conservative, grieving community. My SO and I were so upset about the idea of these people being charged with manslaughter, we were prepared to picket and protest.... all by ourselves.
bill	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 28-Apr-2008 11:23am   I'm not really sure, but there was an attempt to legalize possession of small amounts (a bill made a little progress in the NH state house). The governor promised to veto it, though (fudgeer). I think a lot of people just aren't ready to legalize drugs. They still blamed the drugs and aren't really willing to look at the problem logically (in my opinion -- I'm biased too). We do have a number of marijuana possession cases in our police log. Rumors seems to be that a lot of people smoke pot around here, though. Maybe, just stupid people get caught at it. There was some recent case of kids sniffing glue or something and getting sick. Someone made a comment that if we didn't make such a fuss over marijuana, kids would just use that and everyone would be safer, better off.
LJD	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 28-Apr-2008 2:04pm   You're right....because in essence the homeowner, started the fire, he/she should be held responsible.
RGirl	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 28-Apr-2008 3:12pm   Is growing tomatoes illegal?
southernyankee	posted 28-Apr-2008 9:48pm   No, he made a reasonable effort to stop them. Being a firefighter means this is a reasonable risk as part of your job. He should be charged with growing the plants, thats about it. Though he should be sued by the victims and the city in civil court.
southernyankee	(reply to RGirl) posted 28-Apr-2008 9:55pm   It might be. Depending of what the FDA says, and what farm production quotas are in play.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 29-Apr-2008 4:14am   So you agree with me then that the manslaughter charges should be no different than if they were growing tomatoes? {and the marijuana growing would be a separate unrelated charge}. Even if that's what you think, it's still not quite what I agree with. Whethar the cause was plant lights or falling asleep while meditating with tons of Virgin Mary votive candles, I don't think manslaughter is the appropriate charge, as they had no intent to cause harm (even though they were responsible for it), and as Bill said, the fireman chose to come in knowing the place was a risk. They weren't in there already before the fire. If you accidentally set fire to a car that did already have people inside, then that IS involuntary manslaughter. If we don't keep the concepts straight and separated, basically most anyone could be charged with manslaughter if a fireman died fighting a fire in their home, unless it was part of a forest fire where the owner wasn't responsible for using faulty christmas lights or poor grease frying methods. Calling this manslaughter would form a blurry precedent for what had been a clear concept. Laws exist enough already to more accurately cover situations. For instance one might be charged with reckles driving, vehicular manslaughter, assault with a deadly weapon, or first degree murder depending on their intent and behavior in the car. Manslaughter does not apply to firemen. If the homeowners were sloppy with the light rigging, reckless endangerment (of the neighborhood) could apply, although frankly I think the gal falling asleep with candles during worship is far more guilty of that one. One might be tempted to prosecute based on crimnal nature alone, but I'm glad that conceptual distinctions are made. The person growing plants could be a kind and generous local minister, or a band of gun toting thugs. What the law should be determining is applicable intent and responsibile behavior. One might also be tempted to further distinguish responsibility based on capacity of intelligence and wisdom. In this case still no distinction can be made between naive meditators and stupid pot gardeners. Lastly one may be tempted to discriminate based on good will. In this case there is a distiction between the generous minister and the thugs who care less what happens to the neighborhood. Still, in the specifically related instance, it was the intent of the thugs to grow plants, not to kill firemen. Because of their ill will in other aspects of their lives, people may be tempted to prosecute them fully on any charges they can use, whethar the specific incident is related to their nature or not. This is somewhat the system in place now, which is to say that these persons (in a proper system) wouldn't be charged with manslaughter, but if it was felt they were of poor character, the thugs would probably be charged with the maximum penalties allowable for growing plants, while the neighborhood adored minister would probably get the minimum sentence. This sytem of minimum and maximum penalties at least gives respect to conceptual separation of crimes. After all, the actual crime they were responsible for IS growing illegal plants. It's unfortunate that firemen died because of this activity, but their responsibilty in that is no greater than for the person who doesn't cook bacon safely. Applying manslaughter to this case would be a sort of witch-hunt mentality which would break down our system of law.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to RGirl) posted 29-Apr-2008 4:35am   If you mean what I think you mean, I'm glad you aren't working in our legal system. Read the post I just wrote to LJD. It explains most throroughly how and why our system is meant to separate such circumstances. Our law is based on logical distinctions of intent and behavior, with only some allowance for what you have in mind, emotionally blurring the distinctions by prosecuting more or less heavily. Whethar or not the plants were legal has no relevance to their responsibility or intent in the deaths of the firemen. Nor does behavior matter as much as intent. Parents are not charged with first degree murder because their children fall off a cliff. At worst they are charged with negligence, and even then only if the community feels they were asking for trouble and insufficiently grieving. Just because an activity is illegal does not imply it was done with 'reckless disregard for the welfare of others', which would be the actual relevant crime if these people were charged with something other than growing plants. .. and 'reckless disregard for the welfare of others' would apply just as much if it were tomatoes they were growing.
they	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 29-Apr-2008 7:12am   > distinctions are made. The > person growing plants could > be a kind and generous local > minister, or a band of gun > toting thugs. In case you are curious, it was a 30-something business owner. He owns a local indoor skate park. There were no people in the house, but unfortunately... they lost one of their 3 cats.
they	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 29-Apr-2008 7:20am   > Applying manslaughter to this > case would be a sort of witch-hunt > mentality which would break > down our system of law. Welcome to Cincinnati! Remember Larry Flynt? The Hamilton County prosecutor really tried for the witch hunt. If he had been able to connect the lights that grew the marijuana to the fire, he would have attemped this type of conviction. He expressed great disappointment that he couldn't because the lights that caught fire were for growing orchids. The pot lights ended up being in a secret room, that didn't catch.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to they) posted 29-Apr-2008 7:49am   It didn't really matter to me as far as my illustrations were concerned. He sounds like a responsible person interested in creating a better entertaining life for people. Whoever dreamed up the charges was probably offended that someone who grows plants also interacts abundantly with children.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to they) posted 29-Apr-2008 7:54am   Even if there were no orchids, it's still not manslaughter unless all housefires caused indirectly by tenants are manslaughter. It annoys me that people who can't think clearly (or manipulate those who can't) are practising law.
Jody	posted 29-Apr-2008 11:28am   The homeowner should be charged with whatever is appropriate for growing marijuana illegally, but unless he intentionally started the fire, there should be no charges in the death of the firefighters. I don't see any difference in liability between grow lights malfunctioning and electric heaters malfunctioning or toaster ovens malfunctioning. The device wasn't illegal, the use was.
southernyankee	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 29-Apr-2008 1:46pm   Or it could be just an overzealous prosecutor trumpeting up charges as a bargaining chip for the plea agreement. Hym, the firemen's deaths smells more like a civil case than a criminal one.
LJD	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 29-Apr-2008 8:43pm   I agree. I feel the same about the so called "hate crime" issue. I feel if a crime is committed against a "protected class", doesn't necessarily deserved extra punishment, just because they're in the "protected class". A crime is a crime.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 30-Apr-2008 1:39am   I'm not for discriminatorily classifying which victims represent hate crimes and which don't, the current implementation, but at least the underlying concept of 'hate crime' itself gets more to the heart of the matter of what Ibelieve we should be considering to be crime in the first place. Unfortunately, explicit behavior can be clearly proven, but motive can never be proven. The current 'hate crime' implementation concept attempts to imply a general relationship between the two which may not necessarily exist. This situation is different than that of 'equal opportunity' adjustments, because, while as a class, both opportunity and hateful discrimination clealy exist, in criminal prosecutions it is a unique individual, not a class, bearing the burden of society. While unique individuals also benefit from equal opportunity adjustments applied to a class, even if the individual was not personally subject to a history of discrimination to account for their shorcomings, applying the adjustment still fulfills the goal of correcting the situation at a class level. Equal opportunity applied to insitutions, not to sole proprietorships, the idea being that society, not individuals, would bear the costs of rectifying discrimination.
LJD	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 30-Apr-2008 8:22am   I think the "hate" crime law, creates hate. There is an anti-hate crime committee in the city I live. I've attended some of these meetings, and they are nothing but a hate group, in fact, a citizen that attended the group said just that. This incites, creates hate. The people that hate the most are those that created the group. One cannot mandate one group to love another group.. The system is creating "mind" control.
ballin1000	posted 1-May-2008 9:53pm   Possession?!!!!!!
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 2-May-2008 6:37am   I've had a similar concept, that I would have never learned discrimination if I hadn't heard an implication that people were so different from those trying to make amends. On the other hand, discrimination still exists, and without learning some history, it might be easy to dismiss this as coincidental and trivial rather than a symptom of an age old force that has never been eradicated. I left behind a lot of 'peace activism' events because people fighting for good are still fighting, which rather defeats the spirit of the intent.
LindaH	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 2-May-2008 12:33pm   How are they "fighting"?
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 2-May-2008 12:40pm   Hate crime legislation isn't about making people love each other. It's about making a crime worthy of more severe punishment if it's been determined that the crime was committed because of the victim's minority status. In other words, if you target someone because of their minority status, hate crime legislation would have that factored in during sentencing. It's considered worse than random, and worse than having a personal vendetta.
LJD	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 2-May-2008 12:45pm   Kristal Rose, I've said it before, and will say it again....I believe in separatism of the races and culture. I've met many people of different races, and have liked many, but I still feel, for the long term, in the best interests of the people, there needs to be a segregation, for long term happiness of all peoples. As God said in Genesis 3:15....he put emnity between the woman's seed and Satan's seed. By this verse, it clearly says there will be no peace amongst some people. I'm a peace loving person, I don't like conflict, and for these reasons I don't believe in multi-culturalism. It's only common sense.
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 2-May-2008 12:50pm   All I see is a creation of creating more hate amongst peoples. Should I be protected, being a white European, and being attacked because I'm a white? I'm not protected by the so called hate legislation....why not? All of this will, I promise you, will backfire one day. The enemy wants to create hate amongst the people...I've seen it in our city.
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 2-May-2008 12:55pm   Oh... I should have said "status" instead of "minority status". If the legislation didn't apply the same way to a white person being targeted because of being white, then I'd think it was bad legislation.
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 2-May-2008 12:56pm   There is peace in my diverse neighborhood. We have block parties and we get along.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LindaH) posted 3-May-2008 6:05am   Well maybe not fighting, but peace activists are often protestors, and protestors tend to be angry, if not sometimes even hostile, which doesn't seem to me to be filling the goal of making people happy and harmonious. It doesn't even make sense as an ideological example, "War is not the answer, and if you don't stop it we'll riot!" Of course one could go through the motions of a riot with love in their heart for everyone, doing their objective necessity to turn things around, but adversity even on a purely political level doesn't tend to win over hearts and minds. ..and so I moved on making music instruments, with the intent one day to become insanely wealthy and buy out the defense industry to produce alternative energy sources instead. No anger, just providing a better example.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 3-May-2008 6:23am   Come to think of it, Linda's definition does seem the more accurate one, and under that definition, that of having the motive of targetting a class of people (in addition to interpersonal harm), I do fully agree with the concept. I only disagree with it if their is some implication that inter-racial squirmishes necessarily have such a motive. If it's a law against acting upon hating another class of people, I'm all for it. Laws are, after all, designed to stop people from doing things no one should be doing. You say you aren't a hateful person, but it's hard for me to imagine that discluding part of the general public in activities while inviting others doesn't constitute some sort of hate. It's not like were discluding fish from knot-tying competitons. It's not even as if the discrimination were about like-mindedness. After all, one might invite classical musicians and disclude rappers and jazz musicians, but even then, all three of those come in all colors. ~ ~ People of all different colors have been known to get along great all over the world. When they don't get along, it's a reflection on the individuals involved, not on the class of people. Perpetuating the myth that it is classes of people, be they rich and poor, or Irish and Spanish, is just excusing those individuals who can not get along with their brother. It's your right to pick your friends and associates however you feel, but something entirely different to propogate and impose your fears and shortcomings on generations to come. Recall that 'lion and the lamb' metaphor? I don't see you contributing to that day coming to pass. People getting along lovingly and harmoniously regardless of class or color is a beautific vision. If you stand in the way of that, it seems to me that 'you' are that enemy of yours you speak of. Whethar it was Adam and Eve, or chimps on different colonies evolved from the same ocean algae, we have common roots, and it makes no sense that we shouldn't as well merge back, otherwise it would make just as much sense that one day red-headed punk-rockers and brunette techno-music fans should seggregate into separate races.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 3-May-2008 3:03pm   God said? The bible said. I don't doubt that the bible is full of much highly spiritually inspired content which men wrote down, but Genesis was passed along by story tellers long before writing came about, and the bible as we know it was compiled from 1000's of manuscripts nearly 400 years after Christ by Emperor Constantine, a man who had his wife boiled alive, and therefore not too unlikely to have had personal motive in choosing manuscripts which used the words "he put emnity between the woman's seed and Satan's seed". Just what do you think the bible is anyhow? Do you think God personally controls every hand which touches it? If that were so, why are there clearly different versions in use. And what about the ministers which read and interpret bibles during sermons. Does God control each of them as he did with all the bibles story-tellers, authors, editors, and compilers, to make sure the word is understood correctly? Obviously not. Any sane friend of yours who converses with God in this modern age is going to going to be just as reliable a source about what god means then any use of that book written by possibly (and most likely pseudo..) spiritually guided persons from long long ago in a culture far far away, 2-400, if no 1000's of years after the relevant things occurred. While no such claims are being made, it's equally possible that the fairy tales collected by the Grimm brothers were once told as parables by story-tellers no less spiritully inspired than the bibles authors. Of course it's not, but let me use a more accurate exmple of the process. Imagine that all you know about your heroic great-great-great grandfather was passed down to you by your garndmother from tales she heard. The truth of the matter may be that for the most part he was a reckless drunk who liked picking on farm animals with torturous pranks, and you'd never know. There may be some truth in the heroic part of the tale, but it's hardly reliable. Even the biblical stuff multiple written sources can vaguely concur upon had already long been through that great-grandmother process first. That's one thing I appreciate about Hindu scriptural attitude, They keep better track of author resources, but at least they know what they're dealing with, that these vedas, sutras, upanishads, and 1000's of other anciliary and conflicting resources were all written by spiritual 'people', and subject to refute from the day they were written. Even the bibles different books by different authors had different messages and attitudes. Believing in God should be self evident, based on nothing but the miracle of your consciousness and the existence of anything at all, let a alone a splendid universe, from 'nothing'; but having faith that the bible is the irrefutable and permanent word of God is totally unfounded by anything except a chain of generations having believed much the same thing. Chains of generations on this planet have believed in other vastly disimilar things as well, so that's not really much to go on. In my opinion, your faith in the bible amounts to believing in whatever your parents tell you, confused over 100 generations, and constantly reinjected with the evolution of whatever ideology your culture concurs upon. There may be something in all that anyhow, but it's a really sketchy system. We know for almost certain fact in which century A.D. certain interpretations of biblical matters arose, like concepts of sin and hell. Perhaps a century from now a new school of thought will arise, and "he put emnity between the woman's seed and Satan's seed" will be interpreted as some sign that the ancients had a particular advanced understanding of DNA and disease. ... if you want to go that route, the unicorn horn sign of fertility and the caduceus intertwined snake represent the double helix, and the ourboros, snake biting it's tail, sign of eternal life, is just chromosomes wrapped in a ring, with no tilamers to foreshorten from aging. ..But that sort of thing is written in the clouds and tree bark, and it's not so much about authenticated intent as it is about being intuitively alive in God to read what meets your eyes in the first place. ~ whew, I just spent a dozen hours researching various apocrypha (some which I feel you'd quite resonate with, like the Book of Jubilees), gnosticism, and other various biblical scripture related stuff. Must sleep now.
southernyankee	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 3-May-2008 7:51pm   You're trying to reason with LJD? Ok, good luck with that. When I get done with exams, projects, and partying afterwards I'll get back to outstanding posts I've meant to reply back to you. Hopefully by next Sunday or something. In the meantime, I probably shouldn't even be on SC right now. Well, back to work.
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 3-May-2008 9:53pm   Believe me, the legislation is bad to the Nth degree.
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 3-May-2008 10:05pm   In my neighborhood now, we have Irish, German, Arab, East Indian, Mexican, Viet Namese, Hawaiian, Korean. To my knowledge no one talks or socializes, with the other with the exception of the Irish and German. I know and talk to the Irish and German families, the Hawaiian, and Mexican families. But we don't even socialize. Years ago, when the families were primarily caucasion, , there were block parties, most everyone spoke to one another, but not now. There are only three of us original people on the block.
LindaH	(reply to LJD) posted 3-May-2008 10:33pm   I guess it all depends on where you live, then. I'm sure there are some all-white places where people don't talk to each other.
LJD	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 3-May-2008 11:21pm   Integration is the work of Satan, causing confusion, of course, the last 50 years, the enemy knew diversity would not work so that is why they had forced integration legislated. The intent is to cause racial strife. It's natural people want to be with their own kind, as a family. there was a purpose for that. The last couple generations especially, had diversity thrust down their throats, they know nothing more.....they're of the "new age thinking". The enemy is the one world order, they don't want sovereign nations, they want nations in strife, better to conquer. They want overpopulated countries, dependent on a centralized government for their existence. The enemy had to change, dumb down only one generation for destruction....to taint their brains with drugs, and new age thinking.... Satan has succeeded.
LJD	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 3-May-2008 11:27pm   Kristal Rose, thank you for your post. I do believe in the Bible, because without God's wisdom, man has no compass.
LJD	(reply to LindaH) posted 3-May-2008 11:29pm   Yes, I agree with you. But, I've noticed what has happened in our neighborhood, I have nothing else to go by.
they	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 4-May-2008 8:48am   > God said? The bible said. *clapping* > ... if you want to go that > route, the unicorn horn sign > of fertility and the caduceus > intertwined snake represent > the double helix, and the > ourboros, snake biting it's > tail, sign of eternal life, Seeing you bring up the ourobourus to LJD, reminded me of my own run-in with a christian recently. A woman at work who I know to be a devout christian was asking me about my tattoos. The one on the back of my neck is an ourobourus. She immediately says "Snakes make me nervous, the devil was a snake". The look on her face and the tone in her voice showed she was judging me on the spot. She knows I'm an atheist and now she finds out I have a snake tattoo'd on me. My response was "Well, this has nothing to do with your devil, because I believe in him as much as I believe in your god." She still thinks I'm a devil worshipper.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 4-May-2008 9:34am   Rather than looking at this from some global cultural-political perspective, as if God or Satan really cared if nations exist at all, let's look at this from the inter-personal perspective of the heart. Personally, to any extent God can be thought of as having prefrences humans can relate to, I think those preferences for us would be towards some sort of heavenly state of bliss. It's absurd to imagine that the world could ever be so seggregated that we would not interact with different peoples. Blond siblings would have to be separated from their brunette siblings, in fact people would have to spend their time alone in a mirrored room, or live with their own clones, depeending on how picky you were. Thus, I can only imagine that if we are meant to live in bliss at all times, that the only way this is possible is if we learn to live in bliss with whomever we interact with. Granted, people have their preferences towards those most like themselves, and prejudices aginst those not, but it is these qualities in ourselves which stand in the way of our ever achieving bliss at all times. If we were to retain our personal consciousness, then even an escalation to some after-life domain like heaven could not help us achieve bliss, for we would bring our prejudices with us there as well. Our only salvation is to work on purifying ourselves now. If our creator had an ironic sense of justice, you would be spending your eternal after-life as the one white woman in a population of blacks. Whethar that would be heaven or hell for you really depends on what level of pure agape love you had learned to achieve. Our father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thy will be done *on earth, as it is heaven*. After you let all that digest a moment, let's get back to current reality here on Earth. There are indeed plenty of shining examples of people who either abundantly love everyone, or at least abundantly love their wide circle of friends without regard for color. My question to you, getting to he heart of this matter, is, not withstanding your global cultural-political concepts, do you find any fault in these people who can love persons of other races better than most can love their own blood siblings? ..or do you find their potential love for all of mankind indicative of the workings of Satan? If (and I dearly wish were it so, but expect it is not) you feel such persons are models of humanity, then wouldn't it make more sense to promote their model? How could it be that we would instead learn a greater love for each other by not seeing each other? I am not talking about politics, centralized governments, drugs, or anything else. I am talking about people getting along with other people. Are you really a Christian, or are you merely an Old Testament advocate? Christ was born and raised by Nazarene parents. The Nazarenes (or Notzrim) were the mutts of the known international world of the day, a small tribe that most anyone in the world of then could have racially discriminated against. Their religion was also a mutt religion with an international flavor of the day (the New Age of it's times), heavily influenced by things like gnostic-zoroastrianism. Essentially he was brought up with the lunatic fringe of religions. Christ's scriptural teachings, unlike the OT Judaic prophets before him, reflect those teachings in his concepts of hearing the Logos and striving to transcend the physical to know the spiritual plane. His followers were diverse, but just as many went the gnostic route as went the catholic route. Unfortunately the popes spent centuries wiping out the gnostic factions. Some of the gnostic concepts like heaven and hell did make their way into the canon though. Christ hung out with the Essenes, another ascetic lunatic religious fringe (while meanwhile, some jews were converting to Zoroastrian cosmology while retaining OT scriptures, thus becoming the kabbalists). Anyhow, what I'm really getting at is that his life was an example of being a racial and religious mutt, and practising integrating diverse persons and cultures. ..and he was trying to make an example of these practices. Ya know, there are age old religions tucked away in places like South Iraq which embrace Adam, Noah, Enoch, and even St. John the Baptist, but denounce Jesus as a false prophet. Like you, they weren't too keen on his dismissing the wrathful tribal OT ways in favor of Aquarian New Age 'love your brother', karma, spiritual transcendance stuff either. Perhaps you should consider converting. It sounds more up your alley. Af
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 4-May-2008 9:42am   "But we don't even socialize." And who's fault is that? From what you've told me about yourself, surely as much your fault as theirs. It appears that ironic justice I felt the creator should grant you in the afterlife, has already been implemented (which is how I usually see these sorts of things go, 'on earth, as it is in heaven'). In my opinion, if you were any sort of champion, you'd see this as an opportunity to create some block parties and provide an example.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to LJD) posted 4-May-2008 10:06am   The bible is true because mankind needs God's wisdom? With that sort of argument, I should have no problem winning over to my position: God speaks to people through whatever cartoon is on tv at the moment the devout inquire, because without God's wisdom, man has no compass. I surely expect no converts, but at least my position can be backed up with scientific observation for those willing to try it, while your position clearly flies in the face of known history. There are 14 scriptural accounts of the four wives of the men on board Noahs boat. These scriptures are all from the same time period and sorts of sources as the manuscripts which were chosen to go in to Constantines and King James bible. In each of these scriptures, each of the four womens names are entirely different. By what reckoning do you imagine that Emperor Constantine (the wife torturer/murderer)'s staff chose the most accurate manuscripts? Because mankind needs God's wisdom? Whew lady, that's a lot of faith you've got there. Personally I'm more inclined to believe I'll see someone walk on water some day than believe the bible is an accurate and unbiasd accounting of anything. I'll leave you alone on this matter now though. Another word isn't going to change your mind any. I'm somewhat eager to read the Eastern Orthodox Apocrypha, it's like Volume II, the 'supernatural' history of biblical days, dealing with things like how the fallen angels interbred with humans to create a race which had to be wiped off the Earth in Noahs flood. Basically the greeks had collected some 70 books (The Septugenia). Constantine just chose a few amongst those, and the East Orthodoxers chose to keep them all. It also contains accounts written by women. Not surprisingly, Constantine was also mysogynist about authoresses as well as wives.
Kristal_Rose	(reply to they) posted 4-May-2008 10:21am   "She still thinks I'm a devil worshipper." Yep, I'm sure she does. Moses my have had a serpent god gig going, and the Ophie Christians related the World Serpent to Christ. You're the first I've heard claim to believe in him. It what context?
they	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 4-May-2008 10:36am   Believe in who? The devil? I don't believe in the devil at all. I think it's total bullcrap. Maybe I wasn't clear?
Kristal_Rose	(reply to they) posted 4-May-2008 6:18pm   I thought you were just saying you told her you believed more in Ourbouros. I don't believe in the devil either, though I do reference his possible affect for sake of argument with LJD to demonstrate other concepts, but in her terms.
LJD	(reply to Kristal_Rose) posted 8-May-2008 1:24am   I don't pretend to be a champion Kristal Rose. Simply put, I feel more comfortable with people of my kind. I don't dislike other people, I just haven't anything in common. I've met people of many ethnicities, and like them, but to socialize, I prefer my own people. However, I know I can go into any crowd, and strike up a conversation with anyone. It is innate for people to feel more comfortable with their own kind, most people feel this way. But, I feel it's the one worlders, the liberals that have pushed this agenda to intermix. I am always courteous, respectful of others, just prefer not to socialize. It's pretty evident that others in my neighborhood feel the same.